Report on a Complaints Report

The Independent Police Complaints Commission publishes a booklet, "How to make a complaint against the police". This booklet makes the process sound simple and straightforward. My experience of trying to complain to Sussex Police seemed very different from what the booklet led me to expect. I started sending complaints to the local police inspector in August 2004. They were largely ignored. When the IPCC advised me to send my complaints to the Sussex Police Authority, the Authority passed them on to the local chief inspector, and that was the last I heard of them. When the IPCC advised me to complain to the local Professional Standards Department, the complaints were passed on to the local inspector. I had been arrested and interviewed in August 2004, and had a right to copies of two cassette tapes which recorded the interview. After about nine months of trying to get these tapes, I wrote to the local chief constable on 24th April 2005 and said that I would complain to the Home Office if I did not get the tapes.

When the police ignored the request, I wrote to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to complain. Although I do not think it part of the Inspectorate's job to do so, they kindly intervened on my behalf, as a result of which my complaints were officially recognised. DI Preddy in the Professional Standards Department was assigned to deal with my complaints. A case worker visited me on behalf of the inspector, and interviewed me about my complaints for about two hours. He was courteous, and his approach appeared to be completely without prejudice.

Soon after I was sent my complaints in the form of a Witness Statement, written by someone working for the police. So in Sussex, it appears that complaints to the police should be written by the police, just as Sussex Police insist on writing themselves a statement which a victim of crime wishes to make, and it is common practice for the police to also write the statements of other witnesses. I rewrote the document in the way that I wanted to express my complaints, and emailed it to the case worker on 22nd June 2005. Minor amendments followed, and I was able to sign the document on 13th July. I published a copy of it on my website as www.ggm11.plus.com/witstat.htm, which superseded the previous version, www.ggm11.plus.com/complnts.htm.

On 11th August DI Preddy wrote to say that "my role within Sussex Police is to investigate allegations of breaches of the Police Misconduct Code. This being the case, I cannot investigate perceptional issues such as 'wilful blindness' or 'gross prejudice'."

On 5th September I wrote to the Chief Constable, and said, "Unfortunately the scope of DI Preddy's enquiries will apparently not include the most serious of my complaints . . . I wish to know who else Sussex Police can depute to consider the 'perceptional issues' that DI Preddy claims he cannot examine." That letter was passed to DI Preddy to "deal with", which he did by ignoring my request, so that consideration of my complaints has been limited to matters to which DI Preddy thought the Police Misconduct Code applied.

The report is undated, but I received it on 25th October 2005, with an accompanying letter dated 21st October. It is entitled "Case Summary". It is divided into four sections, Introduction, Circumstances, Investigation, and Observations/Conclusion. The first two sections start with introductory matter, whereas the latter two start straight away with detail. I will examine the more general material first.

In the Introduction, the introductory matter consists of a single misleading sentence: "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." This suggests that the problems that I had with the Mabrys and the McCombies were because there was a disagreement between myself and neighbours over a single subject. This is far from the case, as should be evident as this examination proceeds.

Circumstances starts with a statement that I live in a"3-bedroomed bungalow", which is not true but unimportant, but then more seriously the second sentence reads, "The cause of this friction as best I can ascertain are boundary disputes." The substance here is much worse than the grammar.

When DI Preddy's case worker interviewed me about my complaints, at the end of nearly two hours of interviewing I asked the case worker if he knew what had started my problems with neighbours. He did not, so I told him about how the problems had started. The information is also available in the explanation I gave for the first of my complaints in the Witness Statement on which DI Preddy was supposed to be basing his report. I say there, "Mr Mabry, my next-door neighbour, an ex-policeman, fenced off a 1.5 metre strip of my front lawn in November 1998 in order to widen his drive." There was no boundary dispute, as both our properties were built in 1998 by the same builder, and the boundary between them matched on both sets of plans. Mabry did initially show me a plan for his property which made the boundary look unclear, but it was evidently a forgery as he very quickly fetched the proper Land Registry plan when challenged, and agreed where the boundary was. There was no dispute about it, though over other matters I soon decided that Mabry was the most shameless liar I had met in my life. Harassment from the Mabrys followed immediately, as documented at http://www.ggm11.plus.com/mabrylog.htm

The second paragraph of Circumstances reads: "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'."

