The Fourth Witness Statement

Mr Burtenshaw refused my request to be sent a copy of the fourth witness statement which led to my arrest, citing Section 7(6)(a) of the Data Protection Act to justify his decision. That clause says that in considering any request, "regard shall be had . . . to any duty of confidentiality owed to the other individual".

Mr Burtenshaw does not mention Section 7(4)(b), which says that a data controller "is not obliged to comply with a request unless . . . it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual."

Mr Burtenshaw's reasons for his refusal:

"The statement was provided as part of an investigation into an alleged criminal offence. In providing a statement there is an implied duty of confidentiality and duty of care towards the individual especially where that individual may be the victim of a crime. I therefore, do not consider it reasonable to disclose the information to you. I do not agree with your assertion that a witness statement is by design available to other members of the public. If the statement had been used in evidence at a court, and we cannot make the assumption that it would have been, it would still only have been disclosed within the confines of that court and not to the general public.

I think it very unreasonable in all the circumstances for Mr Burtenshaw to have refused my request, and think it just one more example of the way in which Sussex Police habitually conceal information in their refusal to face problems of dishonesty and malpractice within their own ranks.

The "alleged criminal offence" was concocted by the lying McCombies, probably in collusion with ex-policeman Mabry – the most dishonest person I have met in my life – and the dishonest and corrupt PC Francis, who must have been responsible for the false entry in the Sussex Crime Reporting System after my side gate was smashed open and I was assaulted in my back garden by McCombie, Mabry, and Mrs McCombie. My request for a trial to go ahead was frustrated by the CPS, who said that they were offering no evidence in the case.

As regards the "implied duty of confidentiality", two of the three witness statements that I was given end by saying that the witness will "attend court if necessary", so those two statements involve no such duty. The third was signed by McCombie, who claimed that he had been harassed, so again confidentiality is not involved as he would have needed to attempt to justify the lies in his statement in court.

That leaves the fourth witness. I only learned that there was a fourth witness from the dishonest PSD report on my complaints about the Sussex Police; and the dishonest IPCC report on them supported my view that the fourth witness must have been my ex-neighbour, the ex-policeman C. Mabry. I believe that Mabry probably helped organize the two witness statements by neighbours of his, and not of the McCombies, and that this was the culmination of a policy of harassment of me by the Mabrys which had started five and a half years before.

It should be clear from what follows that anything that Mabry said needed to be subjected to proper investigation; and the idea that Mabry "may be the victim of a crime" I find astonishing. No crime against Mabry was included in the false charges against me put together by the dishonest PC Francis, and if the fourth statement contains any suggestion of crime by me against Mabry, it ought to be questioned with a view to prosecuting Mabry.

I have logged the activities of this putative "victim of crime" on www.ggm11.plus.com, but will list the most noteworthy here:

Mabry fenced off a one and a half metre wide strip of my front lawn in order to widen his drive.
Mabry prepared a forged version of his site plan in a feeble-minded attempt to justify his action.
When I asked for the fence to be removed, Mrs Mabry called me a "neighbour from hell".
Mabry embarked on a policy of harassment starting with abusive language, which was to continue for five and a half years.
The Mabrys started ordering goods and services in my name, so that in the next five years I was to receive more than 500 items by courier or through the post, some resulting in threatening letters from debt collection agencies and solicitors.
Mabry and his son on several occasions mowed the strip of lawn that Mabry had tried to steal.
Mabry pushed me in the chest and threatened to beat me up to the extent that I would need intensive care in hospital.
Sixteen days later, Mabry again threatened to beat me up.
Having agreed that I could edge my front lawn with a low wall, when the builders arrived, Mabry threatened to fill in any trench that they dug.
A six-foot wooden fence separates my back garden from Mabry's. Mabry removed a six-foot wide panel from the fence to intimidate me. A judge ordered its reinstatement.
A water bomb thrown from the Mabrys' property missed washing on a rotary drier, exploded against a sliding glass door and destroyed a saxifrage plant in a pot.
The purpose of the harassment became clear when Mabry told me to put my property on the market and move out.
Mabry cut down long grass on my property and threw it on to a flower bed.
I received a threatening telephone call: "You get out of there and do it now. Right?"
I received another threatening telephone telling me to get out of my property.
I started receiving many malicious telephone calls, some between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m.
After I had told a neighbour of my interest in satellite broadcasts, an LNB and bracket were stolen from the satellite dish in my back garden
It must have been Mabry who smashed open my side gate when he and five others invaded my back garden, and Mabry and the McCombies assaulted me and told me to get out of my property.

So that, I presume, is the criminal to whom Mr Burtenshaw professes to owe a "duty of confidentiality and duty of care".

Mr Burtenshaw's closing statement I find puzzling. He asserts that had Mabry's statement been used in evidence in court, "it would still only have been disclosed within the confines of that court and not to the general public". Could a charge of harassment have been held in camera, or could a judge have ordered that the evidence be kept secret? Was Mabry told any evidence he gave would be kept secret?

I shall be referring such questions to the Independent Police Complaints Commission whitewashing team when I receive unsatisfactory answers to my second and third complaints, or fail to receive answers to them within a reasonable time.