Further to are complaints about the police abusing public money

Dear Home Office,

Further to are complaints about the police abusing public money
please note that the police are refusing to answer our information
request, see below.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ha...

Please supply any information that you hold on the matter

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Home Office,

The correct link

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ha...

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Lister Ian (IMS),

I am asking if you hold any information on why the police are not
prosecuting Shorrock for his crimes especially in relation to the
Chris Marshall case now that three judges three court case have
clearly stated that Shorrock has committed criminal damage and is a
burglar as he had no right to be on Chris Marshall's property and
when asked to leave by Chris Marshall he refused. See the You Tube
links below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1FqNbSwRn0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76H64HGWZDY

Furthermore, do you hold any more information on why Hampshire
Police are paying for the judgement against Shorrock with public in
spite of the fact that a number of judges have said that the police
are not liable but Shorrock is. I would also add that I am making
an official complaint about the activities of the police in
totality of all the complaints about Shorrock and we want the Home
Office to investigate as the iPCC ignoring use.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Home Office,

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Note the judge on appeal again states that Shorrock is liable so
why are the police using tax payer's money to pay a judgement
against Shorrock? The public have a right to know why their money
is being miss-used, anything else is a cover up to negate exposing
the activities of the police and Shorrock. Public servants are and
must be accountable to the public.

See the page from the appeal judgement in question. I will be
publishing the full transcript to expose they abuses of public
money and the fact there needs to be a criminal investigation into
the activities of Guy Shorrock in-totality, anything else is a
cover up therefore I would invite the Minister of Justice to set up
a criminal inquiry into the many complaints against Guy Shorrock
throughout the UK. I note the elevated words of justice spoken by
the Minister of Justice now it is time to live up to the words. To
date the Minister of Justice has ignored all of my letters
expressing our concerns. However, I have not received a single
reply in spite of detailed evidence that prove serious criminal
activities that have resulted in serious consequences.

but I just wanted to wrap the thing up. I didn't come here lightly
for fun because it's costs me an ultimate fortune, if we've had a
lot of rain in France it will cost me a hell of a lot more, it
could put months on the job.

256. District Judge White: What I'm going to do is this, I think
there is some doubt as to whether you received the letter, but I do
struggle with why you didn't make yourself available by telephone
or otherwise, simply to say (inaudible).

257. Mr Marshall: Well I did, I did. Well I made a point that Mr
Shorrock ... I said I cannot wait any longer before I make my
business arrangements. I mean these machines, I'll show you, I mean
you can't... this is the job. That's the river. You can't ...
they're some of the biggest earth moving machines in Europe, you
just cannot park them up, it's not a JCB or a mini-digger.

258. District Judge White: What I'm going to do is this, as I said,
I don't think I am satisfied that you did get that letter in
relation to the offer, and the offer has changed and it has become
more generous, that's quite obvious, and because you weren't here I
can see there's been a difficulty. But the amount seems to me to be
disproportionate. Normally you would get reasonable travel
expenses. It seems to me there could have been some savings made.
So I'm going award a global sum of £335, so it will say judgment
for (inaudible) against the defendant (inaudible) claimant... a new
total wasn't it, wasn't it, 380.37, yes?

259. Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir.

260. District Judge White: 380.37, including fees, plus 335. Yes?
335?

261. Miss Cooper: Is that the previous amount Sir.

262. District Judge White: Travel expenses.

263. Miss Cooper: Yes. I think that's what you've just said.

264. District Judge White: It's got to be proportionate to the
amount (inaudible) and it's a relatively small amount of money, I
think it started off at about £75 or £80.

265. Mr Marshall: Well, perhaps you'd like to ask Mr Shorrock why
he didn't pay it.

266. District Judge White: Alright, so that's whatever that is in
total, I'll work it out while we're all here. 380.37 plus 335 is
715.37. Shall I say fourteen days?

267. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes. And perhaps you could ...

268. Mr Marshall: That's what you said last time. I had to send
bailiffs in to the RSPB Headquarters to get it.

269. District Judge White: Sorry, did you say something.

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Home Office,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

28 March 2010
Dear Hampshire Constabulary,

What has occurred to my official complaint?

Please note the enclosed court transcript that proves that Shorrock
admits his fault yet the police paid the judgement that has not
been given against them.

BEDFORD COUNTY COURT

BEFORE:

DISTRICT JUDGE WHITE

Case No: 9BK01887

Shire Hall

3 St Paul's Square

Bedford

MK40 1SQ

8th February 2010

MARSHALL EARTHMOVING

Claimant

- v -

SHORROCK

Defendant

Hearing

Compril Limited Telephone: 01642 232324 Facsimile: 01642 244001

Denmark House

169-173 Stockton Street

Middlehaven

Middlesbrough

TS2 1BY

No. of folios in transcript: 80 No. of words in transcript: 5,794

HEARING

1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16. 17.

District Judge White: Right. The case has been settled, I can see
that, because there's a cheque been offered for the full amount of
the claim, plus costs.

Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir. There seems to be an issue, I've spoken
very briefly ... District Judge White: Yes.

Miss Cooper: ... with Mr Marshall this afternoon and he doesn't
seem to have received the cheque. I don't know if he's seen a copy
of the letter, but that seems to be why we're here today.

District Judge White: (Inaudible).

Mr Marshall: (Inaudible) no money at all. The last letter I had was
from Hampshire Constabulary on 14th December stating that they were
going to send their solicitor here, basically highjack the case and
force me to accept money from the police.

District Judge White: Well, I don't think that's the case actually
because I think the letter is from (Inaudible) Masons who represent
Mr Shorrock I presume.

Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir, that's the letter of 28th January. Perhaps
I could hand a copy to Mr Marshall.

District Judge White: Yes, yes, absolutely.

Mr Marshall: I haven't received ... because I only came back from
France late last night and I've not received anything. Mr Shorrock
...

District Judge White: Well we'd better have a look at that then.

Mr Marshall: And I've just been informed that I signed for this
letter ... that I've signed for two letters ...

District Judge White: Yes.

Mr Marshall: ... by the Post Office. Well I haven't because I
haven't been in the country and I'm ... this card is the Post
Office card. I'm the only person who can possibly sign for any
letters.

District Judge White: You have a box number, don't you? Mr
Marshall: Yes.

District Judge White: How does that work?

Mr Marshall: I...

19. District Judge White: You have to go open it and collect it
from the Post Office?

20. Mr Marshall: No, no. I have to go in there and show them my
card and then they go to the box and pick up any post for me. And I
did tell Mr Shorrock that... or the RSPB that I couldn't accept any
post after 16th January and the RSPB had over a month to actually
settle up and they asked for this case to be ... I didn't want this
to go ahead, but they asked for this case to go ahead. And that's
the last communication I had, was on 16th January.

21. District Judge White: Well let me ...

22. Mr Marshall: Well, the last communication I had was 14th
December.

23. Miss Cooper: There was also a letter of 7th January.

24. District Judge White: Yes.

25. Mr Marshall: And I did notify, I'm sorry, but I did notify Mr
Shorrock on 4th of January at the very latest I had to make all my
travel arrangements and work reschedules.