DI Preddy has lazily or dishonestly omitted five and a half years' harassment from the Mabrys and some three years' harassment from the McCombies. This had included, apart from abusive language, delivery of more than four hundred items through my letter box, delivery of dozens of goods that I had not ordered, two threats to beat me up, telephone calls between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m., an assault at the end of which I was knocked to the ground, a water bomb thrown at my house, theft of the LNB from a satellite dish in my back garden, and threatening telephone calls. Mabry had told me to get out of my property, Mrs McCombie had endorsed the idea, and when Mr McCombie assaulted me (see next paragraph) he said that if I didn't get out of my property I would have to watch my back constantly. DI Preddy also fails to mention why I put insulting phrases about the McCombies on my website. It was because after Mabry had been calling me "a little shit" and using various other obscene or derogatory expressions since January 1999; after the McCombies joined forces with the Mabrys in 2001 and Mrs McCombie started referring to me as "the little shit"; after the Mabrys and the McCombies had exchanged derogatory remarks about me across my front garden; after Mr McCombie addressed an envelope to "Mad Madden" and pushed it through my letterbox, Mr McCombie had addressed me as "you wanker", and Mrs McCombie had addressed me as "you motherfucker"; after all that PC Wilkinson told me that we have freedom of speech in this country, and a judge in Eastbourne County Court told me that abusive language was a matter for the police. As a consequence, I had to deal with the abuse myself, and being unwilling to shout back at them, I put insulting phrases on my website to act as a deterrent.

The next sentence of Circumstances reads:"This disclosure caused a heated disagreement during which Mr Madden was allegedly chased and slapped by Mrs McCombie."

Although DI Preddy slips in the word "allegedly", I regard this statement as thoroughly dishonest. Not only did DI Preddy have access to PC Francis's version of "my" statement about this incident; he should also have had my own signed statement and a plan of my back garden which showed exactly where I had been assaulted by Mr McCombie, by ex-policeman Mabry, and then by Mrs McCombie after the side gate to my back garden had been smashed open and six people had invaded my back garden. There was no "heated disagreement". The attack on me seems to have been pre-planned. The statement I gave to PC Francis is available at http://www.ggm11.plus.com/statemnt.htm. A plan fairly similar to the one I gave to PC Francis is available here.

There follows a sketchy account of what followed, evidently based on what those who had assaulted me and what the dishonest PC Francis had said. I will comment on some of DI Preddy's observations.

• There were said to be "allegations of assault against Mr Madden". Presumably it was the people who assaulted me who made these false allegations, and there is no indication of who was supposed to have been assaulted and where.

• "PC Francis investigated the matter": It is true that PC Francis was appointed as the investigating officer. On his first visit, when I was trying to explain what had happened when I was assaulted, PC Francis said, "Keep quiet and listen to me" and I remarked that the police sergeant who had been appointed to investigate the first assault on me by Mabry had used exactly the same expression. When shown the damage to my side gate, PC Francis dismissed it as not good evidence that the people who assaulted me had done so after forcing their way into my property. It is not true that PC Francis investigated the matter, except in a token way. Before beginning to question me he said that he was recording that I had been involved in an "affray" (see http://www.ggm11.plus.com/affray.htm), I was allowed to sign a statement, written by PC Francis, but it is obvious from what followed that PC Francis had made up his mind about "the matter" before starting to question me.

• "Due to numerous allegations by his neighbours amounting to harassment". This, like the "allegations of assault", is intolerably vague. I have copies of three witness statements:
1. In Mr McCombie's statement, evidently written by PC Francis, one short paragraph contains the phrases "distressing, harassing and insulting", "disressing and harassing", and "harassing and insulting", conceivably as a result of leading questions put to Mr McCombie by PC Francis.

The next paragraph begins, "On 2nd August 2004 I saw a neighbour I know as 'Tina' who lives in Blatchington Mill Drive. She said to me 'Have you seen the rubbish that mad man has written about you'." Tina goes on to say that she finds the letter I had written to several neighbours "extremely distressing, alarming and insulting".

It is pertinent to point out here the reason I wrote that letter advising neighbours of the existence of my website: I had recently had my side gate smashed in, had been assaulted for the second time by an ex-policeman, and for the first time by Mr and Mrs McCombie, and with PC Francis having been appointed as the investigating officer, it was clear that the police were going to do nothing whatever to curb such criminal activities, and that as a possible safety measure I should make my plight known to neighbours.

