Dear Staffordshire Police and Crime Commissioner,
I note from your website that,quote" A one day tribunal was held today(26th February 2019) in Stoke-on-Trent in relation to PC Zoe Cullen.Zoe Cullen appealed a finding of gross misconduct resulting in dismissal by a Chief Constable’s Special Case Hearing, on October 17, 2018.Today the appeal was upheld by the tribunal and a final written warning given to Zoe Cullen, who will now be reinstated as a Police Constable at Staffordshire Police".
The result was reported in the media.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi...
This overturns the opinion of Gareth Morgan, chief constable of Staffordshire Police,who said in October 2018 that "Officers and staff are held to a high standard which the public rightfully expect.It is clear this officer has fallen below the standard expected and the circumstances warranted her dismissal with immediate effect."
https://www.staffordshire-live.co.uk/new...
The Hanley police officer had plenty of time to prepare the excuses for her initial misconduct hearing before the Chief Constable,subsequent to her arrest on January, 6th 2018,her conviction and disqualification from driving on August 9 2018 at Derby Magistrate's Court, but there has been no explanation as to why the judgement of CC Morgan has been overturned,and therefore requires disclosures in the public interest to restore trust.
FOI Q1.Which Police Force arrested pc Cullen, and was the breath test completed as part of a routeine road stop or as a result of an accident or perceived dangerous driving.
FOI Q2.Apparently the `Tribunal` upheld the appeal and a final written warning was issued instead.Please confirm the names of the people who comprised the `Tribunal`, who Chaired the occasion,and did the Chief Constable, who already knew all facts in detail, provide a verbal contribution to the proceedings to explain his judgement?
Please confirm who issued and signed the `final warning`and how long the copy of the`final warning`will remain on Ms Cullen`s record.
FOI Q3.Please confirm if the `Tribunal`are required to officially inform the Chief Constable of their reasoning and verdict in writing and,if so,please provide disclosure of the correspondance so that the transparency of the process can be seen.
End of FOI requests.
Thank you in anticipation,the police obviously do not operate double standards so clarifications are in the public interest.

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

PFCC, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

1 Atodiad

 

Acknowledgement of your email to the Staffordshire Commissioner’s Office

 

Thank you for your email, this is an automated reply to confirm that your
email has been received.  As you will appreciate, we receive a high volume
of emails, letters and phone calls each day, therefore please allow ten
working days for a response. 

 

If you are wishing to report a crime then please contact 101, or if it is
an emergency 999.  If you need the answer to a policing question, [1]click
here to visit ‘ask the police’ page.

 

Keeping your personal information safe and secure is a priority to us.
When you voluntarily provide information, we will collect personal data
from you.  This could be when you contact us with enquiries, respond to
one of our surveys, register for access to the commissioner’s website, or
sign up to receive our newsletters.

 

We would like to continue contacting you in the ways you have already
requested, however you can choose to opt out, or change the preferences
you originally selected by emailing the office at
[2][email address]

 

Please be assured we value your personal information.  You can read our
privacy policy and find out more about how we manage your data on our
website [3]https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/privacy/

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact the Staffordshire Commissioner’s
Office.  You may be able to find information to resolve your enquiry on
the Commissioner’s website which can be found here:
[4]https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

 

If you would like to stay up to date with the work the office does, you
can sign up to our e-newsletter here:
[5]https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/news/u...

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/@1....
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/privacy/
4. https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/
5. https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/news/u...

Hannah Bladon, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

3 Atodiad

Dear Mr Fallon,

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. Please see attached our
response.

 

Kind Regards,

Hannah

 

Hannah Bladon

Business Support Officer

 

Staffordshire Commissioner’s Office

Ground Floor, Block 9

Weston Road

Stafford

ST18 0YY

 

Tel: 01785 232385

 

Twitter: @StaffsPFCC

OPCC Website: [1]www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

 

[2]CMYK Logo Temp (Print)

 

**OFFICIAL**

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/

Dear Staffordshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Staffordshire Police and Crime Commissioner's handling of my FOI request 'Drink Driver pc Zoe Cullen reinstatment'.
There is no ongoing issue with your refusal to disclose information regarding FOI Q1 because independent media sources report that Ms Cullen was arrested in the early hours of January 6 2018 very near her home in Leek,therefore the arresting force was Staffordshire, and the force were called out specially as her driving was of concern and she was well over the alcohol limit by reading 59mg/100ml at a roadside test.
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/...

