IPCC Case Results

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,
I note from news reports that a Court hearing relating to Chief
Inspector Jamie Jones of West Midlands Police was due to be heard
in August 2009, and that the issue was also being referred to the
IPCC.I cannot find any outcome in the media, and I would appreciate
any details that you hold regarding your investigation and the
outcome of the case.Please advise also if you display details of
the list of cases under investigation, or completed, anywhere on
your website, and if you routinely supply such information to the
Home Office or any Government agency, and, if so, how often such
reports are made.

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon

Dear Athena Cass,I appreciate that you may be busy, but your
response is now overdue.My FOI should be VERY EASY to complete as
it does not involve extensive research or collation of data.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,
You are clearly now in breach of the law regarding FOI, and unless
I receive completion within 24 hours I shall consider this to be
deliberate obstruction.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Dear Athena Cass,

I have read to-day that the case involving p.c Jamie Jones, who was
the driver involved in a hit and run incident, was concluded
yesterday at Shrewsbury Court.

The details were only vaguely described in the media, but as the
IPCC have the full account I simply require to know if p.c Jones
was at any time given a breathalyser test and, if so, what was the
result of the test.

It is in the public interest to know if normal procedures were
implemented because not even the police should be above the law.

Although you are busy the response should be easy to find within
your files.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Johnston,

Thank you for your reply in which you confirm you have details of
the breathalyser result, which was not mentioned in the newspaper
article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....

Just to clarify the issue, Mr Jones apparently drove home with his
broken and blood covered windscreen and called the police to attend
his house to discuss the possibility he may have hit a post.

Presumably the breathalyser test was done by the attending
officers, but please confirm the time the test was done.Please
confirm if Mr Jones was arrested for potentially leaving the scene
of an accident, or was he requested to voluntarilary attend a
specific police station the following day to provide a statement.

In the interests of transparency I would appreciate a very brief
summary of events to ensure due process was followed.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Phil Johnston,

Thank you for the reply.

The circumstances of this case are confusing to me, and now that my
request is being dealt with I would appreciate final clarification
of the facts.

It seems very curious that someone who pulls over and finds that
his broken windscreen is covered in blood would not have returned
to the scene of the incident to discover what had caused the
damage.Common-sense indicates that the driver `failed to stop` yet
the Judge may have come to a different conclusion.

The newspaper reports that the collision occurred in the early
hours of Sunday March 8th 2009 and you advise that the driver was
arrested about 7 hours later.

For convenience, and to conclude my enquiry,I will enumerate the
details required.

Q1.What time was the collision reported, by a member of the public,
to the police?

Q2.What time did Mr Jones report the collision to the police?

Q3.The police attended Mr Jones home at 2.25am Sunday and completed
a breathalyser test which was negative.What type of test was used,
and if it was digital what were the readings?

Q4.Mr Jones was taken voluntarilary to the police station.Please
advise which police station he was taken to and the time he arrived
there.

Q5.Please advise the time when he commenced his statement and when
it was completed.

Q6.Please advise if his solicitor was present when he was arrested
at 9.20am, who was the arresting officer, and what were the
accusations stated for his arrest?

Q7.Did he have any passenger in the car and were they called as
witnesses?

Q8.After his arrest, when was he released from police custody?

Q9.At the Court Trial was he tried by Jury, who was the Judge, what
were the charges and what were the verdicts for each charge?

I know that the police keep meticulous records and that it is
important that Justice is unbiased and seen to be done, so I would
like the answer to each question to appreciate the time line and
procedures.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Johnston,
Thank you for your reply.
I am surprised that so much information is missing, classed as
`information not held`, as I presumed the IPCC review would have
been in depth.

I note that you hold no information as to the time that Mr Jones
was taken to the police station or the time that his statement was
commenced and completed, but I am curious to know if the
information was ever held.

To provide final clarification please advise if the IPCC received a
copy of the statement and, if so,what happened to it.
Please advise if police statements normally have the date and time
marked on them.
Please advise if you have any information as to why the charge
alleging `failing to stop` was dropped when the evidence seems so
obvious.
Please advise, in general terms,how the IPCC conducts an
investigation and which aspects are reviewed.

Thanking you in advance for final clarification,

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Phil Johnston,

Thank you for confirming that the IPCC did not really get involved
in the enquiry but simply rubber-stamped the result of "the police
Professional Standards Department under their own direction".

Quote"It was considered that there would be some benefit and
reassurance from IPCC involvement from a guardianship viewpoint and
this could be achieved through supervision".

I had a complaint `processed` by the West Midlands Police
Professional Standards Department, because I considered I was
framed for an alleged motoring offence, and the result was a
complete fake with final conclusion `not enough evidence`.

`Not enough evidence` means that the evidence was never found for
or had been destroyed, or the officers concerned had taken `early
retirement`.

I am not impressed by these ploys, especially as the future pension
liabilities for these `early retirees` is causing massive damage to
the economy, and justice should be seen to be done.

I have redirected my enquiry to the CPS as to why the charges of
`failing to stop` were dropped at the last minute despite the
overwhelming evidence of witnesses.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon