So Much For Openness, Independence and Transparency in Director General Michael Lockwood's 'New' IOPC (aka IPCC part 2) - Martin McGartland case

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Independent Office for Police Conduct

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

11 July 2019

Dear Director General Lockwood / Independent Office for Police Conduct,

So Much For Openness, Independence and Transparency in Director General Michael Lockwood's 'New' IOPC (aka IPCC part 2) - Martin McGartland case.

In the latest edition (issue no 1500 , 12 July - 25 July 2019) of Private Eye it reads as follows;

"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."

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

ENDS

The Private Eye story relates to a document that the IOPC / IPCC sent to the complainants which reads as follows;

"IOPC INVESTIGATION INTO COMPLAINTS MADE BY MR [REDACTED] AND MS [REDACTED] Confidentiality Undertaking This undertaking relates to the arrangements for the inspection by Mr [REDACTED] and Ms [REDACTED] of the summary final report ("the report") in the above investigation.

The inspection will be facilitated over two working days (8 am to 5pm) at the IOPC office in [REDACTED] Two laptop devices will be made available for the purposes of the inspection. The inspection will be supervised by two members of IOPC staff unconnected with the investigation.

By signing the undertaking you agree to the following:

1. I understand that the report is disclosed to me on a confidential basis.

2. I agree to surrender all recording and mobile devices on attendance at the IOPC office and not to take notes, copy or otherwise reproduce any part of the report.

3. I understand that a failure to comply with the terms of this undertaking may result in the inspection not going ahead, or the IOPC taking steps to terminate the inspection.

4. I understand that as a consequence of signing this undertaking, I must not divulge any of the report's contents (including orally) to any third party, and I must not permit the publication or dissemination of any information from the report in any form.

5. I understand that in the event that I wish to seek legal advice on the content of the report, a separate confidentiality agreement will need to be entered in to between the IOPC and any lawyer instructed. Name: Signature: Date:"
ENDS
This is a link (fyi) to that document (which I have redacted); https://www.scribd.com/document/41646885...

IOPC (and Director General Michael Lockwood - as the Commander and Chief of IOPC) seeking to impose an extraordinary non-disclosure agreement (a gagging order) on complainants. As the above story (and the link to it therein) shows a Leading QC stated to Private 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”.

Under FOIA I would like to IOPC / IPCC as well as Director General Michael Lockwood - as the Commander and Chief of IOPC) to answer the following;

1. How many times has Director General Michael Lockwood, his staff, IOPC sought such agreement, undertakings from complainants since January 2018 and up until the present day.

2. Regards 1 above, how many complainants - if any - have;

a, agreed to sign such agreements / undertakings ?
b, refused to sign such agreements / undertakings ?

3. How many other independent investigation' reports have not (as in this case) been disclosed to complainant/s by IOPC / IPCC since January 2018?

4. Will you - Director General Michael Lockwood, your IOPC - now be ceasing the use of such agreements / undertakings (including those which include 1 to 5 above) with immediate effect given that a leading QC has said (as above); “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”

5. Will you - Director General Michael Lockwood, your IOPC - now "explain it publicly and defend it rather than seek to impose what are frankly unenforceable obligations of secrecy on the complainant”. If not, why not? This latest case shows that your IOPC / IPCC is farrr from open, transparent or independent.

All the IOPC / IPCC have done in this case (as well as my other cases) is protect and cover up for the police , Botch and Whitewash their 'investigation/s'. And then cover up, conceal their report, findings - as in this case - just because they know that they can not stand over it (because it is fundamentally flawed), no proper investigation/s were carried out. And because the IOPC / IPCC are well aware that their Botched investigation would be subject to challenge.

Fyi: The case which relates to above Private Eye story was dealt with by;

IPCC Commissioner Dr Derrick Campbell (overall charge - now IOPC Regional Director, Midlands )
Operations Manager Steve Bimson (former West Midlands Police)
Investigator 1, Paul Marriott Operations Team Leader (also former West Midlands police, counter terror officer)
investigator 2: Ms Frances Gwilliam
(and also a number of others who's names are unknown to me)

It was being claimed that Dr Derrick Campbell, Steve Bimson, Paul Marriott and at least one IOPC/IPCC solicitor were carrying out quality assurance and redactions - for between 6-8 months - to their 300-page report so that it could be shared with us. They then re-wrote a summary report (around half that size)... as referred to above / in the linked document. The rest is well documented above but suffice to say, the reports are being covered up from us.

I await your reply (or yet another refusal to answer another of my requests).

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 (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

So Much For Openness, Independence and Transparency in Director General Michael Lockwood's 'New' IOPC (aka IPCC part 2) - Martin McGartland case.

In the latest edition (issue no 1500 , 12 July - 25 July 2019) of Private Eye it reads as follows;

"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."

Please click on link to go to page:;
https://www.scribd.com/document/41645328...

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr McGartland

Thank you for your correspondence to the IOPC in which you made a request for information. This request is being considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). We will now consult with the relevant department to gather the response to your request.