There is no issue with the response to the first part of FOI Q2 where you confirm that the the Panel was comprised of three members, as required by legislation, being two women,namely Ms Sara Fenoughty (Legally Qualified Chair), and Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Gilmer ( newly appointed ACC South Wales Police), and a gentleman Mr Steven Douglass(who is probably a retired Police Inspector of the same name from Warminster,Wiltshire, Police Area), but obviously it is a little concerning that the panel overruled the judgement of the Chief Constable, Gareth Morgan,due to lack of detail in his written statements,without providing any further opportunity for him to clarify his reasoning.
I wish to appeal your apparent lack of knowledge regarding the second part of FOI Q2,namely "Please confirm who issued and signed the `final warning`and how long the copy of the`final warning`will remain on Ms Cullen`s record" because your PCC website quoted on February 26, 2019 that "Today the appeal was upheld by the tribunal and a final written warning given to Zoe Cullen, who will now be reinstated as a Police Constable at Staffordshire Police",which seems to imply that the PCC is convinced the final written warning has been given, so he must be aware who gave it.
https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/police...

There is the obvious assumption that the Chief Constable is responsible for issuing warnings but the OPCC should know and be able to advise if the warning was issued by the CC or some other delegated person, as well as the actual duration of the `final`warning`which,as far as I know,are cancelled after a certain time.
It is wrong for the PCC to state that a warning has been given without anyone being identified as to have given the warning or been instructed to give the warning.

Thanking you in anticipation of clarifying the final details, if you do not actually hold the information you can respond to it as a request for general public information.

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

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

PFCC, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

3 Atodiad

 

Acknowledgement of your email to the Staffordshire Commissioner’s Office

 

Thank you for your email, this is an automated reply to confirm that your
email has been received.  As you will appreciate, we receive a high volume
of emails, letters and phone calls each day, therefore please allow ten
working days for a response. 

 

If you are wishing to report a crime then please contact 101, or if it is
an emergency 999.  If you need the answer to a policing question, [1]click
here to visit ‘ask the police’ page.

 

Keeping your personal information safe and secure is a priority to us.
When you voluntarily provide information, we will collect personal data
from you.  This could be when you contact us with enquiries, respond to
one of our surveys, register for access to the commissioner’s website, or
sign up to receive our newsletters.

 

We would like to continue contacting you in the ways you have already
requested, however you can choose to opt out, or change the preferences
you originally selected by emailing the office at
[2][email address]

 

Please be assured we value your personal information.  You can read our
privacy policy and find out more about how we manage your data on our
website [3]https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/privacy/

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact the Staffordshire Commissioner’s
Office.  You may be able to find information to resolve your enquiry on
the Commissioner’s website which can be found here:
[4]https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

 

If you would like to stay up to date with the work the office does, you
can sign up to our e-newsletter here:
[5]https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/news/u...

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/@1....
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/privacy/
4. https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/
5. https://staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk/news/u...

Veronica Powell, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

1 Atodiad

Mr Fallon

Please find attached our response in terms of your request for Internal Review

Regards

Veronica Powell
Office Manager/Executive Assistant to:

Matthew Ellis –  Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Sue Arnold – Deputy Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Glynn Dixon – Chief Executive

Staffordshire Commissioners Office
Ground Floor Block 9
Weston Road
Stafford
ST18 0YY

Tel: 01785 232270

Twitter: @StaffsPFCC
OPCC Website: www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

**OFFICIAL**

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Veronica Powell,
Just as a final clarification,as you apparently hold no hard copy information in writing, please advise on how the OPP became aware of the information required to produce the announcement on their website regarding this issue, was the announcement generated on hearsay and,if so,who was the source?

Thanking you in anticipation of final simple clarification.
Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Veronica Powell, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

Dear Mr Fallon

With reference to your email in terms of how we became aware of the result of the tribunal in order to place it on the website. The Commissioners Office were first hand recipients to the outcome and the statement was supported by an audio recording.

“Well thank you very much for your patience everybody, for the tape it’s just after three fifteen, the decision we’re going to write over the next couple of days and write up and send it to you in the usual way but I’m not going to say anything of any great length, I’m just going to tell you the outcome, the outcome is that the appeal is upheld and the outcome of final written warning is substituted”

Kind Regards

Veronica Powell
Office Manager/Executive Assistant to:

Matthew Ellis –  Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Sue Arnold – Deputy Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Glynn Dixon – Chief Executive

Staffordshire Commissioners Office
Ground Floor Block 9
Weston Road
Stafford
ST18 0YY

Tel: 01785 232270

Twitter: @StaffsPFCC
OPCC Website: www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

**OFFICIAL**

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd dennis fallon anodiad ()

The police officer was represented by Colin Banham,a barrister from No5 Chambers and Keith Jervis of the Police Federation,and the prosecution appears to be Nicholas Walker of Exchange Chambers,who is also qualified as Legally Qualified Chair for misconduct hearings.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/colin-banham...
https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/wp-co...
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/sto...

