Police Inspector Brown
When I filed complaints against Sussex Police, I thought that the role of PI Brown in the harassment, maltreatment, and losses I suffered should have been considered. In his report on my complaints, DI Preddy said as regards my complaints against Inspector Brown and Chief Inspector Matthews, "Having reviewed the allegations against these officers I could see no evidence of misconduct against them." My complaint about CI Matthews is concerned with the larger subject of the arrangements made by Sussex Police for dealing with complaints, and I am leaving the topic, for the present at least.
PI Brown comes into quite a different category. I know very little about how the various grades in the police force interact with each other, but assume that in Hailsham Police Station there are police constables who act under the supervision of a police sergeant, and that a police inspector - PI Brown
for the latter part of the time which I will be examining - has overall control, and overall responsibility, under his superiors, for the way in which the station is run.
I have various items of correspondence with PI Brown which I will be publishing in what follows. Unfortunately I do not possess a full record, as I did not have a computer on which to save letters written immediately after my arrest, as my computers had been seized by the police, so important documents written immediately after my arrest and protesting against the behaviour of PC Francis cannot be included in what follows.
As I have no direct knowledge of what went on in Hailsham police station, this report will rely extensively on documents written starting after I had already suffered more than three years of harassment from the ex-policeman Mabry. The documents should for the most part speak for themselves.
The Background
After my next door neighbour had twice threatened to beat me up in 1999, threats which had
been reported to Sussex Police, in 1992 Mabry attacked me in my front garden and knocked me to the ground on my drive. Sussex Police refused to link the assault to Mabry's earlier threats, and refused to let me sign a statement, because I would not allow it to say that I wanted to drop the matter. Two emails that I wrote to the Police Complaints Authority document the 1992 attack, and a letter I later wrote to Sussex Police provides a few further details.
25 March 2002
"From: Geoffrey Madden To: info@pca.gov.uk
"Subject: Making a statement to the police
"On Saturday I was assaulted, police officers attended the scene, and on Sunday I was supposed to make a statement to a constable and when that failed, to a sergeant. In neither case was I asked to sign a statement, because I would not agree to what the officers wanted me to say.
"Where can I find information about what to expect in such a situation, which is entirely
new to me?"
26 March 2002
"From: Geoffrey Madden To: Richard Offer <offerr@pca.gov.uk>
"Subject: Re: Making a statement to the police
"The officers did not "help prepare witness statements". The constable wanted me to say that there had been an argument, which led to a fight. When I refused to do so, he left. In the afternoon he returned with the sergeant. The sergeant dictated a statement for the constable to write down, and I was allowed to refine the wording. We then came to the last sentence, which required me to say that I did not want to take the matter further - that it could just become a statistic. When I declined to do so, I was not allowed to sign the rest of the statement, the sergeant said that I was being "obstroperous", the two officers left, and I have heard no more of it.
"The attacker is my next door neighbour, who according to another neighbour used to be a policeman. The attack caused injuries which make movement somewhat painful, and sleep sometimes difficult; the attacker twice threatened me with violence in the past, records about which are lodged with the Eastbourne County Court, as last November I applied for an injunction order to try to stop this man from harassing me, and the case is ongoing.
"From your response to my first email it appears that the police officers' approach to me was not in order. I need to take the matter further, and require advice more authoritative than will be available from the sources you suggested " [i.e. CAB or Victim support].
I was able to file a statement about the assault through the PCA, which led to my being visited by Acting Inspector Barrasford (or Barrisford), who asked whether I wanted the sergeant punished. He did not tell me that the police were retaining on file and believing the lie that I had been involved in an "altercation". A letter from me to Acting Inspector Barrasford, Sussex Police, Grove Road, throws some light on the incident:
18th May 2002
"Today I received a signed witness statement from my assailant on 23rd March, Mr Mabry, in connection with Court proceedings that I initiated last November. It contains two statements which
have a bearing on my complaint about the police.
"The last paragraph of my complaint made via the PCA said, 'Some time ago, a neighbour told me that Mr Mabry used to belong to the police force. I find this hard to believe, but would like the matter to be investigated . . . .' Investigation is no longer necessary. Paragraph 1 of Mr Mabry's statement reads 'I am a retired Policeman'.
"The sergeant who played the leading role in interviewing me on 23rd and 24th March asserted on both days that I had done "criminal damage" to the Mabrys' property by removing some fencing from a wall in my garden. Paragraph 8 of Mr Mabry's statement includes the sentence, 'The District Judge confirmed that Mr Madden could remove the fence on his part of the boundary wall. '
"District Judge Robinson did so at a hearing in the Eastbourne County Court on 21st March 2002, with Mr Mabry and his solicitor present.
"Both statements by Mr Mabry add considerable weight to my complaint about the behaviour of the police."
Recent history
According to Inspector Brown (email of 16/11/05), he "commenced duties at Hailsham 31st March 2003," that is six days after I had visited Hailsham police station (ref. 337 - 25/03/03 according to Dean White of Sussex Police), for the purpose outlined in the next email:
18 July 2003
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <contact.centre@sussex.police.uk>
'Subject: Evidence retained by the police
'I want to recover evidence of harassment that I gave to the police in 1999 and earlier this year. The evidence concerned items sent to me through the post and by courier, and included copies of coupons from newspapers or magazines with forged signatures.
'I have been subjected to harassment since January 1999 by the neighbour evidently responsible for the deliveries. He has also threatened me with violence twice, and attacked me once, so that I was incapacitated for a few months.
'The problem has continued at a lower level recently, but could get worse again. The recent examples I noted down are:
28th May - Missile from next door hit a sliding glass door to my property and destroyed a saxifrage plant.
16th June - Trespass, the neighbour taking a short cut over my front garden.
30th June - As I was taking photographs of my garage, the neighbour came out and shouted, "You'd be better off seeing a psychiatrist, Geoffrey."
7th July - The neighbour told me to put my property on the market and move out.
18th July - As I went towards my garage, the neighbour shouted from another neighbour's garden, "Are you getting down to the estate agent's then? . . . sling your hook?"
'The police are going to do nothing about the harassment, so I want to collect all the evidence I can myself. I would like all the evidence given by me to the police returned to me.'
18 July 2003
"To: <geoff@ggm11.plus.com>Auto reply from CHC CHC
"Thank you for your E-mail to Sussex Police." [from Supervisor]
As the police website had led me to expect a response within twenty-four hours, I wrote again.
20 July 2003
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <contact.centre@sussex.police.uk>
'Subject: Return of evidence
'I e-mailed two days ago to say, "I would like all the evidence given by me to the police returned to me". Judging by the automatic reply I received from your Call Handling Centre, the "relevant department" decided that they did not need to contact me.
'I would like to repeat my request more formally in the form of a letter, and would therefore like to
know the title and address of the person or department to which such a letter should be sent.
'Should the "relevant department" decide that they need not supply this information, I shall be joining the queue on your telephone line.'
20 July 2003
"From: <Fcc.Fcc@sussex. police, uk> To: <geoff@ggm11.plus.com>
"Subject: Re: Return of evidence
"Thanks for your e-mail. I presume your previous e-mail had a little more detail attached
and was forwarded to the relevant department for investigation, 2 days is not unreasonable and as it covers part of the weekend. If you could provided further details as to what kind of evidence, when
and where the offence committed, I will be able to give you the details." [from MATT CHC HELPDESK]
The first two clauses of Matt's second sentence are joined by a coordinating conjunction, so the verb presume applies to the was forwarded clause as well as the had clause. Whether Hailsham actually received my email with recent examples of harassment I have no means of knowing.
