Report by Sussex PSD

INTRODUCTION

This report details various allegations against officers who dealt with Mr. Madden in relation to a long standing dispute between the complainant and his neighbours which occurred between 1998 and 2004. He alleges the following misconduct offences:-

(a) Against PC CF898 Francis of Hailsham NPT

(i) Failure in Duty That between 25th July and 12th August 2004 you failed to properly investigate a counter allegation of harassment by Mr Madden and as a consequence arrested him without lawful cause or justification.

(ii) Oppressive Conduct That after his release from custody on 24th August 2004 you telephoned Mr Madden and placed him under duress to persuade him to accept a police caution and when he refused you threatened him with further arrest.

(iii) Failure in Duty That after his interview for a criminal offence on 12th August 2004 you subsequently failed to supply him with copies of the interview tapes as was his right in law despite frequent requests from him.

(iv) Oppressive Conduct That the officer closed down his website after he refused to alter comments on the site in contravention of Article 10 Human Rights Act.

(b) Mr Madden also alleges the following misconduct offences against PC CW476 Wilkinson of Hailsham NPT.

(i) Lack of Politeness and Tolerance
That on 3rd January 2004 the officer visited his home as part of an ongoing serious domestic dispute between him and his neighbours and insulted him by comparing his problem to a playground disagreement between children.

(c) Mr Madden also alleges the following misconduct offence against PC CS005 Satchwell of Hailsham NPT.

(i) Failure of Duty That when the officer visited him on or about 24th September 2003 he refused to record a report of criminal damage and aggravated trespass allegedly committed by a neighbour.

(d) Lastly Mr Madden alleges that PS CB578 Boughton of Eastbourne Custody committed the following:-

(i) Breach of Codes of Practice - Code C That when the complainant was brought to Eastbourne Custody on 12fh August 2004 the custody officer failed to record on the custody record that the complainant wished to seek medical attention despite him asking for it.

In his statement of complaint Mr Madden also wished to pursue separate complaints against Inspector Brown and Chief Inspector Matthews for failing to deal with his allegations promptly. Having reviewed the allegations against these officers I could see no evidence of misconduct against them and I informed Mr Madden of this by letter dated 11th August 2005.

CIRCUMSTANCES

The complainant lives alone in a detached 3 bed-roomed bungalow in Stone Cross, Pevensey, East Sussex and he has been in dispute with his neighbours since around 1998. The primary cause of this friction as best I can ascertain are boundary disputes. These are all documented at considerable length in the statement he signed on 13th July 2005.

It Is quite apparent that feelings came to a head on 23rd July 2004 when the complainant told a neighbour Mr McCombie that he had posted a description of him on his website describing him as a 'poor hen pecked zombie' and his wife as a 'fat slob'.

This disclosure caused a heated disagreement during which Mr Madden was allegedly chased and slapped by Mrs McCombie.

PC Francis attended and crimed the matter as a Common Assault/Affray after there were counter allegations of assault against Mr Madden (Crime Report EW2/1960/04 refers).

PC Francis investigated the matter and the matter was finally disposed of under Home Office statistics on 12th August 2004.

Due to numerous allegations by his neighbours amounting to harassment PC Francis served a first course of conduct warning notice under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 on Mr Madden on 12th August 2004.

Due to the serious nature of the complaints about Mr Madden's activities PC Francis also decided to arrest him for Harassment on 12th August 2004.

Mr Madden alleges that PC Francis did not properly investigate the matter in an impartial manner and had he done so he would not have felt the need to exercise a power of arrest.

At the time of arresting him PC Francis carried out a Section 32 PACE of the complainant's address and seized 2 computer towers, a Kodak digital camera and a Cannon digital camera. The reason tor these seizures was due to allegations about the content of Mr Madden's website and allegations that he was harassing his neighbours by photographing them and placing those photos on his website. These items were subsequently placed in the property store under G83 reference 0357590 dated 12th August 2004. This allegation of Harassmant was crimed by PC Francis as EW2/5355/04.

PC Francis presented the complainant to the custody officer PS Boughton at 0824 hours on 12th August 2004 (Custody Record E4/4169/04 refers).