26. District Judge White: Do you live abroad?

27. Mr Marshall: Sorry?

28. District Judge White: You live abroad did you say?

29. Mr Marshall: No, I'm working in France.

30. District Judge White: You're working in France?

31. Mr Marshall: Yes. It's cost me nearly £7,000 to come here
today.

32. District Judge White: £7,000?

33. Mr Marshall: I've lost five days work ...

34. District Judge White: Oh I see.

35. Mr Marshall: ... and travelling from Bordeaux and back. I've
got four days travelling.

36. District Judge White: Well I can't find the letter now and it's
not a paginated bundle.

37. Miss Cooper: Sir, I've just handed my copy to you.

38. District Judge White: (Inaudible).

39. Mr Marshall: Well I haven't had this, I'm sorry, and nobody has
signed for any post in that Post Office box, so whoever said that
someone has signed it is lying. They can't possibly have signed it.

40. District Judge White: So what's the date of that letter?

41. Miss Cooper: The first one's ... it's 28th January, Sir.

42. District Judge White: I don't think I've got that. I've got 7th
January.

43. Miss Cooper: Ah.

44. District Judge White: I thought...

45. Miss Cooper: There's one 28th January, which is what the
recorded delivery note that I have is for. Those instructing me
sent me that this morning. And there's also a letter of the 7th.
That was just sent first class post.

46. District Judge White: No, I don't think I've got 28th January.

47. Miss Cooper: Ah.

48. Mr Marshall: 28th January. (Inaudible) signed for?

49. Miss Cooper: (Inaudible). In any event, Sir, I think maybe
we're being circuitous in that the offer of settlement has been
made. The matter is ...

50. District Judge White: Yes.

51. Miss Cooper: ... whether it's (inaudible).

52. District Judge White: That's what it is, I've seen reference to
the letter, because I can tell you that, Mr Marshall, that
(Inaudible) wrote to the court on ... well two days ago actually,
in which they said ... they sent a cheque for the full amount of
the claim on 7th January. I'll just check that letter ...

53. Mr Marshall: (Inaudible).

54. District Judge White: Please find (inaudible).

55. Mr Marshall: And the lady says I've signed for it, but I
haven't because I haven't got it. There was nothing in my post box
up until 16th January.

56. District Judge White: Well there's a copy of the cheque
attached anyway.

57. Mr Marshall: Yes. I'm not (inaudible).

58. District Judge White: So you're saying you haven't had the
letter of 7th January?

59. Mr Marshall: I haven't had any letters from ... the last
communication I had was from Roger Trencher on 14th December.

60. District Judge White: It's PO Box 1823?

61. Mr Marshall: 1823. And I'm the only person with this card who
can sign for letters in that box.

62. District Judge White: And then it says "SP11 7ZN", is that your
...

63. Mr Marshall: SP11 7ZN, that's the postcode of the box from the
Post Office.

64. District Judge White: Right. Anyway, they wrote to the court,
as I said, a couple of days ago saying ... confirming that they'd
paid it. We have written on 28th January providing payment in the
full amount of 355. Oh I see, so there's a cheque, you're saying,
been sent for £310 on 7th January?

65. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes. And then the second letter incorporates
the extra £40 I believe it was that Mr Marshall (inaudible).

66. District Judge White: Yes, which I haven't seen.

67. Mr Marshall: And these have all been signed for, have they,
these letters?

68. District Judge White: Well let's have a look at the signatures
then.

69. Miss Cooper: Sir, this is the ... what's provided by the Royal
Mail ...

70. District Judge White: I don't know that they provide, sometimes
it's the postman that signs for these, isn't it?

71. Mr Marshall: No. They can't possibly. Not allowed to. You can't
possibly sign for letters that go to a Post Office box.

72. Mr Marshall: Well perhaps that's to show that it's gone to the
Post Office, Sir.

73. District Judge White: Yes. I think my experience of the Royal
Mail is although you can ask for it to be signed for, they don't
always do that. I can't see a signature on this.

74. Miss Cooper: Well, I believe that's what was sent back to those
who send the letter so that...

75. District Judge White: It may well be. It's probably just their
confirmation that they posted it or something.

76. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes.

District Judge White: Have you had a look at that, have you, Mr
Marshall? Mr Marshall: Well...

District Judge White: That's just... that's what they got from the
Post Office. Mr Marshall: To say that it's been signed for?

81, District Judge White: Well I don't know. If you read it, it
just says ...

82. Mr Marshall: Recorded signed for posting receipt. I mean one of
the conditions is that they ...

District Judge White: Thank you.

Mr Marshall: ... can not possibly sign for business mail that goes
through a Post Office box.

85. District Judge White: Anyway, you haven't signed for it then
(inaudible).

86. Miss Cooper: Sir, the offer is open for acceptance if Mr
Marshall wishes to accept it.

87. District Judge White: The amount is 355.37?

88. Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir.

89. District Judge White: Yes, right, is that accepted? It seems to
be (inaudible).

90. Mr Marshall: I would like some contribution towards my travel
costs for coming here today. Mr Shorrock had over a month when he
paid ... I had to send the bailiffs to the RSPB Headquarters,
because he had such contempt he wouldn't pay the ...

District Judge White: Yes.

Mr Marshall: ... travelling expenses last time.

District Judge White: I think the court fee is included in that,
isn't it, the £100 (inaudible)?

94. Miss Cooper: It is.

95. Mr Marshall: But I shouldn't have to do that sort of thing when
the judge has order Mr Shorrock to pay my travelling expenses, he
just didn't bother.

96. District Judge White: On the last occasion you mean?

97. Mr Marshall: Yes.

98. District Judge White: How much was that?

99. Miss Cooper: It was £80.

100. District Judge White: And that's included in it?

101. Miss Cooper: Indeed.

102. District Judge White: Right, what do you say about the claim
for the expenses for him being here today?

103. Miss Cooper: Sir, well the difficulty is, the first letter was
sent on 7th January and there was a reply from Mr Marshall's
company on 11th January saying that then he was away. It seems, in
any event, if those letters had been delivered, perhaps if Mr
Marshall knew that he was away he could have provided an
alternative address by which means this matter could have been
settled. And, in addition, offers were being made as far back as
December and cheques were sent to settle this matter by the police
...

104. District Judge White: Yes. (Inaudible).

105. Mr Marshall: Made out to the wrong person and for the wrong
amount. And it wasn't the police, who I'm taking action against.

106. Miss Cooper: Sir, the transcript does demonstrate that Judge
(Inaudible) had requested that somebody pay, there is no specific
direction that it be the claimant, sorry, the defendant in this
matter.

107. District Judge White: Yes.

108. Mr Marshall: The cheques were made out to the wrong person and
for the wrong amount.

109. Miss Cooper: Sir, there was a letter sent to a different... to
the right person and it was sent ... the letter was sent three
times ... three letters were sent, I do apologise. So, it's fair to
say that the defendant, in my submission, has made every possible
attempt to settle this matter and prevent today going forward. If
an alternative address had been provided then perhaps that could
have been done. So, I would strongly contest any application for
costs today on the basis that the ...