20 July 2003
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <Fcc.Fcc@sussex.police.uk>
'Subject: Re: Return of evidence
'Many thanks for the prompt reply. I certainly don't think 2 days unreasonable, but think that your computer should not have been programmed to tell me that if I got an answer it would be within 24 hours.
'My first email said
' "I want to recover evidence ....I would like all the evidence given by me to the police returned to me."
'That email served two purposes. The main purpose was to start a dialogue with the intention of recovering evidence of harassment via Royal Mail and courier for which I think my next door
neighbour responsible. The secondary purpose was to provide documentation of recent actions by that neighbour which I regard as harassment, as I am now making a record of events as they happen.
'A little evidence was I think provided by me to the police in 1999, and the police evidently made some investigations of their own. I collected more evidence earlier this year, and took it to Hailsham police station.
'I didn't think it appropriate to go into detail when first making contact, nor does it seem appropriate to add further detail now, but perhaps you or the relevant department can suggest the best way forward from here. Should I 'phone someone about this? Should I go to Hailsham again?
Will the police have thrown any evidence away?'
20 July 2003
"From: <Fcc.Fcc@sussex.police.uk> To: <geoff@ggm11.plus.com>
"Subject: Re: Return of evidence
"Thank you for your email - this has been forwarded for the attention of Hailsham police station for an officer to contact you within the next few days. I note that the reference for your report and subsequent attendance to Hailsham Police station in March was 337 - 25/03/03. Please keep hold of this number for future use." [from Dean White]
21 July 2003
"From: <Eastdowns.lmc@sussex.police.uk> To: <geoff@ggm11.plus.com>
"Subject: HARASSMENT
"I acknowledge receipt of your E-mail of 20/7/2003.
"I have registered an incident in respect of the recent events. The reference number is 282
of 21/7/2003. I have passed this to Hailsham Police with a request that an officer contacts you.
"As far as the 1999 incidents are concerned, I have been unable to find any record on our computer system. "Do you have any police reference numbers in relation to this incident.
"I am acn be contacted by E mail, or on 0845 60 70 999 Ext. 61225." [from Alan Snelling]
21 July 2003
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <Eastdowns.lmc@sussex.police. uk>
'Subject: Re: HARASSMENT
'Thank you for your e-mail. Unfortunately I do not have any reference numbers, but in 1999 I saw a number of officers on four or five occasions at least, as Mr Mabry (next door neighbour, ex-metropolitan police) twice threatened to beat me up, threatened bricklayers who came to quote for a wall, and was I think responsible (with his wife) for having parcels &c. sent to me through the post and by courier, as well as engaging in other forms of harassment. On one occasion I talked to an officer whom I took to be a 'detective', and both the police and I obtained some evidence from businesses who had been asked to send stuff through the post to me. I am trying to gather together as much evidence as I can with a view to taking some sort of action myself at some stage.
'When Mr Mabry assaulted me on 23rd March last year, the sergeant who interviewed me refused to let me make a signed statement as I would not agree to Mabry's account of the incident, and refused to link the incident with previous incidents. So the harassment continues.'
Whether PI Brown knew of my emails from 18th to 21st of July I do not know, but I think the nature and extent of the harassment mentioned therein is serious enough to warrant knowledge of it by someone in a responsible position. There had been a resurgence in the delivery of goods I had
not ordered in March, the harassment seemed to be getting more frequent, and now the motive had been made explicit - to drive me from my home. Subsequently police officers returned to me
evidence I had given to the police, but who caused this to happen, and whether he or she knew of the reasons for the return of the evidence I do not know. I was told nothing which would have helped me
understand what had happened to my email messages. The police seemed not to be interested. For some time. the harassment from the Mabrys had been augmented by their friends next door to me
on the other side, the McCombies. Apart from taking three particular matters to Eastbourne County Court, experiences which added considerably to the difficulties created for me by the Mabrys and the McCombies, there seemed to be nothing I could do other than keep reporting harassment to the police. The police's attitude to me seemed to be typified by a police officer who spoke to me after I had been threatened with violence for the first time by Mabry, who specified that he would put me in need of intensive care in hospital. Two police officers attended; after speaking to me they spoke to the Mabrys; one officer then said to me, "Mr Mabry tells a different story." They then
drove away, and apparently there was not even a record made of a serious threat to me.
In 2002 when Mabry knocked me to the ground, I was not allowed to sign a statement, and the police recorded that I had been involved in an "altercation", and left that on the record although they must have received a copy of a signed statement I made about the incident through the PCA. (This has changed since PI Brown has been in post to the extent that I was allowed to make statements when I was assaulted in 2004, but what I said in those statements was completely ignored, both by the investigating officer, PC Francis, and apparently by PI Brown when I complained to him after my arrest and asked for someone better qualified than PC Francis to investigate the attack on me.)
Back in 2003, subject to increased harassment, there seemed to be nothing I could do except amass evidence of what was happening. As the police seemed utterly useless, I had asked for the evidence that I had given them back. I also began to add to collect evidence by making notes of things said to me, by including details relevant to an injunction in letters to Eastbourne County Court, and by reporting examples of harassment to the police. Even if the police simply deleted my emails,
I had copies of them, and I thought that eventually the police might be more proactive. The fact that in summer 2003 I thought I might be pushed into the traffic when one day Mabry had driven very close behind me as I drove down to the main road was one of a number of reasons that early the following year I began a website to record what was happening.
On 23rd September, I found that long grass in my front garden next to Mabry's drive and as close as four feet from his garage had been cut and thrown down in my garden. It would have been unwise to complain to Mabry, so I notified the police:
24 September 2003
"From: Geoffrey Madden To: contact.centre@sussex.police.uk
"Subject: Criminal damage and aggravated trespass
"Yesterday I found that a neighbour (Mabry) who has been harassing me in various ways since January 1999 - in an effort to make me move house - had cut long grass in my front garden and thrown it over a wall on to an area of paving and pebbles. I moved the pile of grass back to the area of my garden from which it had come. Later I found that the grass had been thrown on to a flower bed, more distant from the neighbour's boundary, smothering the flowers. I photographed the result.
"I wish to add these incidents to a list which now includes verbal abuse; slander; causing unwanted letters (another arrived yesterday), catalogues and parcels to be sent to me through the post and by courier; threats to beat me up and put me in intensive care; assault and physical injury."
24 September 2003
"From: POSTMASTER@sussex.pnn.police.uk Subject: Auto reply from CHC CHC
"Thank you for your E-mail to Sussex Police.
"Regards, Supervisor, Sussex Police Call Handling Centre
My message must have got through to Hailsham, as my email of 30th September recounts what happened as a result:
30 September 2003
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <contact.centre@sussex.police.uk>
'Subject: Sequels to my email of 24 September 2003 09:3
'The subject of the email was "Criminal damage and aggravated trespass". Following that:
'1. I was visited on Saturday last by P.C.Satchwell (CS5), who said that a crime had not been committed because "grass" is not "property". I disagreed. P.C.Satchwell asked me whether I wanted
him to visit the Mabrys. I left the choice to him, and he made quite a long visit to No. 15.