Mr McCombie also says, "I have since completed a 'Chronology of harassment by Geoffrey Madden'." As I have not seen this, I cannot comment.

In case one hasn't got the point yet, McCombie (or PC Francis) ends, "I find Mr Madden's behaviour alarming and harassing. It also concerns me that he may have a mental instability, which may degenerate and cause serious harm to myself or my wife. I have also seen my Doctor, as my blood pressure is affected by stress."

There are two other witnesses, who may have been suggested to PC Francis by ex-policeman Mabry, since they do not live in the same road as the McCombies, and Mabry may well have been with them when I photographed two cars on a shared access area outside my property. What did they "witness"?

2. Tina Ann Andrews wrote - or evidence suggests that PC Francis wrote for her - "He appeared to be taking pictures of the visitors to Mr Maybry's. I thought his behaviour extremely odd and to be frank I thought 'nutter'." She said that she had received a letter from me, and "I thought the website was slanderous". She adds, "I thought where Mr Madden says 'hen pecked zombie and fat slob' was disgusting." She also adds, "I have never personally had any problems with Mr Madden or any disagreements. In fact I don't think I have ever spoken to him."

3. Michelle Patricia Curtis wrote her own statement. She said, "I have never personally had any problems with Mr Madden." She went on to say that she saw me photograph two cars and that she had received a letter from me. I can find nothing whatever in her statement about harassment. In what way this is thought to be evidence in a case against me for harassment of the McCombies I suppose it would take the brain of PC Francis to perceive.

I took no pictures of visitors to the Mabrys. Why I photographed two cars is explained at http://www.ggm11.plus.com/carsfoto.htm

• "The reason for these seizures [of my computers and cameras] 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." There was no good reason for depriving me of my property for more than six months, for breaking one of the cameras, for damaging a computer case, for rendering both computers unusable, for losing hundreds of my files, and for causing me to buy another computer and digital camera. There was no question of my denying that I had created my website. As regards "photographing neighbours", had PC Francis examined the website he would have seen the only photograph I have ever taken of a neighbour, a rear view of Mrs Mabry, who happened to be there when I photographed an example of harassment by the Mabrys: Mr Mabry removed a panel from the fence - for the upkeep of which he was legally responsible - between his back garden and mine, evidently in order to intimidate me. The panel was replaced by order of Eastbourne County Court.

I think my property was taken because of wilful blindness, participation in low-level corruption, or sheer dimwittedness on the part of PC Francis.

• "Mr Madden suffers from Stomach Cancer": untrue, as far as Mr Madden knows.

• "On 6th January 2005 the Crown Prosecution Service decided to discontinue the case against him." Mr Madden objected to the notice of discontinuance because he wanted to clear his name and comment in court on the behaviour of Sussex Police, but at a brief hearing the CPS said that they were offering no evidence so the case could not go ahead.

• PC Francis . . . [had] his website shut down because he refused to remove material which his neighbours found insulting and intrusive": This is a lie. PC Francis telephoned me and asked for two items on my website to be removed or changed (see next paragraph). On 11th September 2004 I wrote to the Tiscali Abuse Team, who had allowed me seven days to remove the material from my website: "PC Francis had asked me to alter my record of two things he had said, though they were 100% accurate and true. It is PC Francis who has told me on three occasions that he was having my website closed down."

• "Sometime later in 2005 an officer returned the seized equipment . . . Mr Madden alleges that the Cannon digital camera was irreparably damaged whilst in police custody": Two digital cameras and two computers seized by PC Francis on August 12th 2004 were returned to me on March 2nd 2005. None of the equipment worked. A Canon camera worked after its battery was recharged, but a Kodak camera had been broken, and my computers had been deliberately disabled. I have written twice to the person responsible for the local property store to find out who was responsible for the damage, but my first letter was sent on to CI Matthews, who gave no indication of who was responsible, and my second letter was sent to DI Preddy, and I have heard no more of it. In my second letter, I gave the property store manager leads to follow up: "My own view is that it was likely that PC Francis damaged the equipment, my computers as well as the camera. When I telephoned the police to say that I was concerned about batteries being left in my cameras for such a long time, the matter was referred to PC Francis. My website was closed down by PC Francis because I declined to remove or change two comments I made about PC Francis on it: that he said that damage to my side gate was not evidence of forced entry by three people who assaulted me, and that when he was supposed to be investigating a crime he said to me, "Keep quiet and listen to me." PC Francis had a motive for making my computers unusable. It is also relevant that PC Francis by his own account has some sort of qualification in computing."

