IOPC/IPCC Internal Investigation Unit Not Fit For Purpose, protecting IOPC/IPCC staff, covering up, ignoring evidence, corruption Martin McGartland cases - request

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Independent Office for Police Conduct.

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

3 May 2019

Dear Independent Office for Police Conduct,

As you will be very well aware .... I have already made complaints to your Internal Investigations Unit (IIU) but they (as they have done with my previous complaints) have not carried out any type of proper 'investigation'. All that they have done (as with previous complaints) is either fail to record, property investigate, whitewash, cover up (including ignoring evidence) to protect IOPC/IPCC staff. The IIU just like the IOPC/IPCC is corrupt when it concerns me, my cases.

Under the FOIA I would like to know;

1. Who investigates the IIU? (please supply full contact delails)

2. How many complaints in total (from complaints) have been made against IIU, its staff during the previous 3 years ?
This part of the review relates to all complaints (those which were / and those which were not recorded). I would like this information broken down i.e. 2017 to 2017, 2017 to 2018, 2018 to 2019...

3. How many complaints made against IIU, its staff during 2 above were;

a. Never recorded or investigated?
b. Recorded and investigated?
c. Not upheld?
d. Upheld?

4. How many IIU complaints investigations has resulted (during past 3 years - 2 above) in IOPC/IPCC staff being disciplined?

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

IOPC/IPCC Internal Investigation Unit IIU is Not Fit For Purpose - - Martin McGartland FOI request:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

Phil Johnston, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr McGartland

Thank you for your email to the IOPC requesting information. This request is being considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

We propose to respond to you on or before the 4 June 2019 in line with the timescales prescribed by the FOIA.

If you have any questions about this request please contact us. Please remember to quote reference number 1007602 in any future correspondence about this request.

Yours sincerely

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473 Sale
M33 0BW

www.policeconduct.gov.uk
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct

Find out how we handle your personal data on our website

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr McGartland

Please find attached our response to your request of 3 May 2019.

Please quote our reference 1007602 in any further correspondence.

Yours sincerely

Independent Office for Police Conduct
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW

Find out how we handle your personal data on our website.

www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

04 June 2019

Not you again (copy and paste McCoy - how Lazy) When you, the corrupt (and useless) IOPC/IPCC stop telling Lies about me.... I will stop telling the truth about IOPC/IPCC.

I see the IOPC/IPCC are in the news again: "MP claims ‘systematic cover-up’ involving North Wales Police, probation service, CRC, IPCC and IOPC over Nicolas Churton murder" - Link to News story, here; http://www.wrexham.com/news/mp-claims-sy...

The IOPC/IPCC is on Life Support ....

I can only repeat.... your information unit and their Corrupt IOPC/IPCC Big Wigs (the controlling minds and decision makers - a number of whom are former police themselves) lied to the ICO (and others) about me, my cases. Why? The answer is sooooo Simple.... because I have (and am) exposing their corruption and wrongdoing in public.

As I said in my request/s, IOPC/IPCC Internal Investigation Unit Not Fit For Purpose, protecting IOPC/IPCC staff, covering up, ignoring evidence, corruption Martin McGartland cases. Corrupt to the Core. All thy are IOPC/IPCC are good for (at) t is protecting Bent, Corrupt police officers and covering up for them.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

The Corrupt (and useless) IOPC/IPCC are in the news again:

"MP claims ‘systematic cover-up’ involving North Wales Police, probation service, CRC, IPCC and IOPC over Nicolas Churton murder"

Published: Friday, Apr 12th, 2019

Wrexham’s MP has spoken in Parliament about ‘grave errors’ made before the brutal murder of a Wrexham resident – while heavily criticising subsequent attempts by the authorities to establish what went wrong.

Ian Lucas led an adjournment debate in the main Commons chamber yesterday on ‘police complaints, accountability and the case of Nicholas Churton’.

Mr Churton was murdered in his Wrexham home in March 2017 by a dangerous offender, Jordan Davidson, who was on licence from prison at the time. Davidson had been arrested and taken into custody four days before the murder for possession of a knife, only to be released rather than being sent back to prison. Mr Lucas read out an account of a second threat to life in Wrexham town centre when Davidson pulled a machete on a man trying to intervene on a robbery in the period after he had murdered Mr Churton.

Mr Lucas has spent two years trying to find out why Davidson was freed to murder Mr Churton, and commit a series of other serious offences, but says several key questions remain unanswered.

In yesterday’s speech he praised the ‘commendable bravery’ of the officers who arrested Davidson. However, he was heavily critical of North Wales Police, the probation service and the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) over their failure to give him answers in relation to the case.

Speaking in the Chamber, Mr Lucas said: “Davidson is responsible for this horrific crime and for other attacks for which he is now serving a 30-year prison sentence. However, the events leading to those crimes revealed grave errors by the police and by the probation services in Wrexham and North Wales.”