'2. It was evidently as a result of the visit that when I arrived home yesterday I was subjected to a stream of verbal abuse from Mabry until I got inside my front
door. Apart from the usual insulting language (e.g. "mad professor" on this occasion), a new element entered the tirade, apparent references to the
place where I lived before coming to Stone Cross in 1998. I wonder if the police are now supplying Mabry with ammunition.'
The day after finding my grass had been cut and thrown down, I found dead flower plants in my front garden, near the fence between the McCombies' property and mine. They had evidently been thrown over the fence.
05 October 2003
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <contact.centre@sussex.police.uk>
'Subject: Harassment by C.Mabry and confederates
'Sequel to my email of 24 September 2003 09:3
'I have just removed hundreds of weeds from an alpine bed in my front garden. There are many more which will need to be removed. The weeds originated from seeds from six uprooted plants which had been thrown there, which I discovered
on 24/9/03. The weeds are two metres from the property of Mr and Mrs McCombie, friends of Mabry. The McCombies occupy 23 Patcham Mill Road.
The plants have compost round the roots, and were probably grown in containers.
'The McCombies, evidently with Mabry's help, are claiming to own the rear wall of my garage, up which they are training plants, which have already
penetrated the roof space in one place. That, together with rights of access and
the use of abusive language about me by Mrs McCombie, partly learned from Mabry, are the subject of an application made by me to Eastbourne County Court for an injunction order.'
It was after this email that I think I had the first unpleasant experience of meeting PC Francis, who seemed to have driven to my home just to tell me that I should not have notified the police of something so unimportant. If the police wanted to tell me that, an email would have been preferable, and would have put the advice on record. When I next wrote to the contact centre, I explained that I was not asking to be visited by the police:
30 October 2003
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <contact.centre@sussex.police.uk>
'Subject: Continuing harassment by C. Mabry
'Sequel to my email of 24 September 2003
'I have complained to the police on several occasions, starting in 1999, of harassment by my next door neighbour, Mr C. Mabry.
'My telephone has just rung three times. On the first two occasions it rang too
briefly for me to answer. On the third occasion, I picked up the telephone and said "Hello". A man said that he had been asked to 'phone me: the
message was, "You get out of there and do it now. Right?"
'Mr Mabry told me earlier in the year to put my property on the market and get out, and since then has shouted references to the matter on two occasions. Clearly Mabry initiated this telephone call. On a previous occasion I had put down the phone when he himself 'phoned me.
'The last time I emailed you, two police officers visited me, and it was suggested that I had called them to do so without sufficient reason. I did not ask police to visit on that occasion, nor am I asking them to do so on this occasion.
'I am simply putting on record some of the examples of harassment that I am subjected to by Mabry in the hope that eventually some effective action may be taken.'
30 October 2003
"From: <Fcc.Fcc@sussex.police.uk> To: <ggm@ggm11.plus.com>
"Subject: Re: Continuing harassment by C. Mabry
"Thank you for your e-mail.
"I have transferred the details onto an incident log and the ref is 451 of 30/10/03. The details have been linked to your previous reports and I have forwarded them to our crime management centre that cover the Pevensey area."
It may have been because I had included in letters written to Eastbourne County Court in the autumn of 2003 details of harassment from the Mabrys and
the McCombies that I was telephoned by PI Brown on 15th November 2003. As
a result of that telephone call, I wrote the following letter, and enclosed with it some details of the harassment to which I had been subjected, and a copy of the statement about the first assault on me that I had made through the PCA. I know that this letter and its enclosures reached Hailsham police station because
I took it there myself, and pushed it through the letter box when I found the station closed, though it was after 9 a.m. It was marked FAO Inspector Brown.
16th November 2003
To Inspector Brown, Hailsham Police Station
"Dear Inspector Brown
"When you telephoned me yesterday about what must seem to you a comparatively trivial matter and you asked me about some of the attendant circumstances, you agreed that I could give an account of the context of the complaint, which should give you a better picture of why I am complaining about harassment from a neighbour.
"It is probably not appropriate to give a thoroughly detailed and documented account at this time: Hailsham already has I think access to some of the relevant information, including email correspondence, so I'll confine myself now to a brief account of the origin of the harassment, a few short quotations from relevant documents, and the few reference numbers I have found.
"I am also enclosing a copy of the complaint I made to the PCA last year, as according to something one of the police officers who most recently
called on me said, Sussex Police still give some credence to the preposterous idea that I attacked Mr Mabry. The complaint to the PCA includes a true account of what happened.
"Harassment has taken the form of verbal harassment for the past five years, having stuff sent through the post and by courier [some of which was returned, some thrown away, but I still have about 18Kg of it], threats of assault, actual assault, slander, trespass, and criminal damage.
"I am providing only a few details today partly because I do not know
how much detail you might be interested in, and partly because I have to prepare for a hearing before a circuit judge in Eastbourne County Court on Wednesday involving the fourth neighbour or set of neighbours who have claimed to own part of my property since I moved here in 1998. They are doing so with the help of Mabry.
"Should you wish for further details after 19th November, I shall be happy to supply them."
On visiting Hailsham police station after my arrest in August 2004, I was told by the officer at the desk how very busy PI Brown was, but even a very busy PI Brown should have seen my letter, and been aware of my plight. I do not think he should be able to plead ignorance of the history behind my arrest less than
nine months later.
The next month, a new form of harassment began, that was to prove very troublesome, with threatening letters from debt collection agencies and solicitors. Some details are logged on http://www.ggm11.plus.com/britlog.htm
I wrote to the police:
17 November 2003
"From: Geoffrey Madden To: contact.centre@sussex.police.uk
"Subject: Continuing harassment by C. Mabry
"This message follows on from earlier messages. The reference 451 of 30/10/03 might help identify the case.
"I have just taken delivery of four Agatha Christie video tapes sent to me with an invoice by a company called Britannia on the understanding that I had joined a club, which I have not.
"This is clearly the last in line of a series of parcels delivered by courier from spring 1999 onwards. A neighbour, probably Mrs Mabry, is assuming my identity and commiting criminal offences in doing so. The intention is to make me move house.
"Only this morning I delivered some documentation about the case to Hailsham police station, FAO Inspector Brown."
The same day, a letter was pushed through my letter box, from Mabry, and
the person who delivered it pounded repeatedly so loudly on the door that I thought he might smash it in, or at least smash the glass panel in the upper half of it. It was presumably Mabry, though it would have been unwise to open the door or even look through the window to check who had delivered the letter:
17 November 2003
'From: Geoffrey Madden Date: To: contact.centre@sussex.police.uk
'Subject: Harassment by C. Mabry
'Latest reference: No. 627 of 17/11/03
'Shortly before 6 p.m. this evening, a letter was pushed through my letter box, and the person who delivered it then pounded on my front door so hard that after the person had gone I checked to see whether the door had been damaged.
'The letter is from Mr C. Mabry, and contains the following paragraph:
"I am sending a copy of this letter to the Sussex Police as they have shown a great deal of interest in your strange and dubious activities. They have expressed their displeasure regarding your fetish for calling upon them for trivial,
unimportant and, inconsequential matters. You really must stop wasting the time of the emergency services. They have much more important matters to attend to, e.g. fighting crime. The rantings of a paranoid individual apparently suffering from mental illness does not rate very highly on their list of priorities."