Mr Marshall: I... I...

District Judge White: Wait a minute. (Inaudible) finish.

Mr Marshall: Sorry.

Miss Cooper: ... on the basis that the defendant has acted
reasonably in all the circumstances and has tried several times to
settle this matter.

114. District Judge White: Okay. (Inaudible) Mr Marshall.

115. Mr Marshall: May I say the cheque was sent to the wrong person
and for the wrong amount.

District Judge White: (Inaudible). This is ... this is the earlier
cheque, isn't it? Mr Marshall: All three cheques were for the wrong
amount.

District Judge White: Apart from the one that ... 355, which is the
right amount?

119. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes. Sir, I believe when the police cheque
was sent the amount wasn't an issue and subsequently the extra
amount, for example, for the key had been added, so thus the amount
has been changing as we've been going ...

120. District Judge White: No, I understand that.

121. Mr Marshall: Why did it go from £74 ... just when I asked him
to pay me £74 to what do you say it is now? Why did you let it get
to that stage? All Mr Shorrock had to do was send me £74. And then
he had the judgment set aside because he wanted prove his innocence
and come here today. I had to book ... we had to change all our
work schedules, I've got proof of ferry bookings made on 4th
January before you've said that you've written to me.

122. District Judge White: So, tell me the dates you've been away
then?

123. Mr Marshall: I actually left ... I had to make all my
bookings, I've got confirmation here, booking date, 41 January, and
I told Mr Shorrock this, I've had to book two ferry crossings, a
return one.

124. District Judge White: So have you been away for three weeks or
two weeks or?

125. Mr Marshall: I left on 16th January. And there's the ferry
port confirmation.

126. District Judge White: So, 16th January you went to France,
yes?

127. Mr Marshall: Yes. And I came back yesterday.

128. District Judge White: I see. And then ... are you going back
to work tomorrow?

129. Mr Marshall: Yes, I am, yes. Saturday night the booking is,
but I'm going to try and change it to tomorrow.

130. District Judge White: Yes.

131. Mr Marshall: Because I've got to get accommodation in this
country otherwise.

132. District Judge White: I see. Obviously...

133. Mr Marshall: I've got photographs of the job, if you're
interested.

134. District Judge White: No, no, no. (Inaudible).

135. Mr Marshall: I mean it's (inaudible).

136. District Judge White: Right. So the hearing ... sorry, the
letter that was on January, I'm satisfied it was sent but you're
saying you didn't get it.

7th

/

137. Mr Marshall: Yes, I can understand that. Well, I can prove I
didn't get it. Well, I can prove it wasn't signed for by me, and
nobody else is allowed to sign for anything without that card.

138. District Judge White: No, I understand what you're saying.
Then there's another letter, you weren't there then of course, but
in theory you should be able to pick it up on the 16th assuming it
was there.

139. Mr Marshall: Nothing in the box on the morning of the 16th,
absolutely nothing.

140. District Judge White: On the 28th there's another letter sent,
and you are here, but this time you didn't get that either.

141. Mr Marshall: I'm not... on 28th January?

142. District Judge White: That's right.

143. Mr Marshall: No, I didn't come back until last night. On 28th
January I've receipts for buying stock in France.

144. District Judge White: I've put here you were away working on
16th January, you returned yesterday.

145. Mr Marshall: Yes, that's right, quite right.

146. District Judge White: So really it only boils down to one
letter, doesn't it, which is the 7th?

147. Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir, but in any event, in my submission,
if the letter of the 7th was sent, there as plenty of time
beforehand, the police letters are at (inaudible).

148. Mr Marshall: (Inaudible) couldn't have possibly legally have
paid the cheque in, because the cheque was made out to me
personally.

149. Miss Cooper: If I could refer you, Sir, to the second letter
of the police, it's behind tab 2, which is the letter dated 9th
December.

150. District Judge White: Yes. I did read through some of these.

151. Miss Cooper: (Inaudible) please now find enclosed a cheque
payable to Marshall Earthmoving. Is that...

152. Mr Marshall: For the wrong amount. There was no VAT listed on
it.

153. District Judge White: It doesn't actually say how much it's
for, does it?

154. Miss Cooper: No. It doesn't Sir but...

155. Mr Marshall: It was totally the wrong amount. I cannot... this
is my business. I can not...

156. District Judge White: Well the letter back says £198.
(Inaudible) 10th December. They sent it again on 14th December for
£198. And then it moves on to 7th January doesn't it? Which ...

157. Mr Marshall: In the meantime I can prove and I did notify Mr
Shorrock on probably 14th December that I would have to be away, if
he didn't settle up within the next 14 days I would have to make my
bookings and reschedule the work arrangements, which I did on 4
January.

158. Miss Cooper: Sir, the difficulty is that there is a letter
from ... on the 11th saying (inaudible).

159. Mr Marshall: So the difference to me is £7,000, near enough,
and a hell of a journey.

160. Miss Cooper: 11th January, after the letter of the 7th.

161. Mr Marshall: And the audacity of it all is that Mr Shorrock
still denies he did any damage to my property, and I've sent the
court a video and I've got a copy here.

162. District Judge White: I haven't got that.

163. Miss Cooper: Sorry?

164. District Judge White: I haven't got the letter of 11th
January.

165. Miss Cooper: Bear with me one second.

166. District Judge White: A very random bundle this. I've got
letters back from Marshall's ... it's a lady, isn't it?

167. Mr Marshall: Yes. Mrs Rosebury, my secretary

168. District Judge White: I've got the letters here for the
Hampshire Police, but I haven't got any ... you're probably
(inaudible) are you?

169. Miss Cooper: Yes Sir.

170. District Judge White: I haven't got that.

171. Miss Cooper: Just one moment. I'm having difficulty at the
moment.

172. Mr Marshall: The situation is absolutely ridiculous over £74.

173. District Judge White: Well, it's a lot more than that, isn't
it, now for various reasons.

174. Mr Marshall: Well, Mr Shorrock would not pay me and he would
not admit that he was trespassing and damaged my lock. He tried to
force his way into my office. He could have phoned me. He's got my
mobile number.

175. District Judge White: Ah. I've found it. It's nowhere near it
should be. Is this the one ... oh no, that's the RSPB. I thought
I'd' found it. Unfortunately not. Thank you. Right. (Inaudible)
same one.

176. Mr Marshall: He's extremely lucky so far I haven't pursued him
for trespassing, the police and Judge (Inaudible) has now admitted
that he was trespassing.

177. District Judge White: Mr Marshall is now not in a position to
receive

communications until his return f travelling directly to the court
case.

communications until his return from abroad on 3rd February when he
will be

178. Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir, that was sent on the 11th. That first
letter was sent on the 7th. In my submission ...

179. District Judge White: Doesn't refer to the 7th (inaudible)?

180. Miss Cooper: No, it doesn't, Sir, but my submission is ...
that letter was clearly sent, whether it was received obviously is
being denied, but the point is that if the ... if Mr Marshall was
going away, in the interests of resolving the matter, an
alternative address could have been provided or perhaps alternative
arrangements for picking up any post, and given the significant
attempts to settle that had been made in the past, it wouldn't be
reasonable on all the circumstances to award to costs (inaudible).