I hope to deal with other observations in DI Preddy's report by writing about individual police officers named in the introduction, but there are a few matters in the Investigation section which evade such classification.

• In relation to DI Preddy's claim that my arrest was "perfectly lawful and appropriate", he says "4 close neighbours provided statements of evidence against Mr Madden." I only have three witness statements, two of which seem largely irelevant. The paragraph continues, "Mr Madden fully admitted some of the allegations against him." Absolutely untrue: "admitted" implies some wrongdoing, and I admit no wrongdoing whatever. I have explained clearly my reasons for acting as I did, but the police choose to ignore my explanations. The puzzling reference to "4 neighbours" is repeated in the second sentence of Observations/Conclusion.

• Damage to my property while in police custody:

(a) "When I questioned PC Francis about this aspect [the breaking of a Kodak camera] 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. " Wishing to investigate how my camera was broken, I telephoned the police, and asked to speak to someone in the Hi-Tech Crime Unit. As this proved unsuccessful, I emailed the police with a message headed "For the Attention of the High-Tech Crime Unit at Sussex House". I received a brief reply from something or someone called Fcc: "DETAILS PASSED TO DI PREDDY TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES". I have heard nothing further.
(b) On the subject of financial loss because of police action, CI Matthews said he "would benefit from any relevant receipts of purchase". I was disgusted that CI Matthews showed no interest in how my property was damaged, and I explained in reply that my losses went far beyond anything for which I had receipts. DI Preddy, with complete lack of understanding, quotes from my correspondence with CI Matthews: " '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." I cannot see how I could have explained myself more simply: a police constable deprived me of two cameras and two digital cameras for more than six months. I do not have receipts that put a cost on such deprivation, which was considerable. Further, a receipt would not show that damage was done to my equipment by the police. I did tell DI Preddy what receipts I had and the cost (for a computer case and a Kodak camera), but in letter of 21st October I said that since he had said in his letter to me of 19th October, 'I have no evidence to prove that any damage was indeed caused', "my making a claim to the police for damage to my property by the police at this stage would in all likelihood be futile."

The individuals about whom I complained

At the end if his Introduction, DI Preddy wrote: "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. That letter simply says, "Your statement provides no evidence of breaches of the Misconduct Code concerning Inspector Brown and Chief Inspector Matthews." How disingenuous! I obviously did not include in my statement copies of the correspondence that I had with these officers, and the evidence is in the correspondence. Further, whether consideration of complaints from the public should be limited by a document concerned with insisting that police officers are tidy, sober, and punctual is questionable.

CI Matthews
My witness statement said that I wanted to complain of "CI Matthews, who on the advice of the IPCC had been sent a succession of complaints from me, yet on 22/03/05 seemed completely ignorant of most of them." It was not a matter of "failing to deal with allegations promptly": mostly, he did not deal with them at all. This is just one facet of a totally inadequate provision for dealing with complaints by Sussex Police, for which presumably both CI Matthews and CC Jones are partly responsible. Further, I presume that if PC Francis was at fault, both CI Matthews and PI Brown would be in some degree responsible for encouraging or not preventing malpractice..

PI Brown
My witness statement said that I wanted to complain of "PI Brown, who had been given ample evidence of the harassment to which I had been subjected for years, as any examination of my correspondence with him will testify." As DI Preddy provides no evidence that he has even looked at that correspondence, I expect to be producing my own report on PI Brown (not as part of this report), with quotations from that correspondence. [P.S. My report is now available here.]

PC Francis
My many complaints about PC Francis have been subsumed under two counts of "Failure in Duty", and two counts of "Oppressive Conduct".

(a) (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."