'I quote this as Mabry, an ex-policeman himself, is writing both about the
police and on behalf of the police. I am particularly interested in the attitude of the police to the second sentence of the above paragraph. If it is true, I shall want to discuss the matter with my M.P.'
On stylistic grounds, I judge this letter to have been written by McCombie,
who for instance has a liking for the word "fetish". Mabry himself is not much more than semi-literate, and to judge by pages of stuff he wrote for
Eastbourne County Court, does not do joined-up writing.
I have received over the years dozens of catalogues which had been requested in my name, some very expensive productions, some followed up by telephone calls, but I only singled out one of them for the attenion of the police:
18 November 2003
'From: Geoffrey Madden To: contact.centre@sussex.police.uk
'Subject: Harassment by the Mabrys
'Latest reference: No. 627 of 17/11/03
'In this morning's post a catalogue arrived requiring a 68p stamp. I have been sent dozens of unwanted catalogues, and would not of course normally advise the police of the arrival of another one, but since harassment from the Mabrys has increased markedly recently, and this catalogue is unusually sinister, I am
sending this email.
'The catalogue is called "Memorials of Distinction", and the accompanying letter starts, "Thank you for showing an interest in our range of craftsman-carved memorials." '
The stuff I received by mail and courier had started in 1999 with my surname misspelled and my forename spelled with J instead of G, as well as being sometimes addressed to a non-existent Ms Madden or Mrs Madden. By 2003 the initial of my forename had been rectified, and was given in the subject of the next email to the fictitious Ms G. Madden:
31 December 2003
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <contact.centre@sussex.police.uk>
'Subject: Continuing harassment by C. Mabry, 15 Blatchington
Mill Drive, Stone Cross
'I emailed the contact centre on 17 November quoting "reference 451 of 30/10/03" about my receiving some videotapes, the latest in a series of unwanted parcels of goods which were sent to me starting in 1999.
'When I discussed this form of harassment with a police constable at
Hailsham Police Station earlier in the year, I was told that the police could do nothing because "money" was not involved. That was not true in
that expense on my part has been involved in dealing with consequent problems, but up until now I have been able to persuade companies that their invoices were invalid.
'That is not the case with the goods which arrived on 17th November.
'Today I received from Britannia a demand for £20.27 dated 20/12/03, with a threat that £5 would be added if £20.27 was not sent by return, and a threat that if I do not respond the account of Ms G. Madden (who
does not exist) will be "passed to our collection division".
'I shall not be responding to that communication, nor to any other that I receive in connection with it, unless the company choose to comply with the terms I set down in my last email to them. My correspondence with Britannia follows in chronological order, after this caution: this email is not a request that an officer or officers visit me to tell me that this is not a matter for which they should be required to visit me.'
As the last sentence of that email states, I sent with it the text of my some correspondence with Britannia, which illustrated what an effective form of harassment had been started by enrolling my name with such an organisation.
31 December 2003
"From: <POSTMASTER@sussex.pnn.police.uk> To: <ggm11@tiscali.co.uk>
"Subject: Auto reply from CHC CHC
"Thank you for your E-mail to Sussex Police.
"Regards, Supervisor Sussex Police Call Handling Centre"
2004
The new year was to to bring increased harassment from my neighbours, culminating in August with six people smashing in the side gate to my property, and three of them assaulting me at the end of my back garden. It was really not a good time for the police to tell me to shut up.
The only response that I received from the local police to my email of 31st December, other than the auto response, was an unwelcome visit from two police constables who had evidently been sent to warn me not to notify the police of examples of harassment, though I thought that I had made it clear that I did not want to be visited by police officers. I have to assume that the two police offers who visited me as a result of my email did not do so of their own volition, and that they were probably acting on orders issued by PI Brown:
03 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden"
'To: <contact.centre@sussex.police.uk>
'Subject: Continuing harassment by C. Mabry
'On 31st December 2003 I sent you an email about problems with unwanted goods, which could lead to my being added to a credit agency blacklist or being summoned to court elsewhere in the country. My purpose was to document the matter, as it is part of a policy of harassment pursued by neighbours over the past five years.
'I included in the email a caution that the email was not a request that an officer or officers visit me to tell me that this is not a matter for which they should be required to visit me.
'I was nevertheless visited today by P.C.Wilkinson, who insultingly compared my problem with a neighbour who had wanted to pave over part of my front lawn, to a playground disagreement between children, and P.C.Satchwell, who stupidly suggested that I should stick a notice on my front door to say that I would not accept any parcels.
'These two, speaking on behalf of the police, said that I should not notify the police if I received any more unwanted parcels, as I was wasting police time.
'I shall not even consider paying heed to such advice unless I receive it from the police in writing.
'These constables themselves wasted police time, as an email would have been much quicker and very much more acceptable to me than a visit from such constables.
'I shall probably in any case want to refer the matter to my M.P. next week.'
(Incidentally, I did not contact my M.P. until later, and was advised to write to the IPCC, an organisation that I had already contacted twice.) Two days later, PI Brown wrote to endorse the message given by the police constables:
January 05, 2004
"From: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk> To: <ggm@ggm11.plus.com>
"Subject: Unwanted Goods Being Delivered
"Dear Mr Madden
"I am in receipt of your recent e-mail message to Sussex Police concerning the deliver of unwanted goods to your home address.
"I can confirm that the information given to you by the officers who called at your home address over the weekend is correct. The delivery of unwanted goods to your address is not a matter for the police unless there is sufficient evidence available that makes it very clear that an individual/s is responsible. I emphasis
this must be 'concrete' evidence and not merely a suspicion on your part.
"I can only suggest that you contact the companies and organisations that are 'sending' you the goods and request that they update their systems to 'block' and orders to your address."
PI Brown's last sentence suggested that he had not read my email, and did
not know, or did not want to know, what trouble can be caused by the receipt of unordered goods, with invoices following although goods have been returned,
and threatening letters from debt collectors and lawyers. I had already provided the police in 1999 and again in 2003 with copies of the coupons sent in to companies to order the goods. When I spoke to one policeman about this, he said "People can change their handwriting." I was beginning to think that
if the local police could think up any reason for doing nothing, they would do so. I replied to PI Brown's email:
06 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Re: Unwanted Goods Being Delivered
'Judging by the last paragraph of your email, you have not read the email from me (31 December 2003 14:43) which occasioned the visit by your officers last Saturday. What do you think I have been doing with goods sent to me during the past five years?
'The delivery of unwanted goods, catalogues, and letters to my address is a matter for the police if it is part of a policy of harassment. I wrote to you on 16th November 2003 giving a few details of the harassment, but as that letter remains unacknowledged and unanswered I will keep my comments here very short.
'Last year I took evidence to Hailsham Police Station in the form of specimens of handwriting, which is "concrete", and an obscene and insulting Christmas card in Mabry's handwriting, sent to me in December 2002, which
probably had retrievable fingerprints, which could also have provided concrete evidence.
'If you care to read my email of 31 December you will get some idea of what
an effective form of harassment this has been, and how feeble your suggestion is for coping with it.
'The considerable nuisance of stuff being delivered by post and courier also needs to be seen in the context of verbal abuse ("free speech" according to P.C.Wilkinson), threats of violence, damage to my property, and actual assault.