181. Mr Marshall: I wasn't expecting any more post, because Mr
Trencher said he was going to come here and highjack the court
case, basically. I certainly wasn't expecting Mr Shorrock to go and
do something like (inaudible) fighting over £74.

182. District Judge White: (Inaudible) the most bizarre situation
I've ever come across. Who's paying for this?

183. ?: Agree.

184. District Judge White: (Inaudible). So, looking at the history
of it, there was ...

185. Mr Marshall: Well, why was it left from 14th December ... why
was it left until 11th January before he contacts me and attempted
to pay me?

186. District Judge White: Let's have a little look, yes, it all
could have finished before Christmas, couldn't it?

187. Mr Marshall: It could easily ... what... fourteen ... nearly
three weeks to do it.

188. District Judge White: Hampshire saying ... Police saying
here's the cheque, we can pay on your ... on his behalf, that's no
problem. And then the next step is you send a letter, which Mr
Marshall's saying he didn't receive, he doesn't mention it in his
letter dated 11th January, which supports the contention that he
possibly didn't actually receive it, and then he says I'm not here
until 4th February or 3rd February, not in a position to receive
communications.

189. Mr Marshall: I mean I've had to pay for this hearing even in
advance.

190. District Judge White: Well, has the hearing fee been included
in the (inaudible).

191. Miss Cooper: As far as I'm aware, Sir, yes.

192. District Judge White: How much did you pay for the hearing?

193. Mr Marshall: Well, I sent two cheques actually because the
first one (inaudible) just before I went away wasn't ... it was
£25, that was what I should have paid, but I did send a cheque and
I assumed you'd got one of them. I just (inaudible).

194. District Judge White: No, it hasn't been included anyway.

195. Mr Marshall: Sorry?

196. District Judge White: It hasn't been included. You haven't
included that so. The hearing fee was £25 you think, probably was,
yes.

197. Mr Marshall: Yes, but I sent two cheques, but I assume that
you'll send one back.

198. District Judge White: You'll get one back. Well, if you're
accurate they have to. So (inaudible) twenty-five anyway. So that's
...

199. Miss Cooper: Very well Sir.

200. Mr Marshall: I did tell Mr Shorrock that if he didn't pay
before ... in that twenty days, he's got it in a letter somewhere,
that I would pursue him for loss of earnings and travelling, if
this court case goes ahead.

201. Miss Cooper: (Inaudible).

202. District Judge White: 380.37.

203. Miss Cooper: Thank you.

204. District Judge White: What are ... what is the amount you're
claiming for the travel and loss or earnings? I mean loss of
earnings is a bit of red herring to be honest.

205. Mr Marshall: I can't claim loss of earnings because it's small
claims.

206. District Judge White: Yes.

207. Mr Marshall: You know?

208. District Judge White: (Inaudible) pounds maximum anyway, and
that's not being able to work on the day. Right.

209. Mr Marshall: Return trip, I done 700 ... oh no ... a total
round trip to Bedford, I've done 1,114 mile.

210. District Judge White: How did you get here then?

211. Mr Marshall: Sony?

212. District Judge White: You drove all the way from where?

213. Mr Marshall: I drove from Bor ... I've got all the ...

214. District Judge White: And the cost of that is how much?

215. Mr Marshall: Well you pay ... they pay by the mile, but I've
got all of the toll charges, I've got a receipt for everything,
which can be ...

District Judge White: How much is it? Tell me how much it is.

Mr Marshall: Right. I don't know because it's how much ever you
pay. I spent 63.40 Euros, 63.40.

218. District Judge White: No, no. How much is the mileage? How
much is your claim, that's what I'm asking you?

219. Mr Marshall: Well, you paid me 40p last time.

220. District Judge White: Let's assume it's40p, how much is it
then?

221. Mr Marshall: Right. £445.60p. I've got two ferry crossings at
£154.

222. District Judge White: Two ferry crossings, you mean a return
trip?

223. Mr Marshall: A return, yes, I'm going back tomorrow night if I
can, Saturday night, which I've already paid for, I've got receipts
for. I've got toll charges of 63.40 cents, in Euros, which is equal
roughly a pound to a Euro. I've got receipts for one hotel in
France which I had to stay overnight, 92 Euros.

224. District Judge White: Why did you stay in a hotel?

225. Mr Marshall: Because I couldn't make it from Bordeaux to the
ferry without an overnight crossing.

226. District Judge White: Yes.

227. Mr Marshall: And I've got two nights in bed and breakfast in
Dunstable, last night and tonight, and that's evening meal, bed and
breakfast. And that's £160. And that's without what I've lost...

228. District Judge White: Right, tell me about your French work,
how long have you been working in France since?

229. Mr Marshall: Probably two year ... nearly three years now. I
don't always work in France.

230. District Judge White: No. When you do, how long do you work
there for?

231. Mr Marshall: Three, four months at a time.

232. District Judge White: Right. So why couldn't you arrange the
court hearing so that you were in England rather than have to come
back from France?

233. Mr Marshall: Because the court hearing was arranged for me. Mr
Shorrock ...

234. District Judge White: Yes, but why didn't you say, I'm in
France, can I arrange it for another day?

235. Mr Marshall: I did. I did to the judge and he said, well I
can't tell you when it will be. I said, well...

236. District Judge White: I know, but having got the date, why
didn't you write to the court and say, I'm in France, can I have
another date?

237. Mr Marshall: We had. Mrs Rosebury did.

238. District Judge White: To whom, to the court? I don't see that.

239. Mr Marshall: Well, she said I'm unavailable (inaudible). I
mean I can not keep coming back here. I've got to do some work.

240. Miss Cooper: I haven't seen a letter.

241. District Judge White: To whom? To the court or to (inaudible)?

242. Mr Marshall: I'm sorry, Sir, but I didn't quite understand. I
can't...

243. District Judge White: I'm trying to understand why you didn't
ask for the court date to suit your work arrangements abroad?

244. Mr Marshall: Well, I don't know when I'll finish the job.
We're diverting a river. I've got photographs of the job. I don't
know when ...

245. District Judge White: Well how long is it? Years or months?

246. Mr Marshall: Well months.

247. District Judge White: Right, so you could easily say I'll be
available in July or August?

Mr Marshall: I don't know. District Judge White: Well sometime this
year. Mr Marshall: I could have said, yes, let's put it off.
District Judge White: Yes.

Mr Marshall: But I just ... you know, I didn't really think I could
it off, to be quite honest, I thought it was ridiculous that it was
going through ... going ahead when Mr Shorrock had from 14th
December to 4 January to settle up, and that was ample time.

253. District Judge White: Right, any comment?

254. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes. In relation to the letter of 14th
December, no comment was received back in relation to that letter,
so obviously it would take a while to decide exactly how to proceed
and what was going on in any event, and how to proceed thereafter.
Also there must be a duty to mitigate any form of loss,
particularly with a small claim in terms of travel expenses. And in
my submission there must have been some way of this being listed in
a more convenient fashion and for Mr Marshall to take action to
have done that. In terms of the costs, Sir, itself, in my
submission, permitting that, those three hotels all in all plus the
two ferry crossings are unreasonable in the circumstances, given
those factors and given the claimant's various attempts to settle
in the background, that any duty to mitigate has not been taken and
thus if any travel expenses were to be awarded they should be kept
to the bare minimum, as they were last time.

