CE Lockwood Dame Vera Baird contact - Martin McGartland UPHELP appeal concerning CC Winton Keenen complaints ....

Martin McGartland made this Freedom of Information request to Independent Office for Police Conduct This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by Independent Office for Police Conduct.

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

26 March 2019

Dear Independent Office for Police Conduct,

This FOI request relates to direct contact between CE Lockwood and Dame Vera Baird /PCC/OPCC Northumbria concerning an UPHELD appeal n the Martin McGartland cass (2018/106528)

The background of the case is:

1. Martin McGartland (MM) made complaints against CC Winton Keenen. Vera Baird (and one of CC Keenen' ACC - ACC Bacon - took the decision to deal with the matter by way of local resolution (LR) .

2. The botched and flawed Vera Baird / ACC Bacon LR was appealed to IOPC/IPCC by MM.

3. The IOPC/IPCC decision was;
a, that the complaints against CC Winton Keenen were not suitable for LR. The they did not meet the required LR criteria.
b, that the complaints must be investigated.
c, IOPC/IPCC recomendated that the complaints against CC Winton Keenen should be investigated by an independent external police force (and not by Vera Baird, her office/force (Winton Keenen's own force)

I was very concerned to learn that PCC Vera Baird, her office was able to make contact (direct contact) with CE Lockwood regarding a matter that he should not be interfering in, which he has no business in becoming involved with (so much for independence). And which CE Lockwood (as confirmed by Vera Baird / her office) was in contact with them (including to clarify)regards above case.

Under the FOIA 2000 (and as result of public confidence, openness and transparency);

A1: I am requesting copies of all correspondence, letters, emails, attendance notes, telephone notes (including any that have since been deleted) between CE LLockwood, Vera Baird, OPCC Northumbria. And also those by any IOPC/IPCC staff replying to Vera Baird / OPCC Northumbria on behalf of CE Loclwood (including but not limited to Ms Sian Budge, any other members of staff.

A2: Details concerning when / why CE Lockwood can become involved in IOPC/IPCC cases (such as this) post (or at all) FINAL decision/s have been made by his staff

A3: Did CE Lockwood (including before his appointment as CE to IOPC/IPCC) record any conflict of interest between himself and Vera Baird (including but not limited to) while she was an MP and or when she held office of Solicitor General? If so, please disclose that information.

A4: Regards A3, did Mr Lockwood have any past involvement with Vera Baird and or did they ever meet before he was appointed ac CE of IOPC/IPCC. Is so, please supply full details.

The following was released by Vera Baird on 23 October 2017, link to page here: http://www.northumbria-pcc.gov.uk/commis...
"Vera BairdCommissioner welcomes new Director General to Independent Office for Police Conduct

23rd October 2017

Mike Lockwood has today been announced as the man who will lead the IOPC, currently known as the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Appointed by the Queen, Mr Lockwood is currently the Chief Executive of Harrow Council and will lead the organisation in place of several commissioners.

Early next year, the organisation will be overhauled and take on its new name as a result of measures in the Policing and Crime Bill.

Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird QC said: “While the vast majority of officers perform the duties with the utmost professionalism, we need a transparent and efficient system to deal with instances where actions fall short of the standards expected.

“I wish Mike a warm welcome in his new role and look forward to seeing the new structure come to fruition.

“I very much hope that under his leadership the IOPC can grow public confidence that instances of police misconduct in serious and sensitive cases will be dealt with independently and appropriately.”

It is concerning that Vera Baird (or any other person/s holding office as PCC's, police) have got this type of contact with 'Mick'.

I would remind you that CE Lockwood and PCC Vera Baird hold public facing roles. And I consent in this email for details which relate to me, my complaint, this matter to be disclose publicly.

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

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

1 Attachment

Dear Mr McGartland

Please find attached our response to your request for information.