Dear Veronica Powell,
Thank you for your response,both you and I would like to see closure of this request FOI/OPCC/11/2019 but unfortunately your choice of words fail to convey the reality of the post appeal communications.
The scenario for the appeal has been clarified,it was held at the Moat House hotel with a barrister, Colin Banham,and Keith Jarvis of the Police Federation representing the appellant and a legal person called Nicholas Walker representing the Chief Constable,who was not there, and the adjudicating panel consisted of two police personnel,namely Jenny Gilmer,newly appointed ACC South Wales Police and Steven Douglass, a retired police officer,and was chaired by a Legally Qualified Chair Sara Fenoughty.
Colin Banham appears to have produced no new material for the appeal,relying on various legal precedent arguments which were cleverly negated by the arguments of Nicholas Walker, and Keith Jarvis of the Police Federation pleaded that the appellant was only just over the alcohol limit when,in reality,she was nearly twice the drink-drive limit and driving around in the middle of the night, shouting abusively and banging on an expartners front door.
Obviously,based on the evidence, the Chief Constable Gareth Morgan judged this behavious to be unacceptable for any member of his Force but,immediately after lunch at the hotel,at 3.15pm,the LQC Sara Fenoughty concluded the mitigating stories she had heard merited reinstatement.
I appreciate that the OPCC do not know the reality of the appeal hearing,but your Information Officer David Morris is fundamental in receiving and relaying the information regarding the result of the appeal and your responses on this aspect are still confusing and incomplete.
Clarification point 1.
Apparently on 04 March 2019 09:14 , a week after the appeal, your Information Officer David Morris sent official notification of the appeal conclusion to selected notificants,but none of these people appear to be the Chief Constable himself.The identified notificants are Philip Duffy,Caroline Coombe,Nicholas Baker,and Justin Kenny.QUOTE" The tribunal allows the appeal, and sets aside the decision of the Chief Constable to dismiss the appellant. It determines that the appropriate outcome in the appellant’s case is a Final Written Warning".Please clarify the roles of the 4 named notificants and confirm which of them is supposed to notify the Chief Constable,and advise why he was not directly notified himself.
Clarification point 2.
Regarding your response of 11 April 2019, QUOTE "With reference to your email in terms of how we became aware of the result of the tribunal in order to place it on the website. The Commissioners Office were first hand recipients to the outcome and the statement was supported by an audio recording".
“Well thank you very much for your patience everybody, for the tape it’s just after three fifteen, the decision we’re going to write over the next couple of days and write up and send it to you in the usual way but I’m not going to say anything of any great length, I’m just going to tell you the outcome, the outcome is that the appeal is upheld and the outcome of final written warning is substituted.”
Please clarify how this apparently strange system works, I presumed that the information would have been immediately conveyed by reliable hard copy email instead of having to wait several days for the final report.It appears that the sender,probably the panel Chair Sara Fenoughty presumed that her phonecall to the OPCC was being recorded,"for the tape",but how did she know it was being recorded,was it actually recorded on tape or some other media,and who had the responsibility,and when and how,of informing the Chief Constable that he had been overruled?
END OF CLARIFICATION POINTS.
The Appeal and communications process seems to be very strange so,in the public interest,I would appreciate final clarification of how the process works because it appears strange a very important element in the process appears to have been ignored.

I am not being vexatious,I am just trying to clarify released information that does not make clear sense.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Veronica Powell, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Fallon

Thank you for your email regarding the above. Documented below is our responses which hopefully provides you with sufficient clarification

Clarification point 1.
Apparently on 04 March 2019 09:14 , a week after the appeal, your Information Officer David Morris sent official notification of the appeal conclusion to selected notificants, but none of these people appear to be the Chief Constable himself. The identified notificants are Philip Duffy, Caroline Coombe, Nicholas Baker, and Justin Kenny. QUOTE" The tribunal allows the appeal, and sets aside the decision of the Chief Constable to dismiss the appellant. It determines that the appropriate outcome in the appellant’s case is a Final Written Warning". Please clarify the roles of the 4 named notificants and confirm which of them is supposed to notify the Chief Constable, and advise why he was not directly notified himself.

For clarification, the full written decision was not provided at the conclusion of the PAT, as stated by the Chair, and only a verbal decision was made at that time. That decision was conveyed by David Morris, by phone, to the Commissioner’s Office immediately following the hearing. David Morris was in attendance at the hearing. A representative of Staffordshire Police’s Human Resources was also present, who notified Staffordshire Police as well as the Respondent’s Counsel, who represented the Chief Constable. The decision was followed up by a formal email, the next morning on 27 February 2019 (07:59), by David Morris to the relevant people listed. The full decision was written up by the Chair over the following three working days and by the beginning of the 4th working day Monday 4 March 2019 the Commissioner’s Office was able to distribute it to the relevant people.