'Harassment by its nature occurs over time, yet a police supervisor to whom I spoke last year said that he could find no record of my sending for the police in 1999, though threats by Mabry to beat me up, abusive language, and the receipt
of unwanted parcels occasioned several police visits at that time.
'I am not allowed to buy a gun for purposes of self-defence, or even to carry a steel bar with me if I want to work in my front garden, so the attitude of the police to the unprovoked assault which incapacitated me to some extent for several months is worrying.
'On two occasions recently your officers (including the rude P.C.Wilkinson) have referred to an "altercation" between Mabry and me which did not take place.
'In the second paragraph of the document I sent to the PCA, "Complaint about the way in which police officers on 23rd and 24th March handled a case of assault", I said that the use by Sergeant Hansen of the word "altercation" was the main reason for my filing the complaint. P.C.Wilkinson said that my complaint had been dealt with, yet his own use of
the word shows that it has not been dealt with at all adequately. The police still uncritically accept the lies told to them by Mabry.'
Two days later, another threatening telephone telling me to get out of my property call occasioned another email:
08 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Harassment by C. Mabry
'Your email of 5th January confirmed that "The delivery of unwanted goods to your address is not a matter for the police unless there is sufficient evidence available that makes it very clear that an individual/s is responsible."
'I hope to avoid bothering the police with news of further unwanted parcels unless the harassment they cause is noteworthy, and I will try this year to reduce those problems by taking my cue from the police and adopting a policy of "laissez faire", as I am in no way responsible for their being sent.
'The catalyst for this email was a threatening telephone call I received today (8th January) at 4.30 pm. According to BT, "making malicious calls is a criminal offence". The caller told me to get out of my property, and said that he was speaking for "the Residents' Association".
'I think this was the same man who telephoned me on 30th October 2003. The connection with C. Mabry should be clear from the following extracts from a letter I wrote to the Court Manager of Eastbourne County Court on 6th November 2003. After mentioning other forms of harassment, I wrote:
'On 7th July of this year, Mabry adopted a more direct verbal approach. The initial wording according to a note on my calendar was, "Put your property
on the market and move out." On the 18th July, as I went towards my garage, Mabry shouted from the McCombies' garden, "Are you getting down to the estate agent's then? [words indistinct] sling yer hook?" Subsequently a third version of the same message was shouted from the Mabrys' own front garden. Then on 30th October I received a telephone call from an unnamed person
who said that he had been told to telephone me. The main part of his message, which I noted down, was "You get out of there and do it now. Right?"
'. . . Mrs McCombie has now joined forces with Mr Mabry. As I walked from
my garage to my front door on 4th November, Mrs McCombie called out from her front garden, 'You been down the estate agent yet? They're waiting for your call
you know." '
'Mr and Mrs McCombie are the fourth neighbours to claim to own part of my property since I moved here in 1998. The Mabrys were the first. They fenced off part of my front lawn to widen their drive. The second was the Mabrys' friend W. Smith, who fenced off part of my back garden for himself with barbed wire, and threw an eight-foot fence post at me. The third was S. Hall, who I think at Smith's instigation was responsible for the destruction of my garden fence. The
consequent civil law case unfortunately, with help for the defence from the Land Registry, went against me. The Land Registry subsequently offered me £5000 for their maladministration, which I did not accept. That matter has been with the Independent Reviewer for the last nine months, and may soon have to be referred on to the Parliamentary Ombudman through my M.P.
'Now the McCombies, with help from Mabry, are making the bizarre claim that they own the rear wall of my garage. His Honour Judge Coltart on November 19th 2003 stayed a case I brought in the County Court so that the McCombies could
consult their solicitor again.
'I have seen already seen much more than enough of Eastbourne County Court, and shall not be referring the problem of unwanted parcels to them. I shall in future be leaving it to the companies who are duped to sort out the consequent
problems for themselves.
'The main purpose of this email is of course to document yesterday's
telephone call. It is not a request for police officers to visit me. In view of my recent experience of the local police, I would prefer that they did not do so.
'9 p.m. P.S. Since the foregoing was written, there has been a short sequel:
'8.10 pm The telephone rang. I lifted the handset. The caller put down telephone. [This had happened twice immediatedly before the call on 30th October.]
'8.16 pm The telephone rang. I lifted the handset. The caller started playing some noisy music. I put the handset on one side, and returned two minutes later to find that the call had ended.
'8.20 pm. The telephone rang. I lifted the handset and listened. After half a minute of silence, the caller put down the telephone.'
PI Brown should have been aware by now that I was being harassed by the McCombies as well as the Mabrys.
A few days later, repeated telephone calls in the middle of the night cause me to email PI Brown again:
12 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Harassment by C. Mabry
'My email to you of 8th January linked threatening and malicious telephone calls I received to Mr Mabry's telling me (on 7th April 2003) to put my property on the market and move out.
'Since 8th January, the unwanted telephone calls have continued. In the following, "silent call" means that the telephone rang, I picked up the handset without speaking, and the caller, without speaking, put down his or her
handset after a few seconds.
'Friday 9th January: silent call at 4.42 p.m.
'Saturday 10th January: silent call at 3.19 p.m.
'Sunday 11th January: silent call at 6.36 p.m.
'Monday 12th January: silent call at 1.38 a.m. (which woke me up) followed by the telephone ringing from 3.26 to 3.28 a.m. (without my picking it up) and again from 3.28 to 3.29 a.m., at which point I unplugged the telephone from the line socket.
'I rang telephone help lines this morning, and have had a trace put on the line for the next month.
'This is not a request for a police officer to visit me.'
12 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Re: Harassment by C. Mabry
'Thank you for your very prompt response to my latest email.
'I took another telephone call at 10.40 this morning, someone speaking what sounded like gibberish in an assumed voice. The call was traced, and the number of the caller has been identified. It is a mobile number.
'I understand that it is up to the police at what stage any action will be taken, through a set procedure.'
January 12, 2004
"From: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk> To: <ggm11@tiscali.co.uk>
"Sent: Monday, 9:29 AM
"Subject: Re: Harassment by C. Mabry
"Dear Mr Madden
"Thank you for your update.
"I will not be sending an officer round as you detail.
"Please let us know if the telephone trace reveals anything. As I have stated, if there is evidence that suggests the calls or mail are from a specific individual then we will if you request take the matter further."
January 12, 2004
"From: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk> To: <ggm11@tiscali.co.uk>
"Subject: Re: Harassment by C. Mabry
"Dear Mr Madden
"The police can take the necessary ie submit a telephone monitoring request form for the appropriate authorities to be granted. Should you wish this to be done then please let me know. I will need to get an officer to visit you to complete the necessary paperwork and for you to sign."
13 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" <ggm11@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Re: Harassment by C. Mabry
'Dear Inspector Brown
'Thank you for the information. I had already written my next message in Notepad before reading your email, so I'll copy that here first:
' "This is just a continuation of the log I am keeping of traced telephone calls, since 10.39 a.m. on 12th January. All are silent calls:
'Monday 12th January: 5.35 p.m., 5.39 p.m., 5.48 p.m. and 5.52 p.m. Apparently only three of these four calls are preserved on the record, but as all the calls are from the same mobile this is unimportant.
'Tuesday 13th January: 2.38 a.m. I disconnected the telephone after being woken by this, as it seemed likely that any more calls planned during the night would be from the same telephone.
