IPPC Report

Your Appeal

I am writing to you about your appeal against the outcome of Sussex Police's investigation into your complaint of 12th August 2004. The IPCC has now conducted a complete review of your case, and I can present you with our findings.

In your statement of 13th July 2005 you detailed your complaint, explaining that you had experienced the following forms of misconduct from Sussex Police officers:
  • Wilful blindness
  • Gross prejudice
  • Neglect of proper procedure while you were in police custody
  • Illegitimate use of a caution
  • Withholding of important evidence
  • Contravention of Human Rights
  • Negligence, incompetence and misuse of property that they had seized from you.

Sussex Police's Professional Standards Department appointed a Detective Inspector Ron Preddy to record and investigate your complaint. On 25th October 2005, he wrote to you with information about the findings and the result of his investigation. At the conclusion of the case, Sussex Police did not uphold your complaint.

On 7th November 2005, we received your appeal against that decision. In your appeal you say that Detective Inspector Preddy has not investigated all of your complaints, and he has been dishonest about those areas of complaint that he has investigated.

I have now reviewed Sussex Police's investigation, and I have considered your reasons for appealing. Sussex Police also provided further comments, as well as background papers about the issues that you have raised in your appeal. Following this review, I will set out my findings, taking each of your areas of complaint in turn.

1) Wilful blindness
In your statement, you complained that Sussex Police have failed to investigate various incidents of harassment against you since 1998. These incidents notably include two assaults: one in 2002, from Mr Mabry, and another in 2004 from Mrs McCombie.

I note your concern that Dl Preddy's report does not offer a response on these issues. However, with regard to the alleged assault in 2002, I have received a copy of a page from the notebook of Inspector Barrasford. In this notebook, you signed a statement to show your agreement that no disciplinary action should be taken against the officer who investigated the assault.

Also, I cannot conclude that the investigation did not cover the alleged assault in 2004. The case papers show that the police looked into the assault, but they also had to consider counter-allegations against you. They did not have enough evidence to prove which party acted in self-defence, and I can find no indication that the police overlooked evidence.

With regard to other incidents, such as parcel deliveries that you received, I recognise your conviction that these occurrences were harassment from your neighbours. But the police must act on proof, and did not have evidence on which to prosecute any of your neighbours. As a result, I cannot conclude that Sussex Police have a case to answer in response to your allegation of "wilful blindness".

2) Gross prejudice
You have complained that the officer who investigated an alleged assault on you failed to act impartially, expecting you to accept your assailant's version of events. You have directed my attention to the words that the officer used to describe the incident when he recorded it; he describes it as an "altercation" and an "affray".

As you know, Mr Mabry and Mrs McCombie have made counter-allegations against you in each incident, accusing you of violence. Without evidence on which to believe one party's account over another's, a police officer would have to record the incidents using terms that were neutral, such as 'affray' or 'altercation' rather than 'assault'. Although I realise that your preference would have been for the officers to record each incident in accordance with your version of events, I can find no case for gross prejudice on part of Sussex Police.

3) Wrongful arrest
I cannot find any indication that Dl Preddy's investigation was dishonest when it found no case to answer regarding the grounds for your arrest. Your arrest was based on the defamatory comments on your website, which you do not deny. As I have explained, police officers must act on proof, and by publishing your comments on the McCombies, you provided substance on which your arrest could be justified. I understand that, from your perspective, your neighbours have said far worse things about you. However, verbal exchanges do not provide evidence on which police officers can easily act; your published comments constitute evidence.

4) Neglect of proper procedure when he was in custody
You have complained that you were not given a medical examination when your were in custody, even though you have a stoma. The custody records indicate that you did not ask for medical attention. The police noted the stoma as an issue, but they also noted that you had not previously needed any medical help with the stoma for a long time, and thus it was not a critical issue. The evidence is insufficient to establish misconduct against the officers.

5) Illegitimate use of a caution
I can find also find no evidence that the offer of a caution was illegitimate. You contend that you had not committed an offence, and so the offer was inappropriate. However, the police were considering a prosecution against you on the basis of the comments on your website. In the circumstances, their proposal that you accept a caution, as an alternative to being brought to trial, was entirely appropriate.

6) Withholding of important evidence
I do not consider this allegation to be a matter of police misconduct. You complain that Sussex Police denied you access to evidence that had been confiscated from you. But this denial is standard procedure; allowing you access to the items would defeat the object of confiscating them in the first place. This is a matter of direction and control for Sussex Police itself.

With regard to the interview tapes, I note that the record of your does not show that you wanted copies of the tapes. You did not sign the form, but officers have attributed this purely to your inexperience with police forms, and they have agreed to send copies of the tapes to you. I agree that no misconduct case can be substantiated from this.

7) Contravention of Human Rights
You claim that Sussex Police breached your Human Right to Freedom of Expression when they shut down your website. However, the police clearly have no case to answer with regard to this allegation. Your website was subject to a contract with Tiscali, the service provider. When the police raised the contents of your website, Tiscali ruled that the comments breached your agreement with them, and you were instructed to remove them. You did not do so, and this resulted in the closure of the website. The police did not close your website; Tiscali exercised their prerogative to do so. Sussex Police were not in a position to compel Tiscali in this regard, and neither is Tiscali compelled under the Human Rights Act to provide you with service if you breach their terms.

8) Negligence, incompetence and misuse of seized property
In the final report, Dl Preddy has demonstrated that you were invited to pursue a claim for compensation with Sussex Police's civil claims unit. They asked you to provide official quotations on the cost of repairing any damage to your property. However, I see that you have not, to date, provided any quotations. Your comment is that you cannot get an official quotation for the time during which you were deprived of your equipment.

I must emphasise that if you refuse to substantiate the damage to your equipment, then harm cannot be established and officers cannot be held responsible. I cannot conclude that the time for which officers held the items constitutes misconduct. Sussex Police had grounds to hold your computer and photography equipment for their investigation, and evidence does not show that they were tardy in returning the items.

As a result of my review, I cannot agree that Detective Inspector Preddy's conclusions were inappropriate. I can find nothing to suggest that his investigation failed to consider relevant evidence. I do not think that your allegations have a realistic prospect of being proven to a tribunal. For these reasons, your appeal cannot be upheld.

I am sorry if you find this response disappointing, and I realise that the complaints process has not given you the outcome that you were seeking. However, I must explain that my role is to independently review the investigation of your complaint and its outcome, which I have now done. I am satisfied that your complaint was properly investigated.

Neil Jasper    Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)