Mr Madden suffers from Stomach Cancer and has a stoma. He alleges that he asked PS Boughton to see a Doctor but that the officer refused to facilitate this and wrongly recorded on the custody record that Mr Madden did not request a medical practitioner.

During his detention on 12th August 2004 Mr Madden was interviewed by PC Francis on tape in accordance with the Police and Criminal Act 1984. Mr Madden alleges that PC Francis subsequently refused to supply him with a copy of the interview tapes despite him requesting copies as per the Codes of Practice.

Mr Madden states that after more than 5 hours in custody PC Francis tried to persuade him to accept a formal caution which he refused.

Mr Madden was later bailed 47(3) for further enquiries. He further alleges that on 21st August 2004 PC Francis rang him at home and threatened to arrest him again if he refused to accept a formal caution. He saw this as further evidence of the officer bullying him by taking the part of his neighbours.

Mr Madden also complains that PC Francis breached his human rights by later contacting his Internet Service Providers and getting his website shut down because he refused to remove material which his neighbours found insulting and intrusive.

Mr Madden later returned to custody and was charged with Harassment. On 6th January 2005 the Crown Prosecution Service decided to discontinue the case against him.

Sometime later in 2005 an officer returned the seized equipment signature against receipt. Mr Madden alleges that the Cannon digital camera was irreparably damaged whilst in police custody.

In relation to the complaints against PC Wilkinson they are simply that on or about 3rd January 2004 when he attended his home address the officer refused to take his complaints against his neighbours seriously and compared his problem to a dispute between children.

In relation to a similar complaint against PC Satchwell Mr Madden alleges that the officer visited him on 24th September 2003 and refused to crime an allegation of criminal damage and aggravated trespass.

INVESTIGATION

Fortunately this matter is fully documented and all the relevant documents are available.

PC Francis was interviewed on tape on 30th September 2005 and refuted all of Mr Madden's allegations against him.

He states he did take into account Mr Madden's allegations against Mr & Mrs McCombie and this investigation is documented in Crime Report EW2/1960/04 which details an investigation into allegations by Mr Madden of Assault/Affray.

PC Francis stated that he had little choice but to arrest Mr Madden after repeated visits by police to his home address to try to resolve the issues. The fact that one of the complainants Mr McCombie was disabled due to kidney disease exacerbated the risks if matters were allowed to continue unchecked. As can be seen from copies of the relevant web pages that Mr Madden was posting material on his website which his neighbours found intrusive and occasionally upsetting. Not only that but it appears that Mr Madden then put letters through his neighbours doors inviting them to view his website which made matters worse.

The full reason for making the arrest are detailed by PC Francis in his case summary (Page 117-8 of Document Bundle).

I have reviewed the papers and the arrest seems perfectly lawful and appropriate in the given circumstances. In any event 4 close neighbours provided statements of evidence against Mr. Madden and the interview transcript reveals that Mr Madden fully admitted some of the allegations against him (Pages 213-247 of Document Bundle).

PS Boughton has provided a caution statement dated 27 September 2005 concerning the allegation against him of refusing to record that Mr Madden wished to see a Doctor (Page 65 of Document Bundle). In that statement he explains that he has no actual recollection of the complainant due to the volume of prisoners he deals with and the passage of time. He states that he recorded the facts accurately on the custody record (E4/4169/04) to the effect that Mr Madden did suffer from a stoma and respiratory problems but had not seen a Doctor for some time and therefore recorded on the custody record that there was no reason for him to be seen by a Doctor at that stage.

Custody Record (E4/4169/04) records that at 0828 hours on 12th August 2004 PS Boughton asked the question "Needs to be seen by, or requests to be seen by a police surgeon, Doctor or ambulance staff" to which he recorded the response "No".

PS Boughton states that had Mr Madden requested a Doctor he would simply have put yes and ensured that this was done.

The same custody record records that at 0855 hours the next day 13th August 2004 PS Boughton received a telephone call from the Detained Person (complainant) "wishing to log on record that he requested 3 times to see a Doctor when he came in". PS Boughton also recorded "However I actually booked him in and no request was made to me".

