Case Summary

Amongst the MG Forms papers concocted by Sussex Police there is a document entitled "CASE SUMMARY". The space provided for "Date of completion" has been left blank. The document is attributable to Sussex Police, but is otherwise anonymous.

The text exhibits the usual defective punctuation and vocabulary (e.g. "A search of the property was recovered", and "they have seen the aggrieved" [for accused], but more seriously there are factual inaccuracies of which I wish to complain.

The Summary states, "A dispute developed . . . over boundary's," and adds, "the defendant has taken the McCombies to County Court on several occasions regarding boundary issues".

There is only one boundary between the two properties, and the position of that boundary has not been in doubt, as it is clearly marked on the conveyance plan produced by the builder of both properties. I took the McCombies to court on two occasions: two is not several. The reasons for the two injunction applications were available to the police, as they were printed on copies of Form N16A lodged with Eastbourne County Court.

The first application asked that "the Defendant . . . be forbidden . . . to trespass again on my property, or damage any fence or wall belonging to me"; and that "the Defendant remove the aerial overhanging my property, remove any plant holders and plant supports attached to my fence and make good the damage caused in fitting them, and repaint the parts of my fence visible from my garden, as far as practicable in the colour the fence was before it was painted by or on behalf of the defendants."

The second application asked that "the Defendant . . . be forbidden . . . to damage the claimant's property further", and that "the Defendant . . . remove from the rear wall of the claimant's garage all the wood and metal they have caused to be attached to it, and that they remove plants in containers which hinder maintenance of the claimant's property and increase the possibility of water penetrating the brickwork; and that the defendants allow the claimant reasonable access to his property for purposes of maintenance; and that the defendants refrain from using abusive language about the claimant in his hearing; and that the defendants pay the costs of this application."

The police's Case Summary continues: "Mr McCombie can say that he has observed the defendant on occasion, within the boundary of Mr McCombies garden late at night." Mr McCombie's own statement (Page 4) only mentions one occasion, which is far from being the same as on occasion, a phrase which implies several visits.

The same paragraph of the Case Summary adds that Mr McCombie is "able to state that madden has cut parts of his plants, within his front boundary, down without permission or notice. " Mr McCombie's own statement (Page 6) only refers to one thin stem of clematis which had grown into the roof space of my garage: "He used this piece of wood to hit the top of the plant off."

This case summary show gross bias, which could be attributed to intolerable ignorance, lack of intelligence, or malice on the part of the person responsible for writing it. Whatever the reason, it reflects very badly on the standard of policing in the Wealden area of East Sussex.