I can find only two sentences in the Investigation section which relate to this matter, the second and third sentences. They say, "PC Francis . . . refuted all of Mr Madden's allegations against him", and "He states he did take into account Mr Madden's allegations against Mr & Mrs McCombie." So for the purposes of a Professional Standards Department report, the word of the person against whom allegations are made is presumably a sufficient basis for judgment, and many pages of evidence to the contrary can be ignored. When first interviewed about the assaults on me, when I tried to explain the history behind the assaults, PC Francis, like the sergeant who was supposed to be investigating the first attack on me by Mabry, said that he was only dealing with the current matter. Wilful blindness is the most serious allegation I am making against Sussex Police, it is a crucially important matter, and it is disgraceful that DI Preddy can simply ignore the evidence I have provided in my witness statement, and rely totally on the evidence of PC Francis. That PC Francis is not trustworthy should be evident from my examination of his transcription of the interview tapes (http://www.ggm11.plus.com/tapes.htm).

My complaint of "Wilful blindness on the part of Sussex Police" applies to this PSD report too. PI Preddy concludes that my complaint about my arrest is "unsubstantiated", invoking "the complaints of 4 neighbours". Which four he does not say, or how their complaints relate to a criminal offence.

(a) (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."

My fifth complaint against Sussex Police is headed "Illegitimate use of a caution", and concerns two attempts to caution me. The above quotation refers only to the second attempt, and in dealing with my complaint DI Preddy gives very little attention to the first attempt.

The comment on this complaint in the Investigation section reads, "When Mr Madden was on bail PC Francis obtained advice from a CPS lawyer who stated that if he did not accept accept a caution he would have to go to Court. PC Francis . . . rang him . . . 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".

The date at the head of this item appears to be wrong. Complaint 5 on the \witstat.htm document on my website specifies 21/8/04. DI Preddy's assertion that PC Francis obtained advice from a CPS lawyer while I was on bail might be at odds with the CPS's own statement to me, dated 11/11/05: "On the 12.8.04 an officer consulted a CPS lawyer at Eastbourne Police station for advice in respect of the allegation against you." 12.8.04 was the day of my arrest. On the second occasion on which PC Francis asked whether I would accept a caution, he said he could arrest me again. That sounded like a threat. I remember no advice about eligibility, and as PC Francis had already cautioned me once such a tentative approach would have been superfluous.

The reason PC Francis telephoned me to check whether I had changed my mind would be better explained with reference to the page on my website, /reasons.htm - PC Francis had strong reasons for not wanting the matter to go to court.

DI Preddy's assertion that "PC Francis had no enthusiasm to see an elderly man with no previous convictions appearing in Court" is hogwash. PC Francis's attitude towards me from 12th August onwards was thoroughly unprofessional in that personal spite seemed to have entered into the relationship. On the first occasion that I had to report to Grove Road police station after my arrest, he insolently greeted me by my forename, a trick that he could have picked up from ex-policeman Mabry, and as I left the station and walked past the town hall, PC Francis shouted after me.

Both attempts to caution me seem to be in contravention of Home Office Circular 18/1994 (see the /witstat page, item 5 on my website for details). The Circular specifies that "The officer administering the caution should be in uniform and normally of the rank of inspector or above", and that "the offender must admit the offence". A Chief Officer could have nominated PC Francis as a 'cautioning officer' though he would have been unwise to do so; but DI Preddy remains silent on the subject. In my witness statement, "I certainly did not admit any offence" is printed in bold. The role of the CPS in this is unclear. According to the CPS's statement referred to in the fourth paragraph of (a)(ii), "The CPS lawyer was informed that that you admitted doing the things complained of. She reviewed the evidence made available to her and advised the officer that in the circumstances you should be offered a caution by the Police." Agreeing that I did certain things is certainly not the same as admitting to having committed a criminal offence; whether the CPS is blameworthy in this repect would depend on how much information the CPS lawyer was allowed to see. I think that if PC Francis was the officer who consulted the CPS, and if he had the opportunity to select the information he provided, the selection of material would have shown gross bias.

DI Preddy's predictable verdict in Conclusion is that my complaint is "unsubstantiated". To substantiate his verdict, he quotes from the text of my taped interview in order to suggest that I liked the idea of using abusive language about the McCombies. The sentence is: "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)'." DI Preddy appears to be so keen to introduce the verb liked that the syntax of his sentence goes to pieces. I said nothing whatever about liking the idea. He also says, "Sussex Police actively pursue a policy of cautioning all offenders." I refused a caution because I am not an offender. DI Preddy's approach here, like his failure to deal with my references to Home Office Circular 18/1994, is reprehensible.