Philip Duffy – Superintendent, Head of Professional Standards Unit and Appropriate Authority acting on behalf of the Chief Constable
Nicholas Baker – Deputy Chief Constable
Caroline Coombe – Head of People Services
Justine Kenney – Director of People and Resources

Clarification point 2.
Regarding your response of 11 April 2019, QUOTE "With reference to your email in terms of how we became aware of the result of the tribunal in order to place it on the website. The Commissioners Office were first hand recipients to the outcome and the statement was supported by an audio recording".
“Well thank you very much for your patience everybody, for the tape it’s just after three fifteen, the decision we’re going to write over the next couple of days and write up and send it to you in the usual way but I’m not going to say anything of any great length, I’m just going to tell you the outcome, the outcome is that the appeal is upheld and the outcome of final written warning is substituted.”

Please clarify how this apparently strange system works, I presumed that the information would have been immediately conveyed by reliable hard copy email instead of having to wait several days for the final report. It appears that the sender, probably the panel Chair Sara Fenoughty presumed that her phonecall to the OPCC was being recorded, "for the tape", but how did she know it was being recorded, was it actually recorded on tape or some other media, and who had the responsibility, and when and how, of informing the Chief Constable that he had been overruled?

For clarification, there was no phone call, the Police Appeals Tribunal is routinely audio recorded, the Chair was clarifying, for the record, the time that she made her determination. That decision was conveyed by David Morris to the Commissioner’s Office immediately following the hearing. A representative of Staffordshire Police’s Human Resources was also present, who notified Staffordshire Police as well as the Respondent’s Counsel, who represented the Chief Constable.

For clarification, the full written decision was not provided at the conclusion of the PAT, as stated by the Chair, and only a verbal decision was made at that time. That decision was conveyed by David Morris, by phone, to the Commissioner’s Office immediately following the hearing. David Morris was in attendance at the hearing. The decision was followed up by a formal email, the next morning on 27 February 2019 (07:59), by David Morris to the relevant people listed. The full decision was written up by the Chair over the following three working days and by the beginning of the 4th working day Monday 4 March 2019 the Commissioner’s Office was able to distribute it to the relevant people.

The Appeal and communications process seems to be very strange so, in the public interest, I would appreciate final clarification of how the process works because it appears strange a very important element in the process appears to have been ignored.

The process is found in two Statutory Instruments, The Police Appeals Tribunal 2012 No. 2630 and The Police Appeals Tribunal 2015 No. 626. They have been attached to assist your enquiry.

Of course if I can be of any further assistance please let me know.

Kind Regards

Veronica Powell
Office Manager/Executive Assistant to:

Matthew Ellis –  Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Sue Arnold – Deputy Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Glynn Dixon – Chief Executive

Staffordshire Commissioners Office
Ground Floor Block 9
Weston Road
Stafford
ST18 0YY

Tel: 01785 232270

Twitter: @StaffsPFCC
OPCC Website: www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

**OFFICIAL**

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd dennis fallon anodiad ()

Prior to the new Chief Constable arriving,Staffordshire Police were reported to be out of control, so it is important to see why his authority was overruled in this case.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...