PC Francis was questioned in relation to the complaint concerning the attempts to get Mr Madden to accept a police caution. He states that he explored the possibility of Mr Madden accepting a caution after he was interviewed but Mr Madden indicated he did not feel he had done anything wrong.

When Mr Madden was on bail PC Francis obtained advice from a CPS lawyer who had stated that if he did not accept a caution he would have to go to Court. PC Francis had no enthusiasm to see an elderly man with no previous convictions appearing in Court so he rang him at the advice of his Sergeant and told Mr Madden that he now had all the statements, that he had sought advice from CPS that he was eligible for a caution and asked him again would he accept a caution as an alternative to facing criminal charges but Mr Madden refused the offer.

In respect of the non-supplying of the interview tapes to Mr Madden after he was charged, PC Francis stated he had no objections to the tapes being supplied but the supplying of tapes was a matter for the Criminal Justice Unit and not a matter for him.

When we examined the relevant form C165 which was signed by Mr Madden prior to interview on 12th August 2004 it is apparent that Mr Madden failed to tick the correct box requesting the tape. In interview I asked PC Francis how this mistake could have happened bearing in mind that Mr. Madden clearly wanted copies of the tapes. PC Francis explained that Mr Madden did not want a solicitor present and clearly was unused to the forms. The relevant document signed by Mr Madden clearly shows the complainant, due no doubt to error, failed to tick the box marked 'I wish a copy of the tape to be sent to my solicitor'.

Sussex Police normally only supply such tapes to solicitors for legal reasons however I have had copies made of these 2 tapes and will be supplying them to Mr Madden at the conclusion of this investigation. In respect of the allegation that PC Francis was responsible for closing down Mr Madden's website in breach of his human rights there is little dispute.

Because of repeated complaints from his neighbours about the content of his website http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk//ggmadden/McCombies PC Francis sought advice on 14th August 2004 as to how to get the website shut down. He was advised to contact the Internet Service Provider Tiscali. As a result of PC Francis contacting Tiscali, Jenny Talbot the fraud management team leader wrote to the complainant on or around 6th September 2004 giving him 7 days to remove the offending material from the site. When Mr Madden failed to comply with this request within that timescale, Tiscali removed the contents of the site and disabled his account in line with their standard policy concerning infringements of the company's acceptable use policy.

Lastly in relation to his arrest on 12th August 2004 Mr Madden alleges that a Cannon Powershot camera was damaged beyond repair when it was returned to him by police.

When I questioned PC Francis about this aspect he explained that the camera equipment had been submitted to the Hi-Tech Crime Unit at Sussex House and nothing evidential had been found and then the equipment had been stored at the Hammonds Drive property store pending the conclusion of the case. He stated that because of allegations by the complainant Inspector Brown decided it should be returned by another officer.

The G83 form shows that Mr Madden accepted the equipment back on 2nd March 2005, signature against receipt. He would naturally not have been able to check the equipment upon its return to ensure it was working correctly.

Mr Madden sent a letter to PSD on 3rd March 2005 stating that the 2 digital cameras were now unusable.

On 22nd March 2005 Chief Inspector Matthews replied to this letter stating "In relation to the property I would need to know if you will be pursuing a compensation claim from Sussex Police and I would benefit from any relevant receipts of purchase and an official quotation for the repair. I can then discuss the matter with our Civil Claims Unit on your behalf".

In another letter to Mrs Baldwin of Sussex Police dated 22nd March 2005 Mr Madden also claimed that both computers costing over £2,000 were also unusable.

By the time Mr Madden replied to Chief Inspector Matthews on 26th March 2005 he stated that he had got one of the cameras working however he stated "there are no receipts and official quotations for being deprived of my property for so many months ....". To date the complainant has failed to produce any receipts to show that any damage was caused to his computers or cameras.

By the time he made a formal statement of complaint dated 17th July 2005 it is apparent that Mr Madden has not had the camera repaired "the camera will never work again, unless the police are going to have it repaired".