P.S. When after more than a year I managed to get copies of the tapes, it was clear that PC Francis had falsified the transcript, and that Preddy had not bothered to check the tape. What I say on the tape is: "I'm unwilling, verbally, to engage in such confrontation."

(a) (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."

Though the Investigation has two paragraphs on this, my statement at http://www.ggm11.plus.com/tapeform.htm has been ignored. Instead we have, "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."

I do not know what the Criminal Justice Unit is, or where it is. On 26th December 2004 I wrote to the Custody Centre, Grove Road, saying "I . . . have been trying for an unduly long time to obtain copies of tape recordings made by PC Francis of an interview with me conducted in your centre on the day I was arrested.

"First, I telephoned the police, and the matter was referred to PC Francis, who said that I would only be allowed 'text' from the interviews. Dissatisfied, I telephoned the police again, who tried three times without success to contact the sergeant's office in Hailsham Police Station.

"I then wrote to PI Brown, CI Matthews, and CC Jones [11th November 2004]. My letter included the paragraph:

'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.'

"That request producing no pertinent response, I then wrote to the solicitor who had been allotted to my case, and he said that I should write to Grove Road, hence this letter."

In answer, I was telephoned to say that it was thought that the tapes had been given to my solicitor. I was telephoned again the next day to say that my tapes had been given to the CPS. I telephoned the CPS and they told me that I would have to get the tapes from the police."

On 4th February 2005 I wrote to PI Brown at Hailsham: "I wish to make a last formal request to be sent the two cassette tapes."

On 24th April 2005 I wrote to CC Jones at Sussex Police Headquarters, "If I do not receive these tapes very soon, I shall be making a complaint to the Home Office." As I did not receive the tapes, I wrote to HMIC (10th May 2005) about the "lousy" quality of policing in South Wealden.

What PC Francis said about his attutude to my request for the tapes was clearly untrue. DI Preddy claims that I filled in the C165 form incorrectly. I explain on my website page that when I signed the form, PC Francis was hiding the top part of it with his hand (see http://www.ggm11.plus.com/tapeform.htm). DI Preddy writes: "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'." It is not a question of "no doubt": it is certain that even had I been able to study the whole form carefully, I would not have ticked the box marked 'I wish a copy of the tape(s) to be sent to my solicitor' because I did not have a solicitor, and even if I had had a solicitor I would not have ticked that box because I would have wanted to examine the tapes for myself. A solicitor was subsequently allotted to me by the Court without reference to me, as though I were some sort of parcel to be processed, but I soon dispensed with his services. The box which has been ticked would have suited my case, but most of the rubric next to the box has been crossed out and different text substituted. The tick, the crossing out, and the substituted text are not my work.

PC Francis gives as his reason for not supplying the tapes that it was someone else's job, though he did not tell me that, nor did he say that to supply them to me would have been contrary to Sussex Police's normal policy.

According to DI Preddy, "Sussex Police normally only supply such tapes to solicitors for legal reasons." Do they indeed! The Notice to Person Whose Interview Has Been Tape Recorded includes information that I was not allowed to read at the time I signed the form (see http://www.ggm11.plus.com/tapeform.htm). Note 3 on this form reads, "If you are charged or informed that you will be prosecuted a copy of the tape will be supplied to you or your solicitor as soon as practicable. A notice will accompany the tape." I was sent the note but not the tapes. That DI Preddy should say that one cannot "normally" have these tapes is disgraceful. That he belongs to the Professional Standards Department makes matters much worse. Perhaps the county's Chief Constable behaves as though he actually believes the garbage he served up to the Morris Inquiry into Professional Standards and Employment Matters in the Metropolitan Police Service, when he said that the police "exemplify integrity, moral courage, impartiality, duty and honour," and so allows Sussex Police to ignore the Codes laid down for the protection of the public. He would have done better to voice the warning of Commissioner Sir John Stevens, "The threat of police corruption is systemic". The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), Code E, Code of Practice on Tape Recording Interviews with Suspects, 4.19 says: "The suspect shall be handed a notice which explains . . . that if the person is charged or informed they will be prosecuted, a copy of the tape will be supplied as soon as practicable or as otherwise agreed between the suspect and the police." I was not handed the notice: I had to sign it while PC Francis hid the upper part with his hand, and I only received a copy through the post later. I was charged. I did not come to an agreement with the police. I can quite believe what DI Preddy says is normal practice in Sussex, but an examination of my report on my tapes (http://www.ggm11.plus.com/tapes.htm) should be enough to make Sussex Police discontinue the practice immediately. It would be interesting to know what the "legal reasons" are.