'The operator I telephoned this morning to have the traces processed mentioned that pre-pay 'phones may not be traceable. If such a 'phone is being used for these calls I have a very serious problem."
'I would like a telephone monitoring request form to be submitted as soon as possible. As to arranging a visit:
'Today, I shall be at home all day, so if an officer happens to be in the vicinity he or she could just call in. Alternatively, a date and time could be arranged via
email or telephone, but I cannot use both at the same time, so today I'll make a final check of my email at 10 a.m. and then leave the 'phone free for the rest of the day. Please note that any telephone caller has to speak first, as I initially just
listen, as advised by BT.'
14 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" <ggm11@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Harassment by C. Mabry
'Logging of more malicious telephone calls:
'I received one silent call at 6.05 p.m. yesterday, and another at 2.09 a.m. this morning, after which I disabled the telephone.
'I have been finding it difficult to return to sleep after being repeatedly woken by the telephone during the night, and as BT have told me that all the calls are from the same telephone number, it no longer seems necessary for me to log every
call. Henceforth I shall be disabling the telephone before going to bed.
'I do not have a mobile telephone, so anyone wanting urgently to contact me during the night or early morning will be unable to do so.'
15 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Harassment by C. Mabry
'Malicious 'phone calls:
'I switched the 'phone off last night, as only one number had been used for calls up till then.
'I have one additional call to report, but apparently a different mobile number was involved on Wednesday 14th January at 3.16 p.m. Nevertheless I shall continue only accepting calls during the day.
'I hope that the police will investigate this matter as soon as possible. Changing my number is not worthwhile, as I am in the middle of a trial at the moment, the court needs my telephone number, Mabry (the suspect) is helping
the McCombies in their claim to own the back wall of my garage, and would through them have access to whatever number I used, as documents I send to
the court have to be copied to the McCombies.'
26 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" < To: <contact.centre@sussex.police.uk>
'Subject: Harassment by C. Mabry
'A courier has just tried to deliver a parcel from Home Shopping to a
non-existent Mrs Madden at my address. In accordance with my new policy after five years of such harassment, I told him that if he insisted on leaving the parcel I would put it in my garage and do nothing else about it. He took the parcel away. I am documenting this in case there are legal repercussions.
'After I disabled my telephone at night for several days and included an
account of the malicious calls in a letter I wrote to Eastbourne County Court, the malicious telephone calls ceased. I delivered a copy of the letter to the court to Mabry's friends, the McCombies, who as a consequence called me a "wanker" and a "tosser" and referred to the document as "that shit you put through my letterbox".
'Fortunately a company dealing in Elvis Presley memorabilia required payment before sending me goods that I had not ordered, but I am expecting a telephone call at any moment from a person who has been booked to measure up my
furniture for fitted covers, following the sending to me of a videotape about a company's furnishing products.
'I do not wish for a visit from the police in connection with this email.'
26 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" <ggm11@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Harassment by C. Mabry
'Royal Mail has just delivered a parcel, which I accepted as it was correctly addressed. It contains three DVDs and an unopened letter with "Thank you for joining Britannia" on the front of the envelope. Presumably it is from the company that I have already emailed four times. I shall be putting the parcel in my garage, and doing nothing more about it.
'I am not asking for a visit from a police officer in connection with this email.'
27 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Harassment by C. Mabry
'Royal Mail pushed another (unordered by me) DVD from Britannia through my letterbox this morning, together with an unopened envelope which presumably contains a demand for payment. It is going unanswered into my garage. This
does not require a visit from a police officer.'
29 January 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <contact.centre@sussex.police.uk>
'Subject: Telephone calls presumed malicious
'Crime Number: EW2/331/04 Investigating Officer:
DB050 PC Baldwin-Charles
'My telephone rang this morning at 5.26 a.m. (not traced) and 6.57 a.m. (traced). Apparently a new caller's telephone number was involved. I'll probably leave the telephone switched on for another two nights and then switch it off, as
I'll be in need of sleep by then if I get more calls during the night.
'This is simply an update on your previous investigation, so there's no need for a response from you.
' I'm emailing because the 'phone lines were too busy to take my call, and hope the message gets through this way.'
29 January 2004
"From: <Chc@sussex.police.uk> To: <ggm11@tiscali.co.uk>
"Subject: Re: Telephone calls presumed malicious
"Thank you for your email to Sussex Police.
"I have created a further serial and linked this to your original call. This has been forwarded to the Crime Management Centre who will contact you within 24-48 hours to take further details.
"Many Thanks, Michala - Call Handling Helpdesk."
21 April 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Presumed harassment by C. Mabry
'This morning's incident might in itself be thought trivial, but as it is presumably part of the policy of harassment by Mabry which started in January 1999, I wish to document it. It does not of course require a visit from a police officer.
'I live at the end of a cul de sac. My neighbour at No. 9 has given me a portable post to prevent motorists using my drive to turn round. When I go out, 'I move the post to one side, and replace it after I have returned.
'When I returned home this morning, I found that the post had been put back in the middle of my drive, and an empty wheelie bin had been moved from the far side of my bungalow and placed in the middle of my drive, blocking access.
'Incidentally, the Britannia video/DVD harassment which started last November has now reached the stage of my receiving a demand for payment from a debt collection agency.'
Later, PC Francis was to claim that he knew better than I who had moved the bin. He knew that it was moved by the refuse collection service. As the bin is kept out of sight round the far side of the bungalow, and as it was moved long after the time at which the bin men visit, PC Francis was, as so often, wrong.
26 April 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" <ggm-1@tiscali.co.uk>
'To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Presumed harassment by the Mabrys
'I luckily happened to be at home several days ago when a courier tried to deliver a parcel from Damart.
'I explained that I had not ordered any goods from Damart, that a malicioius neighbour was responsible for doing so, and refused to accept the parcel. The courier took the parcel away again.
'Nevertheless, this morning I received a "personal account statement" addressed to "Ms G Madden" which said that Ms Madden owed the company £47.96. It is joining the three boxes of unwanted correspondence in my garage, along with the other 1.6Kg of unwanted
mail that I have received so far this month.
'On 5th January 2004 you sent me an email which said, "The delivery of unwanted goods to your address is not a matter for the police unless there is sufficient evidence available that makes it very clear that an individual/s is responsible."
'In an email of 8th January I said, "I hope to avoid bothering the police with news of further unwanted parcels unless the harassment they cause is noteworthy", but I do think that if the delivery of unordered goods is coupled with a demand for money, that is noteworthy. On 24th April I received a request for £47.85 for a "Garden Whispers Clock" from a company called The Bradford Editions, but as the company had not sent the goods before
receiving payment, I did not notify you.
'If you consider that my reporting such matters as the Damart order is a waste of police time, will you please let me know in writing - email would be fine - as I now have an alternative method of logging harassment, on a website which I recently started in order to deal with shortcomings of the Land Registry: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ggmadden/
'This is not a request for attendance by a police officer.'