Dear Veronica Powell,
Thank you for providing some clarifications regarding the requested internal review.
I still have concerns about how my FOI Q1 was totally blocked by applying section 32(2a) of the FOIA,implying that the PCC has a duty not to reveal information contained within Court documents.
A local newspaper has most of the Court proceedings printed in detail to try to explain the many ways the Chief Constable had apparently been wrong in his judgement, and justify him being overruled by the trio of the qualified Chair,Sara Fenoughty and the police based panelists.
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/she...
The details are reiterated in the Official PAT report, and the appellant`s solicitor was confident enough to state,in part 20, that "Mr Banham submitted that right minded members of the public, with full knowledge of her case, would consider that dismissal of the appellant was neither fair nor proportionate.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5...
Sadly,Mr Banham is misguided in his opinion about what the right minded public(RMP) think, and some people might even think that the Chair was deceived into allowing the appeal, making her judgement on the basis of misleading or incomplete evidence.
The various ` mitigating factors` which the Chief Constable is accused of not taking into account are listed in part 18 of the PAT report.
RMP might think that the main excuse`fleeing domestic violence`(points i-iii)was unjustified in that she had repeatedly returned to her alleged violent new partner and never reported the alleged serious offences, and on the night in question she was simply sneaking out whilst her new partner was asleep and did not need to drive anywhere to escape.
RMP might question the mitigating points made that because she pleaded guilty and received the minimum magistrates sentance this was in her favour, when RMP know she pleaded not guilty at the original hearing but was faced with overwhelming evidence.
RMP might consider that the `exceptional circumstances` that the Chief Constable failed to consider are very ropey and, sadly, it is a failure in the PAT report that the actual circumstances are not explained properly and therefore the report is unbalanced.
The clarification is required regarding PAT report section 18" Mr Banham said the Chief Constable had failed to take into account the following factors iv. The vehicle was driven less than 500 yards; v. Ms Cullen stopped and waited for the police to arrive".
The confusion arises from the veracity of the comment made to the Chair that the drink-driving was only for a distance of less than 500 yards, yet the surrounding evidence implies she knew she was intoxicated earlier in the evening so she responsibly took a taxi to and from her expartner`s house ,then when she came back she alarmed her children with her erratic behaviour, who then phoned her expartner to help take them away and then, somehow, she went back to her expartner`s house banging on the door and shouting that she wanted the children back before,somehow,returning to the allegedly abusive new partner and leaving the house again when he was asleep,choosing to drive away before coming to the final stop nearby and being arrested.
Assuming the Chair of the PAT was not deceived about the distance travelled whilst `over the limit`please advise how the appellant travelled to and from the expartner`s house for the `banging on the door`event in the middle of the night?
Assuming the Chair of the PAT was not deceived,why did Ms Cullen finally stop after 500 yards when she was deciding to drive away and why did she call for the police to attend the scene, it seems very strange?
Obviously you have the right to remain silent on these concerns but it would help to vindicate the Tribunal conclusion.
Finally,more directly relevant to the Internal Review,I originally asked in FOI Q1 about how the Chief Constable was informed that his decision had been overruled,this is still not clear as it appears somebody has been indirectly assumed to tell him the bad news, no one has had the courtesy to tell him directly, and Hannah Bladon, in her reply of 11th March, mentioned that PCC Officer David Morris acted as Appeals Manager and passed the message to selected contacts,but not the Chief Constable,on 2nd March 2019.
You mention twice in your clarification explanation that David Morris actually sent a formal email to the relevant people on 27th February and,as you have not disclosed it yet,I would appreciate seeing a copy of it.

Sorry to bother you with these final clarifications but it is very important for the public to be assured that the Chair of the Tribunal has not been duped and that the Chief Constable has been given inappropriate disrespect for his judgement.
I note that a Staffordshire Police Sergeant has refused to take a breath test after a recent car crash,so that`s not a good example to set junior officers regarding the justice system.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi...
I note that an ordinary member of the public, twenty-nine-year-old Charlotte Clowry was caught drink-driving(even though she was parked up) when she went to buy some water the morning after a night out.Rob Glenn, mitigating, said: “She had been out but had a full night’s sleep. She drove to the shop to get some water. She was waiting outside for the shop to open".
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/sto...
This ordinary member of the public had not driven dangerously,was not twice over the drink drive limit,had not shouted abusively and banged on doors in the middle of the night causing alarm, yet was named and shamed in the local media and Magistrates fined Clowry £120 and ordered her to pay £135 costs and a £30 surcharge. She was disqualified from driving for 18 months but her ban will be reduced by 19 weeks if she completes a drink-drivers’ rehabilitation course.The loss of her licence is going to have a very significant impact.
The disparity between how members of the public are treated compared to the police is a source of concern,Zoe Cullen was only sentenced to 12 months' disqualification despite being at the same alcohol level,the public need to know that the system is transparent and fair.

Thanking you in anticipation,
Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Veronica Powell, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

Mr Fallon

Thank you for your email, I am now back off a period of annual leave and will look into your request asap.

Kind Regards

Veronica Powell
Office Manager/Executive Assistant to:

Matthew Ellis –  Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Sue Arnold – Deputy Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Glynn Dixon – Chief Executive

Staffordshire Commissioners Office
Ground Floor Block 9
Weston Road
Stafford
ST18 0YY

Tel: 01785 232270

Twitter: @StaffsPFCC
OPCC Website: www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

**OFFICIAL**

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Veronica Powell, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

2 Atodiad

  • Attachment

    Police Appeal Tribunal Outcome Official Notice.html

    5K Download

  • Attachment

    image001.jpg

    6K Download

Dear Mr Fallon

I refer to your most recent request for further clarification regarding your FOI regarding the above. Below is our response to the matters you raise.

Thank you for providing some clarifications regarding the requested internal review.

I still have concerns about how my FOI Q1 was totally blocked by applying section 32(2a) of the FOIA, implying that the PCC has a duty not to reveal information contained within Court documents.

The PCC has a duty to maintain confidentiality in records that are used as part of a process that are not in the public domain. The ICO advised appropriate advice for this exemption.