Yours sincerely

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

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

show quoted sections

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

10 April 2019

Dear Lianne,

You reply is nothing more that a duplicate (where you have copied and pasted - word for word, paragraph by paragraph) of very same letter that has been sent to me by number of other Yes Men/Women within Corrupt IOPC/IPCC concerning my cases.

I might, I reserve the right, add some facts / evidence to WDTK which will prove that a number of the Big Wigs within your / Mr Lockwood's Corrupt IOPC/IPCC are colluding with corrupt police officers / forces, concealing and ignoring evidence (including independent evidence) of wrongdoing, corruption in my cases. And who are also concealing internal; documents for same reasons. Those individuals (some of whom are former police officers themselves) are also covering up for the police, are concealing independent evidence which proves (beyond doubt) that police officers lied (including to their own bosses, thir PSD and during 'investigation'), covered up and circumvented false accounts (including when they were under investigation), lied to an external force, to the IOPC/IPCC and much more.... But you, Mr Lockwood may not want to hear that.... Please pass a copy of this email (given above within his IOPC/IPCC) so that he is aware of it.

Perhaps Mr Lockwood would like to meet me (chat on the phone) regards the corruption, the Massive cover up inside IPCC Part two (Aka IOPC) in my cases. Same old faces, same old corrupt staff and same old corrupt decisions just to protect the police. The IOPC/IPCC is only interested in protecting / covering up for Corrupt police (more so at ACC, DCC and CC level) as my cases show. It is Corrupt to the Core.

It is not surprising that this request has been refused... Mr Lockwood has been personally involved in a case (by his direct contact with PCC Vera Baird / OPCC Northumbria) that the IOPC/IPCC had already Withheld, in which they had ordered an investigation into complaints I have made against Northumbria Police CC Winton Keenen (who Vera Baird is failing to investigate). The IOPC/IPCC case officer who dealt with the case, as you Lianne Corris will be aware, recommended that an external police force investigate those complaints, not Vera Baird / her Force (Northumbria Police).

What is surprising (well not really given history) is that you too had been dealing with this matter (well refusing to deal with) in which this request relates to, i.e. contact between Mr Lockwood and Vera Baird / OPCC Northumbria. And now you (as well as Mr Lockwood / IOPC/IPCC) are covering up the request / requested information. This is when you too have had some direct involvement in above matter.

I have emails (disclosed to me under DPA) which show that you were copied into to correspondence between Vera Baird / OPCC Northumbria and Mr Lockwood. There must be a conflict here, yes. Have you declared / registered such a conflict? If so, why are you dealing with a request that relates to a matter (documents) that you were involved in. If not, why not?

What the hell is going on.

I would like an appeal, internal review and maybe????? an explanation from you to......

For the record... the information that you have copied and pasted (and which you / others within the IOPC/IPCC are using in a Blanket format) is based on lies, IOPC/IPCC corruption. The evidence, and there is a lot, shows (will prove) that this too is part of the IOPC/IPCC ? Police and State cover up, conspiracy and corruption in my cases. All to cover up the events, the serious corruption, the criminal conspiracy, the failures Etc by police / State in my cases since 17 June 1999 and right up to the present day.

I suspect that all of the same will be investigated at some point, including IOPC/IPCC home (handy) work being checked /marked, by others a great deal more independent that IOPC / IPCC.

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 13 May 2019.

We would like to remind you that this review will be limited to our response to your request under the FOIA, in which we decided that we were not obliged to comply with your request by virtue of section 14 of the FOIA relating to vexatious or repeated requests. We will not be commenting on or reviewing your personal cases. You have been made aware on numerous occasions of the due process should you wish to challenge casework decisions. We would also like to remind you that the FOIA is not the appropriate mechanism to request information that relates to you or your cases, particularly via a publically accessible website such as What Do They Know.