255. Mr Marshall: I wasn't paid enough last time actually because
they got the mileage wrong. The judge said ... I wasn't expecting
mileage, the mileage from Hampshire up to here was seventeen miles
further each way, I know it's not much,

Further to our complaint in relation to the police abusing tax
payer’s money I would add the following:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ha...

Note the judge on appeal again states that Shorrock is liable so
why are the police using tax payer's money to pay a judgement
against Shorrock? The public have a right to know why their money
is being miss-used, anything else is a cover up to negate exposing
the activities of the police and Shorrock. Public servants are and
must be accountable to the public.

See the page from the appeal judgement in question. I will be
publishing the full transcript to expose they abuses of public
money and the fact there needs to be a criminal investigation into
the activities of Guy Shorrock in-totality, anything else is a
cover up therefore I would invite the Minister of Justice to set up
a criminal inquiry into the many complaints against Guy Shorrock
throughout the UK. I note the elevated words of justice spoken by
the Minister of Justice now it is time to live up to the words. To
date the Minister of Justice has ignored all of my letters
expressing our concerns. However, I have not received a single
reply in spite of detailed evidence that prove serious criminal
activities that have resulted in serious consequences.

but I just wanted to wrap the thing up. I didn't come here lightly
for fun because it's costs me an ultimate fortune, if we've had a
lot of rain in France it will cost me a hell of a lot more, it
could put months on the job.

256. District Judge White: What I'm going to do is this, I think
there is some doubt as to whether you received the letter, but I do
struggle with why you didn't make yourself available by telephone
or otherwise, simply to say (inaudible).

257. Mr Marshall: Well I did, I did. Well I made a point that Mr
Shorrock ... I said I cannot wait any longer before I make my
business arrangements. I mean these machines, I'll show you, I mean
you can't... this is the job. That's the river. You can't ...
they're some of the biggest earth moving machines in Europe, you
just cannot park them up, it's not a JCB or a mini-digger.

258. District Judge White: What I'm going to do is this, as I said,
I don't think I am satisfied that you did get that letter in
relation to the offer, and the offer has changed and it has become
more generous, that's quite obvious, and because you weren't here I
can see there's been a difficulty. But the amount seems to me to be
disproportionate. Normally you would get reasonable travel
expenses. It seems to me there could have been some savings made.
So I'm going award a global sum of £335, so it will say judgment
for (inaudible) against the defendant (inaudible) claimant... a new
total wasn't it, wasn't it, 380.37, yes?

259. Miss Cooper: Indeed Sir.

260. District Judge White: 380.37, including fees, plus 335. Yes?
335?

261. Miss Cooper: Is that the previous amount Sir.

262. District Judge White: Travel expenses.

263. Miss Cooper: Yes. I think that's what you've just said.

264. District Judge White: It's got to be proportionate to the
amount (inaudible) and it's a relatively small amount of money, I
think it started off at about £75 or £80.

265. Mr Marshall: Well, perhaps you'd like to ask Mr Shorrock why
he didn't pay it.

266. District Judge White: Alright, so that's whatever that is in
total, I'll work it out while we're all here. 380.37 plus 335 is
715.37. Shall I say fourteen days?

267. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes. And perhaps you could ...

268. Mr Marshall: That's what you said last time. I had to send
bailiffs in to the RSPB Headquarters to get it.

269. District Judge White: Sorry, did you say something.

270. Miss Cooper: Sir, yes, perhaps if we could have clarification
as to exactly where it should be sent.

271. District Judge White: Yes.

272. Miss Cooper: And who it should be payable for, just so
(inaudible).

273. Mr Marshall: To that box number, to the box number. Could I
please ask that you add VAT to that? The RSPB can get it back.

274. District Judge White: Sorry? VAT, no. I'm not adding VAT. It's
not a vatable item.

275. Mr Marshall: It's vatable to me because it's income. I've got
to pay a proportion of that as VAT, because it's claimed through
the business.

276. Miss Cooper: Sir, VAT has been added, that's part of the
settlement figure because Mr Marshall requested it last time ...

277. District Judge White: No, I understand that

278. Miss Cooper: ... but in my mind there's no reason to add it on
to the judgment figure. I have never experienced that in any form
of judgment before.

279. District Judge White: No, I haven't either, so no I'm not. In
terms of the address, yes, it's going to be?

280. Mr Marshall: PO Box 1823.

281. District Judge White: Yes.

282. Mr Marshall: Andover, Hants. And any cheques to be to Marshall
Earthmoving, not to Mr Marshall or C R Marshall.

283. Miss Cooper: Marshall Earthmoving.

284. Mr Marshall: Yes.

285. District Judge White: Well that's the claimant anyway, isn't
it?

286. Mr Marshall: Sorry?

287. District Judge White: That is the name of the claimant.

288. Mr Marshall: Yes, yes.

289. District Judge White: (Inaudible) correct.

290. Miss Cooper: And the postcode, SP11 7ZN, is that right?

291. Mr Marshall: 7ZN,yes.

292. District Judge White: And hopefully everybody can draw a line
under it now.

293. Miss Cooper: Thank you Sir.

294. Mr Marshall: Thank you very much.

295. District Judge White: Thank you.

296. Miss Cooper: Sir, do you wish me to take the bundle back?

297. District Judge White: Oh if you wouldn't mind.

298. Mr Marshall: Sir, would it be possible I could have the video
back?

299. District Judge White: Is that your video, is it?

300. Mr Marshall: Yes.

301. District Judge White: Well, we couldn't play it. Is this
yours?

302. Mr Marshall: Yes.

303. District Judge White: I'll check it is yours. I'm sure it is
yours. You haven't got a video, have you, Miss Cooper?

304. Miss Cooper: No Sir.

305. Mr Marshall: I did send one to the RSPB (inaudible).

306. District Judge White: (Inaudible) their own video. I mean
(inaudible) something different.

307. Mr Marshall: Okay. Thank you.

End of Transcription

We hereby certify that this is a verbatim transcript of the hearing
heard on 4th February 2010.

Compril Limited.

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Lister Ian (IMS),

YOU CAN DO SOMETHING, REFER MY COMPLAINT FOR AN INQUIRY.