Mr Lucas added: “I have secured knowledge of the detail of those errors only with the assistance of Jez Hemming of the Daily Post newspaper in north Wales. For the bulk of this case, I have secured no co-operation whatever from North Wales police.

“Indeed, I now believe that I, along with the public, was misled deliberately about the facts of the case to conceal those errors, and that there has been a systematic cover-up involving North Wales police, the probation service, the community rehabilitation company, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office for Police Conduct.”

Davidson was known to Mr Churton and had approached him in the days before the murder.

An IOPC investigation into Mr Churton’s contact with the police was launched in the days following his death – yet Mr Lucas was not informed of this important development. It is IOPC protocol for local MPs to be told.

Mr Lucas contacted North Wales Police later that year after learning of Davidson’s arrest and release for possession of an offensive weapon, days before the murder. But the then Chief Constable, Mark Polin, said he could not comment because the IOPC was investigating ‘all contact’ the police had with Davidson prior to Mr Churton’s death. Mr Lucas says this was, in fact, not true as the IOPC was only investigating police contact with Mr Churton, not the contact with Davidson.

Following pressure from Mr Lucas, a second IOPC investigation was opened – this time focusing on police contact with Davidson – but it only began in April 2018, more than a year on from the crime. The first IOPC investigation has finished, resulting in misconduct cases for two officers, but the second inquiry is ongoing.

Mr Lucas this week wrote to North Wales Police & Crime Commissioner Arfon Jones to ask him to look into the statements made to him by Mr Polin, who has since left the force.

Mr Lucas posed several questions in the House of Commons yesterday to the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd):
– Why did North Wales police and the IPCC fail to tell me of a police conduct inquiry involving a murder and additional serious assaults in the middle of my constituency?
– Secondly, who decided to exclude the police decision to release Davidson on bail after his arrest for possession of an offensive weapon from the terms of reference of the IPCC inquiry, and why was that done?
– Thirdly, why did the then chief constable of North Wales, Mark Polin, tell me that there was an inquiry into Davidson’s release when there was not?
– Fourthly, was the North Wales police and crime commissioner notified of the inquiry by the IPCC in 2017, and of its terms of reference? Is there an obligation to notify PCCs of such inquiries? If a notification was made in this case, when was it made?
-Fifthly, was the family of Nicholas Churton notified of the inquiry, and the fact of the release of Davidson four days before his murder?
– Sixthly, why did the probation service and the CRC fail to highlight the fact that the release of Davidson was not included in the IPCC inquiry? Should they have done so?

Mr Lucas added: “It is now over two years since Nicholas Churton was brutally murdered. We need an independent investigation into how this happened. I have no confidence in the various bodies and organisations that I have referred to because none of them and none of the systems worked to reveal the errors in this case, which had catastrophic consequences. What we need above all is some transparency ​and honesty from the organisations involved. The family of Nicholas Churton, with whom I have been working, deserve that honesty.”

The Minister replied, “I know the hon. Gentleman to be a man of common sense and experience in this place. When I hear him articulate his feeling that he has been personally misled and talk about a systematic cover-up, I know that he will not be using that language lightly. I take that seriously and congratulate him on his persistence and his campaign on this.”

“I heard clearly the hon. Gentleman’s frustration about his engagement with the police and the system and the degree to which he feels misled—a powerful word in this context. I understand that he has been in correspondence with and met senior members of North Wales police to discuss its organisational learning, its response to date and intended actions. If he feels that contact has not been substantive or that there are issues that continue to need to be addressed, he and I should discuss that. I can certainly help him to make that point directly to North Wales police’s leadership.”

Mr Lucas noted “It is fair to say that North Wales police now has a new chief constable and that this case relates to the previous regime, so to speak” with the Minister replying “…under new leadership, the engagement with the ​hon. Gentleman is more forthcoming, and I welcome that.”

After a lengthy reply (here) from the Minister Mr Lucas said, “My key concern is that Davidson’s release from custody was not made subject to IPCC investigation by North Wales police or by the IPCC, and no one outside the force knew of that fact. It was only when I highlighted it that the investigation commenced. My concern is that the systems are still not in place to make sure it cannot happen again.”

The Minister said: “I understand that message very clearly, and it will be heard by the IOPC. I undertake to make sure that the IOPC has absorbed the message. My understanding is that the first investigation looked at the police’s dealings and contact with Nicholas Churton and the second is looking specifically at their contact and dealings with Jordan Davidson, but the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. Through the mechanism of this debate and the follow-up, I undertake to make sure that the message is clearly understood by the IOPC as it finalises its work for publication, hopefully this summer.”

Speaking outside the chamber, Mr Lucas said: “This case raises serious concerns about the criminal justice system and the safety of my constituents. It is why I have been so determined to find out what went wrong, yet I have been met with a great many obstacles which have been a cause of huge concern to me. The family of Mr Churton also deserve answers but, sadly, we are still waiting more than two years on from this terrible crime.”

