Letter to the Chief Constable

5th September 2005

Dear Sir

On 24th April 2005 I sent you a letter starting, "I am becoming impatient with the way Sussex Police ignore complaints." The letter focused particularly on a complaint that I had not been sent copies of tape recordings of a police interview which followed my arrest on 12th August 2004.

I said, "If I do not receive these tapes very soon, I shall be making a complaint to the Home Office."

As I did not receive the tapes, I wrote to HMIC South of England Region taking issue with their recent Baseline Assessments of Sussex Police and saying, "My own considered view of the police force in the Wealden district of East Sussex is that it is lousy."

That letter was probably responsible for the fact that after eleven months' trying, I had my complaints about Sussex Police formally recognised: on 13th July 2005 I was able to sign a police Witness Statement form containing my complaints, even though I had rejected the police's preferred option of writing the complaints themselves. DI Preddy had been deputed to investigate the complaints.

Unfortunately the scope of DI Preddy's enquiries will apparently not include the most serious of my complaints. According to a letter to me from DI Preddy dated 11 August (Ref. CO/ 00215/05 RJP/PHR), DI Preddy's role is only "to investigate allegations of breaches of the Police Misconduct Code". He added, "I cannot investigate perceptional issues such as 'wilful blindness' or 'gross prejudice'."

The purpose of this letter is twofold:

1. Thirteen months after the event, I still want copies of two tapes made when I was interviewed by PC Francis on August 12, 2004. According to the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code E, Code Of Practice On Tape Recording Interviews With Suspects, 4.19: "The suspect shall be handed a notice which explains . . . that if the person is charged or informed they will be prosecuted, a copy of the tape will be supplied as soon as practicable or as otherwise agreed between the suspect and the police."

I was charged, and I did not agree to any arrangement other than "supplied as soon as practicable". I have asked PC Francis for the tapes, I have asked PI Brown for the tapes on more than one occasion, I have asked CI Matthews for the tapes, and I have asked you for the tapes. PI Brown, in not fulfilling my request, was I think colluding in a cover-up, aware that I contend that the ROTI produced by PC Francis showed serious police bias. If I do not receive copies of these tapes very soon, I shall be contacting the IPCC for the fourth time, on this and related matters, and if that does not produce a satisfactory result I shall be writing to the Home Secretary. The Home Office doubtless has many more serious calls on its time, but as complaints to my MP and to the Sussex Police Authority have been a waste of time, I am running out of options.

2. I wish to know who else Sussex Police can depute to consider the "perceptional issues" that DI Preddy claims he cannot examine. My reading of The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 suggests that a supervising officer will have been appointed to manage my complaints. Whether this is DCI Torbet I do not know, which is why I am addressing these remarks to you. Evidently the supervising officer "may appoint an investigating officer to investigate the case", which is presumably why DI Preddy became involved, even though the Regulations section 8 rules, "(9) An investigating officer shall be- (a) . . . of at least the same rank as the officer concerned".

DI Preddy's letter to me of 11 August asserts, "Your statement provides no evidence of breaches of the Misconduct Code concerning Inspector Brown and Chief Inspector Matthews."

Most of the relevant evidence of course is not in the formal Witness Statement itself, but in a mass of relevant documentation which should be in DI Preddy's possession, including my correspondence with Sussex Police. To judge by DI Preddy's request to me for "more detail" such as "dates" and the "context" of remarks made by police constables, which I answered by quoting from documents which should already have been in DI Preddy's possession, DI Preddy had not thought it necessary to look at the available evidence before deciding that there was no case for him to consider - in the light of the Code of Conduct - against PI Brown and CI Matthews.

My complaints concerning CI Matthews comprise apparent ignorance of most of my complaints sent to him for consideration, and - perhaps a consequence of that - lack of concern about malpractice by police officers under his command. The clause of the Code of Conduct relevant to this reads, "5. Officers should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties." Not being aware of the extent of CI Matthews' other commitments, and the constraints under which he works, I accept that there is no strong evidence of a breach of the code in CI Matthews' case. The problem may lie with the system rather than the individual.

My complaints concerning PI Brown are of quite a different character, especially in the light of the requirement, "2. Police officers have a particular responsibility to act with fairness and impartiality."

The only person whose conduct DI Preddy proposes to investigate is PC Francis. Yet I cannot believe that PC Francis was solely responsible for the way in which he acted. I presume that the local Inspector bears much responsibility for the way in which police constables in his or her area behave. If that is not the case, and a person of PC Francis's dubious moral character, limited intelligence, and substandard education is allowed free rein with police powers, I think that would be very reprehensible, and would itself merit a formal enquiry.

My own theory as to why I was arrested is published on the Web at http://www.ggm11.plus.com/reasons.htm

I assume that PC Francis does not bear sole responsibility for my arrest and the seizure and destruction of my property, and that PI Brown therefore has a serious case to answer.

My complaints are available online at http://www.ggm11.plus.com/witstat.htm