We propose to respond to you on or before the 12 August 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 1007775 in any future correspondence about this matter.

Yours sincerely

FOI and DPA Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr McGartland

Please find attached our response to your request for information.

Yours sincerely

FOI and DPA Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

More Cover Up, Lies to protect themselves, the police (and Mi5 / State) from Corruption and cover ups in the Martin McGartland cases. All the IOPC / IPCC (including its corrupt legal dept) have done in the Martin McGartland cases is Lie for, Cover Up for and Protect Corrupt Cops, cover up police corruption (as well as their own) and Botch 'investigations' (Whitewashes) to do so. And also cover up their entire reports / findings (due to above) because they (IOPC/IPCC) know that it can not stand over their reports / findings... that they would be subject to challenge. The IOPC / IPCC (which includes LOts and LOts of Ex Cops) is thde POlice. And the Police is the IOPC / IPCC/ Farrrrr from Independent.

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

11 August 2019

Dear IOPC / IPCC,

I am requesting a review of this request on the grounds that;

1. My request is not been dealt with correctly, within FOIA (the law) and that the IOPC/IPCC (including its legal dept) are breaching FOIA by covering up, withholding information that would not be exempt.

2. That the IOPC / IPCC (while claiming to be open, transparent and independent in public) are using and abusing FOIA (as well as exemptions which would not be engaged) to cover up information from the public that is related to this trequest.

3. That the requested information which relates to this request would (and is) accessible -p including on IOPC/IPCC systems- and to your legal dept) and it would not exceed the cost limit to action, deal with this request.

4. That the claim that over 700 independent 'investigations' would need to be checked, refereed to with this request is totally misleading / false. This is because (but not limited to above) the requested information would of course be held on a system that related to report/s (in part and in full) being withheld from complaints. As in my own case.... the Corrupt IOPC/IPCCX (because they are cover up for Police, Special Branch and MI5 and HMG) botched the 'investigation' of my complaints to cover up for. protect the police.... and the IOPC/IPCC have covered up their entire findings as well as their 'investigation' report, the Whitewash. To protect themselves and the corrupt police, officers I complained about.

I look forward to yet another Whitewash by IOPC/IPCC (Cover up Merchants for themselves and very Corrupt Police) regards this request, the review of it. By the way, the head (or former head) of your legal dept MUST not have any involvement in this request, the review of it. S/he has been involved with my cases during the previous 13 years.

It IS Corruption IOPC / IPCC But not as we know it. The Corrupt IOPC / IPCC is on Life Support: https://www.facebook.com/IOPCIsOnLifeSup...

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

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr McGartland

Thank you for your email. We will be conducting an internal review of our original FOIA response and expect to provide you with our findings on or before 9 September 2019.

If you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact us quoting reference number IR1007775.

Yours sincerely

FOI and DPA Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

THE VERY CORRUPT IPCC /IOPC HAVE BEEN COVERING UP (THE BELOW) WHILE AT SAME TIME COLLUDING WITH NORTHUMBRIA POLICE, MI5, OTHER STATE AGENCIES TO ENSURE ALL OF MARTIN MCGARTLAND'S COMPLAINT'S, CASE WERE NEVER INVESTIGATED, WERE COVERED UP SO THAT ABOVE, THE POLICE WOULD BE PROTECTED.

Corrupt MI5, PSNI/RUC, Northumbria Police and Special Branch protecting and covering up for state agent/s / informer/s - suspect/s - in the Martin McGartland IRA attempted murder.

Rather than arresting them, the above, recruited them as agents / informers....

FULL TEXT: Sunday World story published 1st September 2019
EXCLUSIVE BY PATRICIA DEVLIN

THE attempted murder of a state agent has been linked to at least four shootings including a failed murder bid on terror boss Johnny Adair. Cops reviewing the original police investigation into the 1999 shooting of Martin McGartland, who infiltrated the IRA, made the surprising link in a set of bombshell claims today revealed by the Sunday World.

Those include how police have failed to arrest or question a suspect, believed to be living in the Republic, at least 10 years after he was first linked to the case. In a set of explosive claims straight from the mouths of officers tasked with reviewing the British agent’s shooting, it can also be revealed how:

- Bullets used in the IRA hit came from the same batch used to assassinate drugs kingpin ‘Speedy’ Fegan

- A van used by the suspected Provo gunman has been destroyed by police

- Three separate DNA samples belonging to the same individual was recovered from the shooting scene.

The revelations were made by officers tasked by Operation Kenova chief Jon Boutcher to review the original police probe into the attack. Today McGartland, who is still in hiding and living under death threat, says he now believes the security services are protecting at least one of the IRA men sent to execute him. “There is a suspect at the centre of this who, I have now been officially told by police, has not been arrested or questioned, ever,” he said

MYSTERY

“I believe that this person, this mystery man, who I believe is living in Dublin, is a top informer or an agent before my shooting, and is being protected.” He said it was possible this suspect could have been recruited as a result of the shooting. “They – the security services, Special Branch or the police – did a covert DNA test, matched it to him and threatened him with jail and gave him a way out. “And I believe Jon Boutcher has all the an- swers to this.” Mr Boutcher (below) agreed to take on the informer’s case on top of heading up specialist probe Operation Kenova into former IRA security chief Freddie Scappaticci. The Bedfordshire police chief’s team began its review into the British agent’s attempted murder two years ago. In 2018 a draft report outlining what his investigators uncovered was sent to Tyneside police chiefs.