We understand that your disagreement of our use of section 14 of the FOIA is based on "... the information that you have copied and pasted (and which you / others within the IOPC/IPCC are using in a Blanket format) is based on lies, IOPC/IPCC corruption. The evidence, and there is a lot, shows (will prove) that this too is part of the IOPC/IPCC ? Police and State cover up, conspiracy and corruption in my cases. All to cover up the events, the serious corruption, the criminal conspiracy, the failures Etc by police / State in my cases since 17 June 1999 and right up to the present day."

If you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact us quoting reference number IR1007529

Yours sincerely

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

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

show quoted sections

Martin McGartland

Dear !Request Info,

You lie and cover up soooooooo much. No it is Not. My grounds of internal appeal are nincluded within my reply / request for a review. Please ensure that those are dealt with correctly and considered (which I know they won't be by the Corrupt to the Core IOPC/IPCC (on life support).

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Not to readers: MP claims ‘systematic cover-up’ involving North Wales Police, probation service, CRC, IPCC and IOPC over Nicolas Churton murder

IN Full - News Reports:

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.

Police misled me over Nicholas Churton murder, says MP

11 April 2019

Wrexham MP Ian Lucas has said he was "misled deliberately" by police over a murder case.

Nicholas Churton was killed with a machete and hammer at his home in 2017 by Jordan Davidson, who had previous convictions and was out on licence.

Mr Lucas said he asked police why he was released from police custody four days before the murder and was wrongly told this was subject to an inquiry.

A minister told MPs there was "clear evidence of failure" over the case.

Davidson, from Wrexham, is serving a life sentence with a minimum of 30 years.

Killer 'should have been in prison'
Police 'made errors' before man's murder
Frustration over murder investigations
Despite his long list of previous convictions he was bailed after being arrested for possession of a knife days before killing 67-year-old disabled man Mr Churton in his Wrexham flat.

Mr Lucas told the Commons on Thursday "events leading to those crimes, revealed grave errors by the police and by the probation services in Wrexham and north Wales".

"There was no inquiry into the circumstances of Davidson's release from custody," he said.

"In fact, the IOPC [Independent Office for Police Conduct], following my questioning and my enquiries, commenced an inquiry into this release in April 2018, an inquiry which still has yet to conclude."

He said: "There's 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 of Police Conduct."

In response, Home Office Minister Nick Hurd said there was "clear evidence of failure" over the handling of the case.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politi...

!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

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Not to readers: MP claims ‘systematic cover-up’ involving North Wales Police, probation service, CRC, IPCC and IOPC over Nicolas Churton murder

IN Full - News Reports:

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.
http://www.wrexham.com/news/mp-claims-sy...

Police misled me over Nicholas Churton murder, says MP

11 April 2019

Wrexham MP Ian Lucas has said he was "misled deliberately" by police over a murder case.

Nicholas Churton was killed with a machete and hammer at his home in 2017 by Jordan Davidson, who had previous convictions and was out on licence.

Mr Lucas said he asked police why he was released from police custody four days before the murder and was wrongly told this was subject to an inquiry.

A minister told MPs there was "clear evidence of failure" over the case.

Davidson, from Wrexham, is serving a life sentence with a minimum of 30 years.

Killer 'should have been in prison'
Police 'made errors' before man's murder
Frustration over murder investigations
Despite his long list of previous convictions he was bailed after being arrested for possession of a knife days before killing 67-year-old disabled man Mr Churton in his Wrexham flat.

Mr Lucas told the Commons on Thursday "events leading to those crimes, revealed grave errors by the police and by the probation services in Wrexham and north Wales".

"There was no inquiry into the circumstances of Davidson's release from custody," he said.

"In fact, the IOPC [Independent Office for Police Conduct], following my questioning and my enquiries, commenced an inquiry into this release in April 2018, an inquiry which still has yet to conclude."

He said: "There's 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 of Police Conduct."

In response, Home Office Minister Nick Hurd said there was "clear evidence of failure" over the handling of the case.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politi...

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

1 Attachment

Dear Mr McGartland

Please find attached our internal review decision letter regarding your request of 26 March 2019 (our reference 1007529).

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

show quoted sections

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

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...