On Monday 21st June, in a local supermarket I met a near neighbour who runs a tv business, and in conversation mentioned a few of the satellite television and radio broadcasts I enjoy from different parts of the world. I had installed a
90 cm satellite dish in my back garden more than a year previously. Four days later, the device for collecting signals from the dish, and the bracket holding it, were stolen from my back garden, and a piece had been broken from the top of a 6-foot wooden fence behind the dish. I was to be deprived of satellite television
and radio for the next sixth months, until Mabry moved house. I wrote to PI Brown:
25 June 2004
'From: "Geoffrey Madden" To: <robert.brown@sussex.pnn.police.uk>
'Subject: Report of theft, possibly related to ongoing harassment
'This morning soon after 8 a.m. this morning I discovered that the LNB had been removed from the satellite dish in my back garden. My satellite receiver was working normally at midnight last night.
'Earlier this year, plants in my front garden died unexpectedly.'
I also telephoned the police, and was asked how much the item had cost, and whether I had seen it being stolen. The police would take no action, as PC Francis also told me, unasked, when he visited after another assault on me by Mabry and saw the satellite dish in my back garden.
24th July 2004: After five and a half years of harassment from the Mabrys, and three years of harassment from the McCombies, presumably emboldened by the police's refusal to take an interest in the matter, I was assaulted by Mabry and the McCombies, who smashed their way into my back garden. After being visited in connection with the attacks by PC Francis, I emailed PI Brown as follows:
I have just posted a letter to my M.P. Normally I would have walked to my nearest post box to do so, but instead I drove to Langney shopping centre, and as I walked to and from my garage I carried the column from a photographic enlarger, as I did yesterday when I retrieved a wheelie bin from in front of my property, and on Tuesday when I worked in my back garden for a few minutes and then put out the wheelie bin.
The letter begins, "I wonder if there is some department of the Home Office to which I can appeal for a review of the disgraceful behaviour of the local police after I dialled 999 in 2002."
I now have three neighbours who have assaulted me and threatened further violence unless I move out of my property.
After I was attacked last Saturday (Incident 1128 of 24/07/04), the visit to me of P.C.Francis on the following day gave me cause for anxiety. P.C.Francis, like the sergeant who dealt with the assault in 2002, said "Keep quiet and listen to me"; P.C.Francis, like the sergeant who dealt with the assault in 2002, said that he was concerned only with the incident of that day, not with preceding incidents, though preceding incidents are essential to a proper understanding of any single incident of harassment. P.C.Francis also criticised my description of two of my neighbours on a website, without having investigated the reasons for it: I had already complained of my neighbours' abusive language to the police and to Eastbourne County Court. P.C. Francis also, on inspecting parts of a bolt and latch on the ground as a result of forced entry to my property, said that it was not "evidence", citing his twelve years' experience as a police officer to bolster this bizarre claim.
I have yet to see if I will be given a crime number for this incident and be allowed to make a statement. On 24th March 2002 I was not allowed to make a statement. Yesterday I added a page on the McCombies, two of the three people who assaulted me on Saturday, to my website. The last two paragraphs read:
"On 24th July 2004, while I was painting a shed at the bottom of my garden, Mr McCombie started shouting abuse from his garden. Instead of retaliating in kind, I told McCombie how he had been described on my website. McCombie called to Mabry, there was the noise of shouting as the side gate to my property was smashed open, and six people invaded my back garden.
"McCombie assaulted me, threatened further assaults, advised me to watch my back, and told me to get out of my property. Mabry then assaulted me, and then Mrs McCombie. A blow to my left ear from Mrs McCombie is still causing me some disquiet . . . ."
12th August 2004: I was arrested by PC Francis for alleged harassment of the McCombies! I presume that the arrest was not the sole responsiblity of PC Francis. When I wrote to PI Brown to complain about what had happened as regards the investigation into the assaults on me, he did
nothing but concur with what had been done by PC Francis.
15th October 2004
"From R. Brown, Inspector, Neighbourhood Policing Team
"Dear Mr Madden
"I write in reply to your communication with the Independent Police Complaints Commission on 6th October 2004 which has been passed to me for attention.
"The matter subject of your communication is as you are aware still subject to police investigation and you are currently on bail for this matter until
31st October 2004.
"Until these investigations are complete your 'complaint' will remain on file at our Professional Standards Department. Once the investigation is complete the matter will be reviewed."
25 October 2004
"From DCI J. Torbet, Professional Standards Department
"Dear Mr Madden
"Further to an incident on 2 August 2004, the matter has been passed to me for attention.
"The file has been passed to Inspector BROWN at Hailsham in order
that the matter can be addressed at a local level. Please allow sufficient time for the transfer of papers."
11th November 2004 Letter to PI Brown (et al) from me:
"I have been charged with harassment by PC Francis of Wealden District, and need to prepare for appearances in Eastbourne Magistrates' Court. If I am to have any chance of a fair trial, I need to make preparations for the hearings, for which I need some co-operation from Sussex Police.
"I tried to contact the police for this purpose on 3rd November by using the usual 0845 number, but was only referred to the constable who had charged me. The subsequent conversation with PC Francis proved very unsatisfactory.
"I expressed some concern over two digital cameras with no internal memory which PC Francis had seized from me on 12th August, as the trial is not until February, and batteries and battery packs lose power over time and it is
not advisable to leave them unused in cameras for a long period of time in case of leakage. PC Francis asserted that batteries only lose power when they are used.
"I said that I wanted copies of the tapes PC Francis had recorded during my interview on 12th August. PC Francis said that I could not have copies, but
that I could or might (I am not sure which he specified) have a text version. That is not acceptable. I have a pink form which says that I am entitled to have copies of two tapes if I am charged - it does not say transcripts.
"I said that I wanted copies of documents and photographs relevant to
the case on the two computers that PC Francis seized from me on 12th August. PC Francis said that I could only have copies of stuff that the police wanted to
use in court. PC Francis asserted that this was all that disclosure arrangements allowed.
"The ignorance of - or deliberate provision of misinformation by - PC Francis was becoming alarming. I know little of the criminal law, but have had some experience of disclosure arrangements in the civil courts, and know - as simple common sense would tell one - that PC Francis was ignorantly or deliberately wrong in what he said.
"The following day I telephoned the 0845 number again and expressed my dissatisfaction with the results of my first attempt. The person answering the telephone said that he would put me through to the sergeant's office at Hailsham
Police Station. He tried this three times, to no avail, though the time of day was well within normal office hours.
"So now I am addressing this letter to three of the policemen responsible for the fact that after being subjected to harassment for nearly six years by an ex-policeman, and for three years by his friends, I am now subject to harassment
by the police themselves, who woke me at 7.50 a.m., seized my property, handcuffed me, put me in a cell, and ignored my requests to see a doctor.
"I write this letter in the hope that one or other of the addressees will see that this letter receives a proper answer from the police.
"For me to have a chance of a fair trial I will need the following:
• A photocopy of the statement that PC Francis wrote in my name.
• A photocopy of the statement that I made myself and gave to PC Francis.
• A photocopy of the plan of my property, reluctantly accepted by PC Francis, which shows the places in my back garden where I was assaulted by three neighbours.
• Copies of tapes ref. E41/4169/04 01A and 02A.
• Copies of the many files in the Disputes folders on the hard disks of my computers.
• Copies of the witness statements collected by PC Francis.
• Copies of every page on the website that PC Francis caused to be closed down after I declined to alter two items in my account of his investigation of assault, that is the wording of his command "Keep quiet and listen to me", and his assertion that a bolt and part of a gate latch lying on the ground near my side gate were not evidence of forced entry.