That document also set out a series of recom- mendations, including how a suspect identified at least 10 years ago should be immediately DNA tested. But that has yet to happen and 10 months on the report has yet to be publicly released. McGartland said he is now being met with a wall of silence when he asks if it ever will. He has now decided to release recordings of his meetings with review cops who revealed to him shocking flaws and errors surrounding the original police probe. They also released previously unknown information that they claimed links the hit on McGartland to other IRA murders, attempted killings and punishment shootings. One of those is the May 1999 murder of Co. Down drugs kingpin Brendan ‘Speedy’ Fegan. The dealer (24) was blasted to death as he sat in a pub in Newry.

BLASTED

In strikingly similar circumstances, he was set upon by two gunmen in disguises before being blasted multiple times. The killing was blamed on the Provo-linked vigilante group Direct Action Against Drugs (DAAD). In a recording made in October last year, Mr Boutcher’s officers can be heard telling McGartland that a RUC ballistics report states bullets used in Fegan’s murder came from the “same batch” used on him. “The information is that the ammunition used is the same type used in the Speedy Fegan murder and that comes from the ballistics (report) in Ireland,” said the officer. The policeman goes on to name four other men – including UDA
terror boss Johnny Adair – whose shootings they said could be linked to McGartland’s case. Those named were Brendan ‘Bap’ Campbell (30), Paul ‘Bull’ Downey (37) and Patrick Farrell (49) – all drug dealers gunned down within two years of each other. A botched republican hit job on Adair, who was blasted in the back of the head at a UB4O concert in May 1999, was also linked. McGartland said he was “dubious” as some of the killings did not involve republicans, including that of Farrell, shot dead by his girlfriend in a murder-suicide in Louth.

In another recording taken on the same date, the officers inform McGartland that a van used by the IRA gunman has been destroyed. One officer tells him: “At the end of the day, I don’t agree with it, but they’ve (Northumbria Police) done it and they’ve made some rationale for why they’ve done it. “We are astounded ourselves.” The officers go on to speak about a key piece of DNA evidence secured from the scene. “There is a person who needs eliminating and they need to get that individual’s DNA. We can’t go into it any more because it’s quite sensitive and a little bit messy.” When asked, the officer refused to “confirm or deny” if the man was being protected.

However, he added that he did not accept Nothumbria Police’s reason for not securing the sample. “We aren’t hiding anything from you, but at the moment we can’t give you the full details. “We have lots of meat on the bone about what you’ve been talking about. “We’re digging to get a bit more meat on the bone and I know it will be a good read when you get our review document.” A year on McGartland is still waiting and repeated requests have been ignored. “As far as I am concerned everything smacks of complete collusion, a cover-up and a conspiracy. “Even though a report and recommendation was given to Northumbria Police 10 months ago, they still have not eliminated that person through DNA. “I believe this mystery person is a top, top informer who could still be active.

EVIDENCE

“I believe wholeheartedly that the reason why that van was destroyed was because it was an Aladdin’s cave of forensic evidence and the person who was sitting in it is an agent.” Last night a spokesperson for Northumbria police said: “A review into the case was carried out by an external force and was presented to Northumbria Police late in 2018. We have acknowledged the recommendations of that review. “We can

confirm this case has remained open since the shooting in 1999 and that we are investing a significant and dedicated resource into progressing the investigation.”

They added: “The report was not for public release as it contains sensitive information regarding the ongoing investigation, however, it has been released to interested parties and redacted where necessary.” McGartland was recruited as a Special Branch agent when he was 16. He worked for them for four years until his cover was blown in 1991. He jumped from the window of a flat in west Belfast where he was being held by the Provisionals’ internal security unit. In 1999, he was ambushed by IRA gunmen outside his Tyneside home. He was shot six times in the hand, chest and stomach. His life was saved by neighbours who used cling film to stop the blood flow from his wounds.

The attack left him with life-changing physical and psychological disabilities. His identity had been publicly revealed after he was caught speeding by Northumbria Police and prosecuted for holding driving licences in his two names. In 2017 he lodged a complaint with the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman claiming that the RUC, PSNI and English police had failed to warn him of threats to his life, including one just before his 1999 shooting.

devlin@sundayworld.com

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr McGartland

Please find attached our Internal Review of your request.

Yours sincerely

FOI and DPA Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd S Rhosier anodiad ()

'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. '

I had this *exact* experience (re videos of personal abuse from a corrupt police officer to me and witnesses) from another police force with whom IOPC conspired by phone - a call in which false allegations of some kind were made against me. I was never permitted to know exactly what was said to damage my reputation, or given right of reply but immediately after said call, IOPC shut down my legitimate complaint with no option to appeal.