(a) (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."

The Investigation reads as follows: " 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."

The name of the website is clearly wrong. The Tiscali Abuse Team wrote to me on 10th September 2004 asking me to "remove the material within seven days" - not "remove any mention of the McCombies". As some of the material on the website had nothing whatever to do with harassment and the police, I sent two emails to Tiscali which remained unacknowledged, so I downloaded the material from the Tiscali server before the time limit was up. So DI Preddy's comment, "Tiscali removed the contents of the site and disabled his account " is untrue. I removed the contents, and was later to close the account myself.
[23-02-06 P.S. I wish to qualify what I said in the last sentence by amplifying it. When I said that I removed the contents I am certain that I did so in the sense that I downloaded the files. When I download email files they disappear from the server, but whether that would happen in the case of my own files I now rather doubt. I do not now actually remember deleting the files, and when I tried to check the site soon after downloading the files was unable to do so as I was denied access to it.]

I wrote to PI Brown (4th February 2005): "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."

As that observation received no response, I changed (at some expense) my broadband Internet provider, and wrote to CI Matthews (4th April 2005): "Exactly two months ago I wrote to Inspector Brown asking that the order to close down my website be rescinded, and that I should be sent tape recordings of a police interview. I have not received a response to either request.

"A letter of 22nd March 2005 from me to Administration at Grove Road, Eastbourne, to find out who damaged my property and with what authority elicited no information whatever.

"My letter to you of 26th March 2005 said that PC Francis gave no reason for having my website closed down, and that I wanted to discover whether the police have a valid reason for proscribing a website which is critical of them. Having received as yet no reply, I have gone ahead and put additional material online."

The "comments" mentioned at the head of (a)(iv) are still on my website at http://www.ggm11.plus.com/police.htm: that PC Francis had said that a bolt ripped from posts by my side gate, a key pulled from the latch, and a bent latch arm were no evidence of forced entry on 24th July 2004, and that when he first visited me and I was trying to explain what had happened, PC Francis said "Keep quiet and listen to me". PC Francis asked me to remove the first comment and change the second to a more polite request. It was after I had declined to do so that PC Francis told me that he was going to have the website closed down.

DI Preddy's Observation/Conclusion section declares, "I find the allegation against PC Francis to be unsubstantiated." The reason appears to be "that the content breached the company's acceptable use policy." While I had seven days' grace, I wrote to the Tiscali Abuse Team about their policy, singling out the following clauses:

"9.5 9.5.1, "We may at our sole discretion immediately suspend or terminate this Agreement or suspend the provision of the Internet Access Services in the event that: we are directed by any competent authority to cease the provision of the Internet Access Services or any part of it;"

"2. Unlawful Activities
"not: a. publishing . . . any material which may be deemed illegal, abusive, offensive, anti-social, racist, distressing, harmful or threatening
b. infringing the rights of others including privacy

"4.Your webspace must not contain: i. content that is illegal, defamatory of, abusive or harmful to others"

Items 2 and 4 are catch-alls, so broad in sweep as to be unreasonable. Is one not allowed to publish what one person might find "distressing"? Such constraint on freedom of speech makes the limits imposed by the most rigid totalitarian regimes seem like dangerous libertarianism. I suspect that it was the first of the above clauses which was invoked, Tiscali believing that what passes for a police force in South Wealden is a "competent authority".

I am as certain as can be that Tiscali would not have demanded the material be removed from my website were it not that the police "directed" the company to remove it, and that PC Francis was responsible for its removal, and that his motivation for doing so was misguided self-interest.

Minor figures
The epithet in the subtitle refers only to the part the following officers play in my complaints. What I complain about is only important in so far as it reflects poor selection and training of police officers, possible collusion in low-level corruption (of which individuals might of course be unaware) and dishonesty when questioned about what they had said and done.

PC Wilkinson
(b) (i) Lack of Politeness and Tolerance

DI Preddy uses the Code's mealy-mouthed expression for the ignorant rudeness I objected to when PC Wilkinson compared my "problem [with Mabry] to a playground disagreement between children".

This is mentioned in an email I sent to the police contact centre, 03 January 2004:

"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."