"And I want to question the following people in court:
• The five police officers who visited the Mabrys on 23rd March 2002 after I had been assaulted and dialled 999, including the two who later visited me, one of whom told me not to write a statement myself and then refused to let me sign the statement that he was dictating as I declined to allow him to include a sentence which said that I did not want to pursue the matter.
• PC Satchwell, who after the ex-policeman Mabry had cut down vegetation in my front garden and thrown it down on a flower bed, told me that no crime had been committed because grass is not property; and who showed me how to stick a notice on my front door to say that I would not take delivery of any parcels.
• PC Wilkinson, who when I complained of abusive language from my neighbours told me that we have free speech in this country, and compared relations between ex-policeman Mabry and myself to children quarrelling in the playground.
• PI Brown, with whom I exchanged emails about harassment.
• The six people who invaded my back garden when my side gate was smashed open on 24th July 2004, including the three who assaulted me, threatened me, and told me to leave my property.
"This letter may be used in evidence."
15th November 2004
Letter to me from R. Brown, Inspector, Neighbourhood Policing Team
"I write in reply to you letter of 11th November 2004
"You have been charged with a criminal offence and are due to appear before the Magistrates Court in February 2005. The usual rules of disclosure of evidence will apply to your case, in that, before the case is presented in court you or your solicitor will have all the evidence that the prosecution intends to use disclosed to you.
"The matter of what evidence you or your solicitor wishes to present in your defence is for you to arrange. Sussex Police will not be making any disclosures of the evidence and documents that you request unless it falls within
the rules of disclosure and this will be done at the appropriate time in the legal process.
"I strongly recommend that you speak to a solicitor to discuss the
issues involved and to ensure that you have your defence case suitably prepared for February 2005.
"I cannot make any further observations in relation to the case as the matter is still to go before the courts."
In January, having discovered that they did not have a viable case, the CPS issued a notice of discontinuance. I objected to this, as I wanted to clear my name in court and make public some of the practices of South Wealden police, but I was only allowed a very brief hearing at which the CPS said that they were offering no evidence, so the case was dismissed.
4th February 2005 Letter from me to Inspector Brown, Hailsham Police Station
"I attended a hearing in Eastbourne Magistrates' Court this morning, and was very disappointed that the CPS had no evidence to offer, and that consequently the charges against me could not proceed to trial, so that I shall have no chance of exposing in court some of the lies that PC Francis had cobbled together in order to charge me with harassment of neighbours who had assaulted me.
"I shall, however, be commenting on some of them on the Web, along with a critique of policing in Sussex. I am now in a position to compare police methods before and after the appointment of the present chief constable, and
find that little has changed for the better - indeed, from my point of view, mostly changes have been for the worse.
"This brings me to the first of two reasons for writing to you. On 10th September 2004 I received from an ISP with which I have an account, Tiscali, an email asking me to remove material from my website on their server within seven
days, failing which they would "remove the entire contents of the site and disable the account". This was evidently done at the instigation of PC Francis.
"Unless you see that any instructions from the police to Tiscali are
rescinded within the next seven days, I shall be using a different ISP for my website, and adding to that website my comments on the circumstances that caused me to change the site's address.
"I shall in any case be adding to that website my comments on the ways in which the police have added to the harassment to which I have been subjected over the last six years.
"Secondly, I wish to make a last formal request to be sent the two cassette tapes which were recorded for the benefit of the defendant or his or her solicitor when I was arrested and interviewed on 12/08/04. I have made several
previous attempts to secure these tapes, without success, though as I was charged with crime I clearly have a right to them. As PC Francis was prepared to lie to me about his investigation of crimes I had reported to the police, I wish to examine how assiduously and honestly the transcription of the tapes was carried
out.
"I am still waiting to hear how the police are treating various other complaints that I have had occasion to make about them over the last six months, so that I can judge how far if at all the response conforms to the system outlined
in the IPCC booklet Ref. COM/4."
8th February 2005 From R. Brown, Inspector, Neighbourhood Policing Team
"I write in reply to your letter of 4th February.
"I reiterate what I have stated in previous correspondence, that I am satisfied that all procedures and processes were followed in the investigation
which led to your court appearance on 4th February when the CPS offered no
evidence in relation to the matters before the court.
"I am aware that you have various complaints that are currently being dealt with by our Professional Standards Department (PSD) and therefore I am not in a position to make any comments in realtion to the other matters you raise.
"I am forwarding your letter to PSD for their information and inclusion in their enquiries."
The next letter provides a link between the actions of PC Francis and PI Brown:
3rd March 2005 Letter from me to PSD Administration Unit, Lewes
"Your last two letters said that my complaints would be forwarded to Inspector Brown at Hailsham. Inspector Brown subsequently telephoned me to
ask if I was complaining about him. I asked him if he was responsible for the conduct of PC Francis, and when he said that he was, I concluded that my complaints would involve him, as a result of which he said that he would send the papers on to CI Matthews.
"When, on the advice of the IPCC, I sent complaints to the Sussex Police Authority, they told me that they were sending the complaints on to CI Matthews. I also wrote directly to him, and estimate that before any papers had
been sent to CI Matthews by PI Brown, CI Matthews should have received from
me two emails and four letters of complaint. I have received neither reply nor acknowledgement for any of them.
"I now have further serious complaints. Yesterday's advice from the police was that I should address some of these complaints to a Mr R. Haizelden at Eastbourne Police Station, but that advice has been superseded by the advice from a police sergeant today that I should write to you instead.
"The latest complaints
On August 12th last year, when I was arrested by PC Francis, PC Francis seized two computers and two digital cameras belonging to me. The cameras contained no internal memory, as I pointed out to PC Francis. Months later, as it is recommended that batteries be removed from cameras which are not used for a long time, I telephoned the police, who referred the matter to PC Francis, who asserted that batteries do not lose power unless they are used.
"Yesterday, my property was belatedly returned to me. The two digital cameras, which cost about £900, are now unusable. Some ignoramus had used force to remove the batteries from the cameras, breaking the catch which enables the batteries to be reinstalled.
"An expensive alloy computer case was also damaged, a socket which secures a door to USB ports having been broken, and neither computer works. One of them had evidently had a password added, which I managed to disable, but then a message was displayed saying "Windows XP is not completely
set up on your computer". The other computer will not work at all: it is no longer possible to access the BIOS to find out if that has been altered. I should like to know very soon what has been done to my computers.
"So far the recent actions of Sussex Police have cost me the best part
of a year's pension."
At this point the case had been taken over by the Sussex Police Professional Standards Department, an outfit which, from my experience, would be more suitably called the Department for the Defence of Liars and Vandals in Police Service.
My conclusion is that PI Brown, like PC Francis, is not fit for the post he holds. Unfortunately, the HMIC's Baseline Assessment - Sussex Police October 2005 did not assess 1D Professional Standards, a category which includes two of the subjects relevant to my case, "Investigation of public complaints" and "Combating corruption and promoting ethical behaviour". I would like any examination of the conduct of PI Brown and the officers under his leadership to include both these topics.
P.S. September 2007 - As a result of an application under the Data Protection Act, I received a list of eight complaints which had been registered as having been made by me in since 2002. I had made many more complaints than that. No complaints were recorded for 2004, although following the assault on me by neighbours in July 2004, I had complained to PI Brown about the way in which the investigating officer, PC Francis, had dealt with the matter.