Inquiries Act 2005
2005 CHAPTER 12
CONTENTS
Go to Preamble

Constitution of inquiry

1. Power to establish inquiry
2. No determination of liability
3. The inquiry panel
4. Appointment of inquiry panel
5. Setting-up date and terms of reference
6. Minister’s duty to inform Parliament or Assembly
7. Further appointments to inquiry panel
8. Suitability of inquiry panel
9. Requirement of impartiality
10. Appointment of judge as panel member
11. Assessors
12. Duration of appointment of members of inquiry panel
13. Power to suspend inquiry
14. End of inquiry
Conversion of inquiries

15. Power to convert other inquiry into inquiry under this Act
16. Inquiries converted under section 15
Inquiry proceedings

17. Evidence and procedure
18. Public access to inquiry proceedings and information
19. Restrictions on public access etc
20. Further provisions about restriction notices and orders
21. Powers of chairman to require production of evidence etc
22. Privileged information etc
23. Risk of damage to the economy
Inquiry reports

24. Submission of reports
25. Publication of reports
26. Laying of reports before Parliament or Assembly
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

27. United Kingdom inquiries
28. Scottish inquiries
29. Welsh inquiries
30. Northern Ireland inquiries
31. The relevant part of the United Kingdom and the applicable
rules
Inquiries for which more than one Minister responsible

32. Joint inquiries
33. Inquiries involving more than one administration
34. Change of responsibility for inquiry
Supplementary

35. Offences
36. Enforcement by High Court or Court of Session
37. Immunity from suit
38. Time limit for applying for judicial review
39. Payment of inquiry expenses by Minister
40. Expenses of witnesses etc
General

41. Rules
42. Notices etc
43. Interpretation
44. Transitory, transitional and saving provisions
45. Suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland
Amendments etc

46. Inquiries under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
47. Inquiries etc under Northern Ireland legislation
48. Minor and consequential amendments
49. Repeals and revocations
Final provisions

50. Crown application
51. Commencement
52. Extent
53. Short title

Schedule 1
Provisions applicable to inquiries etc under Northern Ireland
legislation
Schedule 2
Minor and consequential amendments
Part 1
Acts of Parliament
Part 2
Acts of the Scottish Parliament
Part 3
Northern Ireland legislation
Schedule 3
Repeals and revocations

An Act to make provision about the holding of inquiries.

[7th April 2005]

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with
the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows:—

Constitution of inquiry

1 Power to establish inquiry (1) A Minister may cause an inquiry to
be held under this Act in relation to a case where it appears to
him that—
(a) particular events have caused, or are capable of causing,
public concern, or
(b) there is public concern that particular events may have
occurred.
(2) In this Act “Minister” means—
(a) a United Kingdom Minister;
(b) the Scottish Ministers;
(c) a Northern Ireland Minister;
and references to a Minister also include references to the
National Assembly for Wales.
(3) References in this Act to an inquiry, except where the context
requires otherwise, are to an inquiry under this Act.
2 No determination of liability (1) An inquiry panel is not to rule
on, and has no power to determine, any person’s civil or criminal
liability.
(2) But an inquiry panel is not to be inhibited in the discharge of
its functions by any likelihood of liability being inferred from
facts that it determines or recommendations that it makes.
3 The inquiry panel (1) An inquiry is to be undertaken either—
(a) by a chairman alone, or
(b) by a chairman with one or more other members.
(2) References in this Act to an inquiry panel are to the chairman
and any other member or members.
4 Appointment of inquiry panel (1) Each member of an inquiry panel
is to be appointed by the Minister by an instrument in writing.
(2) The instrument appointing the chairman must state that the
inquiry is to be held under this Act.
(3) Before appointing a member to the inquiry panel (otherwise than
as chairman) the Minister must consult the person he has appointed,
or proposes to appoint, as chairman.
5 Setting-up date and terms of reference (1) In the instrument
under section 4 appointing the chairman, or by a notice given to
him within a reasonable time afterwards, the Minister must—
(a) specify the date that is to be the setting-up date for the
purposes of this Act; and
(b) before that date—
(i) set out the terms of reference of the inquiry;
(ii) state whether or not the Minister proposes to appoint other
members to the inquiry panel, and if so how many.
(2) An inquiry must not begin considering evidence before the
setting-up date.
(3) The Minister may at any time after setting out the terms of
reference under this section amend them if he considers that the
public interest so requires.
(4) Before setting out or amending the terms of reference the
Minister must consult the person he proposes to appoint, or has
appointed, as chairman.
(5) Functions conferred by this Act on an inquiry panel, or a
member of an inquiry panel, are exercisable only within the
inquiry’s terms of reference.
(6) In this Act “terms of reference”, in relation to an inquiry
under this Act, means—
(a) the matters to which the inquiry relates;
(b) any particular matters as to which the inquiry panel is to
determine the facts;
(c) whether the inquiry panel is to make recommendations;
(d) any other matters relating to the scope of the inquiry that the
Minister may specify.
6 Minister’s duty to inform Parliament or Assembly (1) A Minister
who proposes to cause an inquiry to be held, or who has already
done so without making a statement under this section, must as soon
as is reasonably practicable make a statement to that effect to the
relevant Parliament or Assembly.
(2) A statement under subsection (1) must state—
(a) who is to be, or has been, appointed as chairman of the
inquiry;
(b) whether the Minister has appointed, or proposes to appoint, any
other members to the inquiry panel, and if so how many;
(c) what are to be, or are, the inquiry’s terms of reference.
(3) Where the terms of reference of an inquiry are amended under
section 5(3), the Minister must, as soon as is reasonably
practicable, make a statement to the relevant Parliament or
Assembly setting out the amended terms of reference.
(4) A statement under this section may be oral or written.
7 Further appointments to inquiry panel (1) The Minister may at any
time (whether before the setting-up date or during the course of
the inquiry) appoint a member to the inquiry panel—
(a) to fill a vacancy that has arisen in the panel (including a
vacancy in the position of chairman), or
(b) to increase the number of members of the panel.
(2) The power to appoint a member under subsection (1)(b) is
exercisable only—
(a) in accordance with a proposal under section 5(1)(b)(ii), or
(b) with the consent of the chairman.
(3) The power to appoint a replacement chairman may be exercised by
appointing a person who is already a member of the inquiry panel.
8 Suitability of inquiry panel (1) In appointing a member of the
inquiry panel, the Minister must have regard—
(a) to the need to ensure that the inquiry panel (considered as a
whole) has the necessary expertise to undertake the inquiry;
(b) in the case of an inquiry panel consisting of a chairman and
one or more other members, to the need for balance (considered
against the background of the terms of reference) in the
composition of the panel.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) the Minister may have
regard to the assistance that may be provided to the inquiry panel
by any assessor whom the Minister proposes to appoint, or has
appointed, under section 11.
9 Requirement of impartiality (1) The Minister must not appoint a
person as a member of the inquiry panel if it appears to the
Minister that the person has—
(a) a direct interest in the matters to which the inquiry relates,
or
(b) a close association with an interested party,
unless, despite the person’s interest or association, his
appointment could not reasonably be regarded as affecting the
impartiality of the inquiry panel.
(2) Before a person is appointed as a member of an inquiry panel he
must notify the Minister of any matters that, having regard to
subsection (1), could affect his eligibility for appointment.
(3) If at any time (whether before the setting-up date or during
the course of the inquiry) a member of the inquiry panel becomes
aware that he has an interest or association falling within
paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), he must notify the
Minister.
(4) A member of the inquiry panel must not, during the course of
the inquiry, undertake any activity that could reasonably be
regarded as affecting his suitability to serve as such.
10 Appointment of judge as panel member (1) If the Minister
proposes to appoint as a member of an inquiry panel a particular
person who is a judge of a description specified in the first
column of the following table, he must first consult the person
specified in the second column.
Description of judge Person to be consulted
Lord of Appeal in Ordinary The senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary
Judge of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, or Circuit judge
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Judge of the Court of Session, sheriff principal or sheriff The
Lord President of the Court of Session
Judge of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, or county court
judge in Northern Ireland The Lord Chief Justice of Northern
Ireland