On January 05 I received a reply to my email from PI Brown: "I am in receipt of your recent e-mail message to Sussex Police concerning the delivery 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."

My reply to PI Brown (06 January 2004) included the following paragraphs:

"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."

"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."

PC Wilkinson's comment about free speech is one of the reasons that I had to resort to insulting remarks on my website.

On the subject of my being accused of childishness, the Investigation says that PC Wilkinson said that he did not say what I said that he had said, and so DI Preddy's conclusion is of course that my complaint is "unsubstantiated".

PC Satchwell
(c)(i) DI Preddy says that my complaint is, "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." My Witness Statement, available on this website, actually says, "I wish to make formal complaints against . . . 6. PC Satchwell, who asserted that a crime had not been committed when a neighbour cut down vegetation in my front garden and threw it on a flower bed because 'grass is not property'." The Investigation says that PC Satchwell explained "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." The Conclusion refers to PC Satchwell as PC Wilkinson, and of course finds my complaint "unsubstantiated".

There were, presumably, two relevant emails available to DI Preddy. The first was sent to contact.centre@sussex.police.uk,
Subject: Criminal damage and aggravated trespass, Date: 24 September 2003 09. The complete message was as follows:

"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."

An auto reply from CHC CHC said "Thank you for your E-mail to Sussex Police. "

I wrote again to contact.centre@sussex.police.uk, Subject: Sequels to my email of 24 September 2003, Date: 30 September 2003. The entire message was:

"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."

I did not ask for a police officer to visit me. I did not ask for Mabry to be arrested. I was merely adding to a long list of actions by Mabry designed to drive me from my home. For the police's attitude to this, see PI Brown's message quoted in (b)(i).

PC Satchwell visited me, unasked, and said that no crime had been committed because "grass is not property", I disagreed, and PC Satchwell said that he would look it up. I heard no more of it.

I think PC Satchwell's behaviour at the time only important insofar as it contributes to the overall picture of policing in South Wealden. I find his willingness to lie more disturbing. The same applies to PC Wilkinson.

PS Boughton
(d)(i)" 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."

According to DI Preddy, PS Boughton had "no actual recollection of the complainant due to the volume of prisoners he deals with", yet he knows that "had Mr Madden requested a Doctor he would simply have put yes and ensured that this was done." I had been woken up, handcuffed, and taken to the police station. I had a medical condition to which I had been able to give no attention that day. I did not know how long I would be a prisoner. I could not accept any food. I said when initially questioned that I wanted to see a doctor, I later told PC Francis that I wanted to see a doctor, and when a Reliance person came at lunch time to ask whether I wanted anything to eat, I had to decline the offer but told him that I wanted to see a doctor. I can easily believe that PC Francis did not pass on the message to the desk sergeant, as he ignored me when I asked to see a doctor, but I cannot see any reason why the Reliance person failed to do so, as he had given me the impression that he would pass on the message. In the recent past I had to be carried to an ambulance because of deficiencies in my diet, and although there was no lasting damage done to me on this occasion, I found the attitude of the police to someone they had arrested disturbing.

Conclusion

So in answer to my eight complaints about Sussex Police, RJ Preddy, Detective Inspector, of the impressively titled Professional Standards Department, chose to address seven topics, all of which he found "unsubstantiated". After a quick initial reading of his report, I told DI Preddy that I thought it dishonest. After careful examination of the report, it is not possible to document the extent and seriousness of that dishonesty, because I do not know whether DI Preddy looked at the evidence that was available and then decided to ignore it, or whether he chose only to base his report on what police officers about whom I had complained had said.

Either way, I think as a report produced by a Professional Standards Department it is a disgrace, and that if the standard of the report can be regarded as typical of the detection work of Sussex Police, then the outlook for victims of crime in Sussex is dismal.

Footnote: to those who live in the South Wealden area, my experience of trying to have my complaints about Sussex Police addressed leads me to offer the following advice -

Writing to any of the following is a waste of time: the local police inspector, the local chief inspector, the Chief Constable, the Sussex Police Professional Standards Department, the Sussex Police Authority, the MP, and the local newspapers.

The only avenues left seem to be the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who I think usually refer the complaints back to the police force complained about, the national press and other media, and of course the courts, though as the courts seem to have a bias towards the police they seem the least attractive option of the three.

P.S. The IPCC should be added to the 'waste of time' list.