A local newspaper has most of the Court proceedings printed in detail to try to explain the many ways the Chief Constable had apparently been wrong in his judgement, and justify him being overruled by the trio of the qualified Chair,Sara Fenoughty and the police based panelists.
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/she...

The details are reiterated in the Official PAT report, and the appellant`s solicitor was confident enough to state,in part 20, that "Mr Banham submitted that right minded members of the public, with full knowledge of her case, would consider that dismissal of the appellant was neither fair nor proportionate.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5...

Sadly,Mr Banham is misguided in his opinion about what the right minded public(RMP) think, and some people might even think that the Chair was deceived into allowing the appeal, making her judgement on the basis of misleading or incomplete evidence.
The various ` mitigating factors` which the Chief Constable is accused of not taking into account are listed in part 18 of the PAT report.
RMP might think that the main excuse`fleeing domestic violence`(points i-iii)was unjustified in that she had repeatedly returned to her alleged violent new partner and never reported the alleged serious offences, and on the night in question she was simply sneaking out whilst her new partner was asleep and did not need to drive anywhere to escape.

RMP might question the mitigating points made that because she pleaded guilty and received the minimum magistrates sentance this was in her favour, when RMP know she pleaded not guilty at the original hearing but was faced with overwhelming evidence.
RMP might consider that the `exceptional circumstances` that the Chief Constable failed to consider are very ropey and, sadly, it is a failure in the PAT report that the actual circumstances are not explained properly and therefore the report is unbalanced.

The clarification is required regarding PAT report section 18" Mr Banham said the Chief Constable had failed to take into account the following factors iv. The vehicle was driven less than 500 yards; v. Ms Cullen stopped and waited for the police to arrive".
The confusion arises from the veracity of the comment made to the Chair that the drink-driving was only for a distance of less than 500 yards, yet the surrounding evidence implies she knew she was intoxicated earlier in the evening so she responsibly took a taxi to and from her expartner`s house ,then when she came back she alarmed her children with her erratic behaviour, who then phoned her expartner to help take them away and then, somehow, she went back to her expartner`s house banging on the door and shouting that she wanted the children back before,somehow,returning to the allegedly abusive new partner and leaving the house again when he was asleep,choosing to drive away before coming to the final stop nearby and being arrested.

Assuming the Chair of the PAT was not deceived about the distance travelled whilst `over the limit`please advise how the appellant travelled to and from the expartner`s house for the `banging on the door`event in the middle of the night?
Assuming the Chair of the PAT was not deceived,why did Ms Cullen finally stop after 500 yards when she was deciding to drive away and why did she call for the police to attend the scene, it seems very strange?
Obviously you have the right to remain silent on these concerns but it would help to vindicate the Tribunal conclusion.

We cannot provide an opinion for a Police Appeals Tribunals, it is independent by its nature. We are not required/able to provide a comment that vindicates the Tribunal decision that was carried out in line with the Police Appeals Tribunal Regulations. It is a matter for the Police Appeals Tribunal Panel who make their considerations as a legal body.

Finally,more directly relevant to the Internal Review,I originally asked in FOI Q1 about how the Chief Constable was informed that his decision had been overruled,this is still not clear as it appears somebody has been indirectly assumed to tell him the bad news, no one has had the courtesy to tell him directly, and Hannah Bladon, in her reply of 11th March, mentioned that PCC Officer David Morris acted as Appeals Manager and passed the message to selected contacts,but not the Chief Constable, on 2nd March 2019.

As explained previously the Head of Professional Standards acts as the contact for the Chief Constable, “the Respondent”, in this matter, also being represented by a barrister who receives the notification at the Tribunal. It has already been stated that a member of HR attended in order to pass back the outcome.

You mention twice in your clarification explanation that David Morris actually sent a formal email to the relevant people on 27th February and,as you have not disclosed it yet,I would appreciate seeing a copy of it.

The email providing the verbal response from the panel is attached

Sorry to bother you with these final clarifications but it is very important for the public to be assured that the Chair of the Tribunal has not been duped and that the Chief Constable has been given inappropriate disrespect for his judgement.
I note that a Staffordshire Police Sergeant has refused to take a breath test after a recent car crash,so that`s not a good example to set junior officers regarding the justice system.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi...
I note that an ordinary member of the public, twenty-nine-year-old Charlotte Clowry was caught drink-driving(even though she was parked up) when she went to buy some water the morning after a night out.Rob Glenn, mitigating, said: “She had been out but had a full night’s sleep. She drove to the shop to get some water. She was waiting outside for the shop to open".
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/sto...
This ordinary member of the public had not driven dangerously,was not twice over the drink drive limit,had not shouted abusively and banged on doors in the middle of the night causing alarm, yet was named and shamed in the local media and Magistrates fined Clowry £120 and ordered her to pay £135 costs and a £30 surcharge. She was disqualified from driving for 18 months but her ban will be reduced by 19 weeks if she completes a drink-drivers’ rehabilitation course.The loss of her licence is going to have a very significant impact.
The disparity between how members of the public are treated compared to the police is a source of concern,Zoe Cullen was only sentenced to 12 months' disqualification despite being at the same alcohol level,the public need to know that the system is transparent and fair.