(2) In this section “sheriff principal” and “sheriff” have the same
meaning as in the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (c. 58).
11 Assessors (1) One or more persons may be appointed to act as
assessors to assist the inquiry panel.
(2) The power to appoint assessors is exercisable—
(a) before the setting-up date, by the Minister;
(b) during the course of the inquiry, by the chairman (whether or
not the Minister has appointed assessors).
(3) Before exercising his powers under subsection (2)(a) the
Minister must consult the person he proposes to appoint, or has
appointed, as chairman.
(4) A person may be appointed as an assessor only if it appears to
the Minister or the chairman (as the case requires) that he has
expertise that makes him a suitable person to provide assistance to
the inquiry panel.
(5) The chairman may at any time terminate the appointment of an
assessor, but only with the consent of the Minister in the case of
an assessor appointed by the Minister.
12 Duration of appointment of members of inquiry panel (1) Subject
to the following provisions of this section, a member of an inquiry
panel remains a member until the inquiry comes to an end (or until
his death if he dies before then).
(2) A member of an inquiry panel may at any time resign his
appointment by notice to the Minister.
(3) The Minister may at any time by notice terminate the
appointment of a member of an inquiry panel—
(a) on the ground that, by reason of physical or mental illness or
for any other reason, the member is unable to carry out the duties
of a member of the inquiry panel;
(b) on the ground that the member has failed to comply with any
duty imposed on him by this Act;
(c) on the ground that the member has—
(i) a direct interest in the matters to which the inquiry relates,
or
(ii) a close association with an interested party,
such that his membership of the inquiry panel could reasonably be
regarded as affecting its impartiality;
(d) on the ground that the member has, since his appointment, been
guilty of any misconduct that makes him unsuited to membership of
the inquiry panel.
(4) In determining whether subsection (3)(a) applies in a case
where the inability to carry out the duties is likely to be
temporary, the Minister may have regard to the likely duration of
the inquiry.
(5) The Minister may not terminate a member’s appointment under
subsection (3)(c) if the Minister was aware of the interest or
association in question when appointing him.
(6) Before exercising his powers under subsection (3) in relation
to a member other than the chairman, the Minister must consult the
chairman.
(7) Before exercising his powers under subsection (3) in relation
to any member of the inquiry panel, the Minister must—
(a) inform the member of the proposed decision and of the reasons
for it, and take into account any representations made by the
member in response, and
(b) if the member so requests, consult the other members of the
inquiry panel (to the extent that no obligation to consult them
arises under subsection (6)).
13 Power to suspend inquiry (1) The Minister may at any time, by
notice to the chairman, suspend an inquiry for such period as
appears to him to be necessary to allow for—
(a) the completion of any other investigation relating to any of
the matters to which the inquiry relates, or
(b) the determination of any civil or criminal proceedings
(including proceedings before a disciplinary tribunal) arising out
of any of those matters.
(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) may be exercised whether
or not the investigation or proceedings have begun.
(3) Before exercising that power the Minister must consult the
chairman.
(4) A notice under subsection (1) may suspend the inquiry until a
specified day, until the happening of a specified event or until
the giving by the Minister of a further notice to the chairman.
(5) Where the Minister gives a notice under subsection (1) he must—
(a) set out in the notice his reasons for suspending the inquiry;
(b) lay a copy of the notice, as soon as is reasonably practicable,
before the relevant Parliament or Assembly.
(6) A member of an inquiry panel may not exercise the powers
conferred by this Act during any period of suspension; but the
duties imposed on a member of an inquiry panel by section 9(3) and
(4) continue during any such period.
(7) In this section “period of suspension” means the period
beginning with the receipt by the chairman of the notice under
subsection (1) and ending with whichever of the following is
applicable—
(a) the day referred to in subsection (4);
(b) the happening of the event referred to in that subsection;
(c) the receipt by the chairman of the further notice under that
subsection.
14 End of inquiry (1) For the purposes of this Act an inquiry comes
to an end—
(a) on the date, after the delivery of the report of the inquiry,
on which the chairman notifies the Minister that the inquiry has
fulfilled its terms of reference, or
(b) on any earlier date specified in a notice given to the chairman
by the Minister.
(2) The date specified in a notice under subsection (1)(b) may not
be earlier than the date on which the notice is sent.
(3) Before exercising his power under subsection (1)(b) the
Minister must consult the chairman.
(4) Where the Minister gives a notice under subsection (1)(b) he
must—
(a) set out in the notice his reasons for bringing the inquiry to
an end;
(b) lay a copy of the notice, as soon as is reasonably practicable,
before the relevant Parliament or Assembly.
Conversion of inquiries

15 Power to convert other inquiry into inquiry under this Act (1)
Where—
(a) an inquiry (“the original inquiry”) is being held, or is due to
be held, by one or more persons appointed otherwise than under this
Act,
(b) a Minister gives a notice under this section to those persons,
and
(c) the person who caused the original inquiry to be held consents,
the original inquiry becomes an inquiry under this Act as from the
date of the notice or such later date as may be specified in the
notice (the “date of conversion”).
(2) The power conferred by this section is exercisable only if the
original inquiry relates to a case where it appears to the Minister
that—
(a) particular events have caused, or are capable of causing,
public concern, or
(b) there is public concern that particular events may have
occurred.
(3) Before exercising that power the Minister must consult the
chairman.
(4) A notice under this section must—
(a) state that, as from the date of conversion, the inquiry is to
be held under this Act;
(b) in the case of an inquiry panel consisting of more than one
member, identify who is to be chairman of the panel;
(c) set out what are to be the terms of reference of the inquiry.
(5) The terms of reference set out under subsection (4) may be
different from those of the original inquiry.
(6) The Minister may at any time after setting out the terms of
reference under this section amend them if he considers that the
public interest so requires.
(7) The Minister must consult the chairman before—
(a) setting out terms of reference that are different from those of
the original inquiry, or
(b) amending the terms of reference under subsection (6).
(8) Section 6 applies, with any necessary modifications, in
relation to—
(a) converting an inquiry under this section, or
(b) amending an inquiry’s terms of reference under subsection (6),
as it applies in relation to causing an inquiry to be held, or
amending an inquiry’s terms of reference under section 5(3).
16 Inquiries converted under section 15 (1) This section applies
where an inquiry (the “original inquiry”) is converted under
section 15 into an inquiry under this Act.
(2) The appointment of a person who at the date of conversion is—
(a) one of the persons holding, or due to hold, the original
inquiry (an “original member”),
(b) an assessor, counsel or solicitor to the inquiry, or
(c) a person engaged to provide assistance to the inquiry,
continues as if made under this Act, and for the purposes of
section 12(5) is treated as made by the Minister on the date of
conversion.
(3) Any obligation arising under an order of the original inquiry,
or otherwise in connection with that inquiry, is enforceable only
as it would be if the original inquiry had not been converted.
(4) No rights or obligations arise under or by virtue of this Act
before the date of conversion.
Inquiry proceedings