There are no misconduct issues apparent in the alleged damage to Mr Madden's equipment. If Mr Madden wishes to pursue a civil complaint against Sussex Police he will have to submit the relevant receipts and invoices to the Civil Claims department who can then examine the validity of his claim. I have written to him a letter dated 19th October 2005 to reiterate this point.

In relation to the allegation of incivility against PC Wilkinson the officer has provided a statement under caution describing his interactions with Mr Madden.

In that statement he describes Mr Madden as person who he believes records all conversations with officers.

He states he may have considered Mr Madden's allegations to be similar to a playground dispute but he states that he would not have said this directly to him because of his history of making complaints against officers. He states that he updated the OIS serial log with the following comments from Mr Madden after attending on 3rd January 2004 "Simply using the Police in case I ever take out a civil claim".

In relation to the allegation of failure of duty against PC Satchwell the officer has supplied a statement under caution describing his visit to the complainants home on 27th September 2003. He describes the incident much the same as Mr Madden but he explains that the circumstances described by the complainant did not amount to an offence of criminal damage nor was he prepared to arrest Mr Mabry because the complainant wanted him to do so. He did however speak to Mr Mabry and give him advice about observing the boundaries between his property and he advised Mr Madden who was clearly unhappy that he should consult a solicitor and discuss the possibilities of pursuing civil remedies.

OBSERVATIONS/CONCLUSION

In relation to allegation (a)(i) Failure of Duty

This investigation has revealed no areas of concern in relation to the lawfulness or justification for the arrest of Mr Madden by PC Francis on 12th August 2005. Due to the complaints of 4 neighbours concerning his activities in relation to harassment issues PC Francis responded by arresting the complainant and fully investigating the matter resulting in charges being brought. The fact that CPS decided later to discontinue the matter should not be seen as an indication that the arrest was not lawful. I find this complaint unsubstantiated.

In relation to allegation (a)(ii) Oppressive Conduct:

Again this investigation has uncovered no concerns about PC Francis requests to Mr Madden to accept a caution. In interview Mr Madden admitted putting comments on his website which he knew may have upset the McCombies because he liked the "idea of using abusive language about the McCombies was that to me a non-combative way of answering" (Page 28 of Transcript).

Sussex Police actively pursue a policy of cautioning all offenders who admit the offence and are considered suitable for a caution as a way of keeping them out of the Courts. I find this complaint to be unsubstantiated.

In relation to allegation (a)(iii) Failure in Duty:

Had Mr Madden signed the C165 form correctly then he would have been sent a copy of the interview tapes by the Criminal Justice Department. Unfortunately he failed to do so. I find this complaint against PC Francis unsubstantiated but I will be sending Mr Madden a copy of the tapes at the conclusion of this matter.

In relation to allegation (a)(iv) Oppressive Conduct

After Sussex Police Telecoms Department contacted Mr Madden's website provider Tiscali, the company viewed the site and decided that the content breached the company's acceptable use policy. They wrote to the complainant giving him 7 days to remove the offending material and when he failed to comply his site was shut down by the company. This being the case I find the allegation against PC Francis to be unsubstantiated.

In relation to allegation (b)(i) Lack of Politeness and Tolerance:

This investigation has found no evidence to corroborate Mr Madden's allegations of lack of politeness towards him on 3rd January 2004 and PC Wilkinson denies making comments trivialising his allegations by comparing them to a playground dispute, therefore I find the complaint unsubstantiated.

In relation to allegation (c)(i) Failure of Duty:

The OIS serial 1050 dated 24th September 2003 shows that there was insufficient evidence to show that a criminal offence had been committed by Mr Mabry and PC Wilkinson was correct to deal with this matter by giving advice to both parties, therefore I find the complaint unsubstantiated.

In relation to allegation (d)(i) Breach of Codes of Practice - Code C:

Had Mr Madden requested to see a Doctor then I can see no logical reason why PS Boughton would have refused his request, especially bearing in mind the complainant's age and medical history. PS Boughton states he completed the custody record accurately and the complainant alleges that he asked for a Doctor 3 times, a fact not recorded on the custody record until the day after he left custody at his request by telephone. I also find this complaint unsubstantiated.

R J Preddy
Detective Inspector