I trust that the above now clarifies all matters raised by yourself and we are in a position to now conclude your FOI request.

Kind Regards

Veronica Powell
Office Manager/Executive Assistant to:

Matthew Ellis –  Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Sue Arnold – Deputy Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Glynn Dixon – Chief Executive

Staffordshire Commissioners Office
Ground Floor Block 9
Weston Road
Stafford
ST18 0YY

Tel: 01785 232270

Twitter: @StaffsPFCC
OPCC Website: www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

**OFFICIAL**

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Veronica Powell,
Sadly,based on a proper consideration of the published bits of evidence which are supposed to explain the tribunal conclusion,there appears to be serious unexplained issues of continuity which bring the PAT into disrepute and the public can have no faith that the PAT is demonstratably independent or transparent, with 2 of the 3 members of the PAT being rooted in the police culture and therefore have the potential of being biased.
The Home Office and the public expect the PAT to be a genuine process with a genuine outcome, and the Office of the PCC appear to be silently complicit with your response,quote,"We cannot provide an opinion for a Police Appeals Tribunals, it is independent by its nature. We are not required/able to provide a comment that vindicates the Tribunal decision that was carried out in line with the Police Appeals Tribunal Regulations. It is a matter for the Police Appeals Tribunal Panel who make their considerations as a legal body".
This has been an ideal example of how the PAT really operates, with no apparent consideration of evidential discrepancies and the Office of the PCC washing their hands of the reality.
Everyone appears to have been successfully fooled by the main excuse that" The vehicle was driven less than 500 yards"before she stopped,implying she pulled over for an unexplained reason when in reality she probably crashed, and NO EXPLANATION provided about how she completed the previous long journey to and from her expartner`s whist logically in a drunken state.
It is not acceptable to the public that the conclusion of a PAT should not be fully justified and show no possibility of bias, this would allow the theory that the PAT is corrupt and the Office of the PCC is not interested.
However,I am content to close this request on the basis that that your office can provide no explanation and have no remit to understand or explain the facts.

THE VERY FINAL THING on this issue is I would request from your office a proper disclosure of the annoucement of the PAT outcome official notice made on 2nd March 2019 by David Morris as the alleged document you have now disclosed is unacceptable in that it appears to be just an undated extract when the requirement is to see the original document or email which includes the list of people who are copied in on it.
If you do not hold the original document please let me know.
Your sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Gadawodd dennis fallon anodiad ()

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5...

This is the Appreal Tribunal result with the various so called mitigating circumstances

Dear Veronica Powell,
If you could kindly complete the very final thing,as requested,this request could be marked as completed.
Otherwise,in the absence of further and final explanation, the public might assume that the OPCC is not behaving in an honourable manner which,obviously,an assumption that you should not allow without good reason.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Veronica Powell, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

3 Atodiad

Dear Mr Fallon

Thank you for your emails. In order to assist you with your final clarification I believe the documents/information you request have already been provided to you however, for ease of reference please find them both attached.

In terms of who the emails were copied to. For the first document:

Philip Duffy – Superintendent, Head of Professional Standards Unit and Appropriate Authority acting on behalf of the Chief Constable
Nicholas Baker – Deputy Chief Constable
Caroline Coombe – Head of People Services
Glynn Dixon - Chief Executive - Staffordshire Commissioners Office
Keith Jervis - Police Federation Chairman.

For the second document:
Philip Duffy – Superintendent, Head of Professional Standards Unit and Appropriate Authority acting on behalf of the Chief Constable
Nicholas Baker – Deputy Chief Constable
Caroline Coombe – Head of People Services
Justine Kenney – Director of People and Resources

Hopefully this now allows for your FOI to be concluded.