Top picture: Ian Lucas MP speaking yesterday during the adjournment debate.

You can click on this link to go to the story; http://www.wrexham.com/news/mp-claims-sy...

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

IOPC / IPCC Covering up for (and protecting) the police in the Martin McGartland case....

Private Eye(Issue no 1500)12 July – 25 July 2019

Police Conduct

Summary injustice

So much for openness and transparency at the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). It has been accused of a cover-up after seeking to impose an extraordinary non-disclosure agreement before a complainant could read even a summary of the investigation report into allegations he had made of police wrongdoing.

Martin McGartland has also been told he cannot keep a copy of the report, can only view it under supervision, and must hand over his mobile or any recording device before seeing it. Further, if he wants to get legal advice, his lawyers will have to sign a separate
secrecy order with the IOPC.

McGartland, as regular Eye readers will recall, is no ordinary complainant. The former undercover agent was shot at close range by the IRA in 1999 in Tyneside, where he was living under a false identity, after his cover was blown by Northumbria Police. Adding insult to life-changing injury, the force’s initial press briefing wrongly suggested the shooting was linked to the criminal underworld. McGartland has been involved in some kind of litigation or complaint process ever since – against both police and, subsequently, his former MI5 and Special branch handlers when they stopped funding his medical and psychiatric treatment. (eyes passim)

Having safely moved to another area, McGartland and his partner were terrified that they were facing another IRA revenge attack when they let their dog out late one night
only to be seized by balaclava-wearing men in black.

His partner’s screams drew neighbours into the street; and the “raiders” turned out to be police officers arresting the couple on suspicion of drug dealing and money laundering. Their house was turned upside down and their computers, phones and documents confiscated for forensic examination. Held for nearly 24hours, they were finally released on bail. It was several months before the couple had their possessions returned and were told there would be no further action.

It transpired that a family who had rented a house McGartland had bought with his criminal injuries compensation money as a holiday and rental property
- which he says both Special Branch and MI5 knew about - had indeed been involved in drug dealing. But, as McGartland says, it would have been easy for the police to see from correspondence and the couple’s bank records that their only recent contact with the family had been to chase up unpaid rent.

The couple launched a series of complaints against the police. These included unlawful arrest; failing to immediately identify themselves as police officers; using excessive force(McGartland’s partner suffered trauma and severe bruising to her arms and wrist); using balaclavas when dealing with a known traumatised IRA victim; obtaining a search warrant without telling the magistrate who the couple really were and that they were involved in ongoing litigation against MI5 and the Home office; and confiscating legally privileged information.

Initially the force cleared itself of blame. The couple’s appeal to the then Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was upheld, and was then taken over by the IOPC. It has apparently produced a detailed 300-page report, but is only prepared to offer McGartland and his partner a summary to view. All McGartland has been told is that just three of his complaints have been upheld: excessive force used against his partner; failure to properly handle an “exhibit” taken from their home; and wearing balaclavas.

The couple have no idea why the bulk of their complaints have been dismissed, and are even more mystified why, in the interest of open justice and their rights to a full and fair investigation, McGartland cannot know the full reasons. So the Eye asked the IOPC. It said it would be “inappropriate” to comment on the specific case. However, a statement said that while its general position is to provide complainants with as much information as possible, “for reasons, including concerns about the welfare and safety of individuals, it’s not always possible to share all of the evidence gathered in an investigation”.

It went on: “In these circumstances we may make arrangements with a view to mitigating risks to enable the disclosure of as much information as possible. Such arrangements might include the redaction of material, the preparation of a summary, inspection and in certain circumstances, confidentiality agreements”.

A recent appeal Court ruling in an unrelated case said that “the presumption of openness applies in favour of disclosure… and any non-disclosure must be necessary because there is a real risk of the disclosure causing a significant adverse effect”.

As a leading QC told the Eye: “If the IOPC believe they have a sound legal justification for this decision they should explain it publicly and defend it rather than seek to impose what are frankly unenforceable obligations of secrecy on the complainant”.

It looks like Martin McGartland is heading back to the courts once again.

This Private Eye story can be found at the following page link: https://www.scribd.com/document/41645328...

Gadawodd CCCBS anodiad ()

Deep respect, they are as bent as a boomerang professing to be a straight ruler. I've dealt with these fools before and after the Police Reform Act 2004 and they call themselves the IPCC/IOPC . See, the issue is this pile of rabble came about as the result of widespread corruption that existed and had become a running joke when the Police Complaints Commssion existed, itself, set up in the 1980's. The hilarious thing is, their website is now www.policeconduct.gov.uk - not a far shout from the Police Complaints Commission that caused an outcry in the first place.

The best way to deal with these people is to congregate outside their head office (I believe it is still at High Holborn) and cause a massive scene - you never know who might walk past with a great opportunity for securing celebrity endorsement.

Good luck and deep sympathy in your frustration that I have shared for over a decade.