17 Evidence and procedure (1) Subject to any provision of this Act
or of rules under section 41, the procedure and conduct of an
inquiry are to be such as the chairman of the inquiry may direct.
(2) In particular, the chairman may take evidence on oath, and for
that purpose may administer oaths.
(3) In making any decision as to the procedure or conduct of an
inquiry, the chairman must act with fairness and with regard also
to the need to avoid any unnecessary cost (whether to public funds
or to witnesses or others).
18 Public access to inquiry proceedings and information (1) Subject
to any restrictions imposed by a notice or order under section 19,
the chairman must take such steps as he considers reasonable to
secure that members of the public (including reporters) are able—
(a) to attend the inquiry or to see and hear a simultaneous
transmission of proceedings at the inquiry;
(b) to obtain or to view a record of evidence and documents given,
produced or provided to the inquiry or inquiry panel.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Lister Ian (IMS),

still waiting

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Home Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's
handling of my FOI request 'Further to are complaints about the
police abusing public money'.

I have waited long enough for this information to be released.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fu...

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Lister Ian (IMS),

House of Commons,
London, SW1A 0AA
[email address]
Nick Hardwick
Independent Police Complaints Commission
5th Floor
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BH
Dear Guy Opperman MP and Nick Hardwick the IPCC,
Reference: the Corrupt IPCC and the need for an investigation
Further to our recent meeting and my letters I Derek Canning on
behalf of the British Public and various people whose names can be
supplied who I represent would state that given the enclosed
evidence against the IPCC, that has just been released via the
following hyperlink
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ac...,
there cogently needs to be questions asked in Parliament about the
conduct of the IPCC, there must be a public inquiry into the
incorrect activities of the IPCC, to be polite and the many people
who have been let down by the IPCC must have their complaints
revisited including my complaint that was a complete whitewash and
criminal cover up that did not investigate the evidence that I
supplied including an expert’s report from a world leading expert
that had been used by the police and RSPB for thirty years without
hesitation, until I used him.
It should be also noted that I have sent a letter to the IPCC last
year that has been resent 7 times yet I am still waiting for a
reply. I rightly find this most sinister as I have supplied in the
letter documents that cogently prove that Northumbria police are
not being truthful with the IPCC and yet the IPCC have allowed
Northumbria Police not to investigate my complaints no matter what
the facts are screaming in the face of the IPCC. Very simply put,
if I am wrong or lying then show me where I am wrong or lying and
report me to the police to be investigated however do not just shut
the door in my face and ignore me when I am supplying conclusive
courts transcript and police statements supported by the world
leading expert’s report done a great afford over many months that
matter of fact proves there has been a conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice and the police covering up the crime as it
involves their officers. Turkeys will never vote for Christmas
unless the menu is changed. What we want now is transparency and an
unbiased investigation in totality of everyone’s complaint by one
independent body looking to expose the truth behind the corruption
of the police and RSPB. A good start would be to un-blacklist my
email address so I can email the IPCC to reaffirm our complaints
and to reply to my letters with answers to my questions and that of
others who I represent.
As I have already stated to my MP it should be questioned why the
IPCC have repeatedly refused to supply the information that they
hold on me in relation to various correspondence generated by the
police, the RSPB, Defra, the police report into my complaint and
so. For an organisation like the IPCC to withhold my personal data
in itself should set alarm bells ringing with a paroxysm given the
fact that if there is nothing to hide by an organisation that is
there to help me and other members of the public then why conceal
the truth from me and others? Furthermore, the many times that the
IPCC have allowed the police not to investigate complaints needs to
looked into and the complaints reopened in the public interest in
situations where the complainant is still complaining that they
have not received justice. I am ready to supply conclusive evidence
to the IPCC that prove an individual from the RSPB has conspired to
pervert the course of justice with the express help of the police
or by the fact the police have turned a blind eye. We would like to
have a meeting with the head of the IPCC so we can express our
genuine concerns and to set in motion a criminal investigation.
Please clearly note and consider they enclosed evidence just
released by the IPCC that proves that the IPCC is a vast waste of
public money that cannot be justified given the conduct of the
IPCC, even more significantly they are in breach of their duty of
care to the British Public [me and the people who I represent] and
there is an overwhelming need for a public inquiry into the way the
IPCC repeatedly let complainants down to protect corrupt the member
of the RSPB at the heart of our complaints and the police and to
negate embarrassment in relation to the police and RSPB not to
mention prosecutions.
I want my complaints and those that I represent correctly
investigated and the real criminals prosecuted. It is unacceptable
to send two CID officers to my home to tell me they accept what I
am saying is not lies but to stop publishing the evidence that I
have accumulated over the years on the internet as it is
embarrassing a member of the RSPB. Instead of sending four police
officers to tell me to stop writing to a judge’s private home to
inform the judge how he was lied to I would ask the police to
investigate our complaints and explain where we our wrong and if
they cannot show where we are wrong then prosecute the real
criminals in this national conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice. As stated if what I am saying is correct then the evidence
must be investigated correctly and if I telling the truth then the
people who have lied and perverted the course of justice in the
various cases that I am dealing with should be prosecuted and if I
am not telling the truth then I should be prosecuted for
harassment. Given the overwhelming weight of evidence that I have
supplied I would welcome the challenge to justify my position on
behalf of the people that I represent and myself.
The Police Action Lawyer Group [PALG] has clearly supported what we
have been saying about the IPCC over the years. Given that this
respectable organisation of solicitor has a remit is to be help and
work hand and hand with the IPCC the enclosed documents from the
PALG condemning the IPCC must precipitate an investigation into the
IPCC. A hundred solicitors from the PALG cannot be wrong. The fact
the PALG have chosen to walk out on mass on the IPCC should speaks
volumes. Furthermore if a victim of the police does not stand a
chance with the help of solicitors then what chance does a person
stand who does not have a solicitor to help him or her?
Nick Hardwick I have noted with interest that your letter in
response to the condemning complaint by the Police Action Lawyer
Group does not actually address the fundamental question of why
people are being denied justice by the IPCC. It would seem that you
however admit that more needs to be done and there has been
mistakes made in the past that have caused concern. There have been
mistakes made in the past however you seem to want to buried the
mistakes and start again however that does need address the needs
of my case and those that I represent even though the complaints go
back to the bad old days as we want justice and not to be swept
under the IPCC carpet so not to embarrass the IPCC. If we could
have a meeting with you we would be delighted to express our
concerns. As the Police Action Lawyer Group have no reason to lie
or cover things up unlike the IPCC please supply all the
information that you hold on what has been done to address the
complaints of the Police Action Lawyer Group.
It is time to live up to the fine words spoken by our MPs and the
IPCC in relation to helping they ignored and people that have been
victimised. Up to now words are cheap and meaningless as action is
needed. I look forward to your response as I am one of the ignored
people that you claim to want to help along with the people that I
represent

Yours with kind regards.

Derek Canning LLB[hons]