Kind Regards

Veronica Powell
Office Manager/Executive Assistant to:

Matthew Ellis –  Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Sue Arnold – Deputy Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Glynn Dixon – Chief Executive

Staffordshire Commissioners Office
Ground Floor Block 9
Weston Road
Stafford
ST18 0YY

Tel: 01785 232270

Twitter: @StaffsPFCC
OPCC Website: www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

**OFFICIAL**

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Veronica Powell,
Thank you for clarifying some aspects requiring clarification.Obviously the whole purpose of making enquiries is to receive a definitive explanation and,of course,it may be a problem with my comprehension that I cannot understand aspects of the so called first notification.You should be able to reply promptly, as I do not require further researched information,but I would appreciate explanation why the alleged first email produced by Dr Morris has a completely different format to the second email disclosed, why it has no header,as per the second email, why it has no date and time confirming when it was sent and, as the first email is supposed to be the first notification why does it say "Dear all,As you are aware..."when the email was purported to be a first notification advising people who were supposed to be unaware.
I am not generally suspicious but the alleged first email shows many signs of being out of order, so I would appreciate knowing why the first alleged email has been truncated and has a different style and format to the second email, which I find acceptable, and if you could release the first email displayed in the full normal format this would clear things up.

Thanking you in advance,
Yours sincerely,
Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Veronica Powell, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

4 Atodiad

Dear Mr Fallon

My apologies for any confusion caused please find attached both emails in their original format. I now believe that the FOI and all clarifications have been answered and will close the FOI this end as complete.

Kind Regards

Veronica Powell
Office Manager/Executive Assistant to:

Matthew Ellis –  Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Sue Arnold – Deputy Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Glynn Dixon – Chief Executive

Staffordshire Commissioners Office
Ground Floor Block 9
Weston Road
Stafford
ST18 0YY

Tel: 01785 232270

Twitter: @StaffsPFCC
OPCC Website: www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

**OFFICIAL**

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Veronica Powell,
I accept your apology for the confusion, but to maintain the integrity of the OPCC Staffordshire you cannot close a genuine enquiry by making a false statement stating that the First email,Outcome Official Notice, allegedly sent by Dr Morris immediately after the PAT, has now been released in its original proper format.

I accept that you have no responsibility to explain the mystery of why this alleged First email, allegedly produced immediately after the hearing to notify interested parties,commences with the strange statement "As you are aware", which implies the recipients are already all aware, but you have a duty to release a true copy of the First email,including date and headers,if it genuinely exists.

The attachment you have released,Outcome Official Notice, is not in the original formatted state as requested, you may notice, if you look at it, that it lacks crucial detail including the date and time of transmission.
I cannot understand why you are refusing to release the original First email, unless it does not really exist.

The request cannot be considered closed until you remedy the existing discrepancy.
I only require one attachment,which is the original First email in its unmodified format, if you cannot provide it please advise.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon

Veronica Powell, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

Dear Mr Fallon

The email confirmations that you have requested have been provided to you in their original format. In terms of the 'As you are aware' comment, Staffordshire Police will have had their own representatives at the hearing who responded to the appeal, hence as you are aware.

I believe that we have fulfilled the requirements of your FOI and all your clarifications as requested, should you remain dissatisfied with this then please contact the Information Commissioners Office, the details of which I have documented below:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Telephone: 0303 123 1113

Kind Regards

Veronica Powell
Office Manager/Executive Assistant to:

Matthew Ellis –  Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Sue Arnold – Deputy Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Glynn Dixon – Chief Executive

Staffordshire Commissioners Office
Ground Floor Block 9
Weston Road
Stafford
ST18 0YY

Tel: 01785 232270

Twitter: @StaffsPFCC
OPCC Website: www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

**OFFICIAL**

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Veronica Powell,
I do not wish to waste any more of your time writing words trying to complete this request, I`m sure you have other more important things to do.
A simple yes/no will suffice to close it.
You state "The email confirmations that you have requested have been provided to you in their original format" but I have downloaded and opened the html document on different devices and in each case the document is not in the original format,as you seem to think,and displays no date or header information to confirm authenticity.
Obviously the problem may be with my computers, in which case I apologise, but please confirm YES/NO that you confirm other people,including yourself, should be able to read the html document you disclosed to view the verification details of recipients and date of generation, as you advise me is true.

SORRY to appear persistant or rude, a simple Yes confirmation will explain that you believe your information to be true and the problem is with my computers, and then we can honestly close and move on.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Veronica Powell, Staffordshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

Dear Mr Fallon

Yes I can confirm that the information I have provided to you is true.

Kind Regards

Veronica Powell
Office Manager/Executive Assistant to:

Matthew Ellis –  Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Sue Arnold – Deputy Staffordshire Commissioner : Police-Fire & Rescue, Crime
Glynn Dixon – Chief Executive

Staffordshire Commissioners Office
Ground Floor Block 9
Weston Road
Stafford
ST18 0YY

Tel: 01785 232270

Twitter: @StaffsPFCC
OPCC Website: www.staffordshire-pfcc.gov.uk

**OFFICIAL**

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Veronica Powell,
Thank you, I shall mark this request as closed, I just wanted the information to go on the public record.
Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)