Conviction sentance of paedophile Police Officer PC 8331 Paul Davies

The request was partially successful.

Dear Ministry of Justice,
West Midlands CPS announced on 7th March 2019 that a dedicated Young Person`s Police Officer.pc 8331 Davies, had been jailed for making indecent images of a child
https://www.cps.gov.uk/west-midlands/new...
QUOTE "Paul Davies (57) has been sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for making indecent images of a child. He pleaded guilty to the offence on 17 January 2019 at Dudley Magistrates' Court.Davies was a serving Police Officer at the time of committing the offence and held the role as the Young Persons Officer for Dudley. Davies met the 17-year-old when responding to an incident at her college. Having asked for her number, Davies began to message the girl. The messages became sexual in nature and indecent images were exchanged.Screenshots of the indecent images had been deleted by Davies. However, these were recovered by the police during a forensic examination of his phone.Meloney Hughes from the CPS said: “This is a very serious case where the offender was a Young Persons Officer and exploited that position.“He knew the victim was under the age of 18 when he contacted her and exchanged sexual images with her.“The offender would have known that his actions constituted an offence, which is why he attempted to deleted the images.”
I am aware that in March 2017 retired West Midlands Police Officer Peter Hogan who was still employed as a personal Chauffeur to the CHIEF CONSTABLE,was caught with 243 category A images(the most evil category) and over 3,000 lower category images, and was Chairman of School govenors at Baskerville School giving children advice on how to stay safe online, and Recorder Stephen Linehan QC jailed him for 12 months and ordered him to register as a sex offender for 10 years.
The WM CPS have refused to confirm the totality of the sentance imposed upon pc Davies,quote "The official statistics relating to sentencing, criminal court proceedings, offenders brought to justice, the courts and the judiciary are maintained by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), therefore, in our response to your FOI Request reference 8387, in relation to question two(ii), we referred you to the MoJ as sentencing is the court’s exercise and the MoJ have the most accurate information on sentences awarded".
FOI Q1.Who is responsible for supplying the Court sentencing information to the MoJ and is the information available for the public to view?
FOI Q2.What was the total punishment imposed upon pc Davies in this case and,if it is restricted information,why is it restricted when the Court process is supposed to be equitable and transparent to ensure justice seen, and should the local CPS be aware of,and hold, the results of their cases?

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Midlands (RSU) KILO, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon

 

Please find attached the acknowledgment of receipt of your Freedom of
Information Act request.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer (KILO)

Midlands Regional Support Unit
email: [1][email address]
HMCTS Midlands Region -Working together to support the delivery of a First
Class Justice System

 

For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see:
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Midlands (RSU) KILO,
Thank you,unnamed person,for the update.

Yours sincerely,
Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Midlands (RSU) KILO, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon

 

Please find attached the response to your Freedom of Information Act
request.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer (KILO)

Midlands Regional Support Unit
email: [1][email address]
HMCTS Midlands Region -Working together to support the delivery of a First
Class Justice System

 

For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see:
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Midlands (RSU) KILO,
I am aware that if a request does not meet the requirements of the FOIA regarding disclosing information actually held,and I realise you have no obligation to create new information,you have the anticipated option to deal with it as a request for general information in the public interest, and the purpose of my requests,one way or another,is to understand the transparency,or otherwise,of the legal system.
The well known standard is that not only must justice be done,it must be seen to be done.
To clarify my FOI Q1,this question exists to establish WHO within the local Courtroom scenario has the duty to RECORD the detail of sentences imposed at the conclusion of a Trial, where are the detailed records then maintained and are the details forwarded to the MoJ for central recording.
I presume sentencing details are kept on a common system accessible by authorised agencies,such as the police and prison service, but the local CPS say they do not keep records or maintain them, and advise me that the MoJ have the responsibility.The question is,WHO is supposed to imput or forward the sentancing detail at the conclusion of a Trial and,once recorded on a system does the CPS and MoJ have authority to access it,or is the MoJ advised by a different system.My question does not relate to specific sentences, information relating to sentencing guidelines or statistics, just clarification as to how the recording system operates.

Regarding FOI Q2 ,I wish for you to reconsider your rejection on the basis that you quote,"The reason for section 32 is not to do with the issue of whether information is a public record or not, it is to preserve the courts control over court records. Even if a document may have been made public at the hearing it ceases to be a public record after the hearing and then becomes protected by virtue of section 32. It was not the intention that the FOIA should provide indirect access to court records; the greater public interest was considered to lie in the preservation of the courts' own procedures for considering disclosure".
This is not a universal concept,I am not requesting any personal information or documents from the hearing,I am requesting information produced after the conclusion of the trial which advises the public of the Court`s decision and it seems very wrong that the Court seek to conceal the results of their verdicts,contrary to the public interest.

I hope you will respond to both of these questions as part of public service information to explain to everyone on this public website how the Trial result system works.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Midlands (RSU) KILO, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon

 

Please find attached the acknowledgement of receipt of your Freedom of
Information Act request.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer (KILO)

Midlands Regional Support Unit
email: [1][email address]
HMCTS Midlands Region -Working together to support the delivery of a First
Class Justice System

 

For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see:
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Midlands (RSU) KILO,
I reiterate,in the public interest,you may if you wish complete this request as a general request for information,outside of the limitations of the FOIA, because undestandably it may not be held as disclosable hard copy.
Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Dear Midlands (RSU) KILO,
This is just a progress reminder,for the purposes of updating the public website.
The MoJ is required to provide a response within 20 working days and will send a
response to the request by 19 June 2019.
I have identified that the exemptions the MoJ sought to employ regarding confidentiality of Court data produced for the purposes of the trial were inapplicable in this request,as I have simply requested information produced after the conclusion of the case,namely the verdict in full.
It is worrying that the MoJ are making every effort to deny the concept that justice must be seen to be done.
I presume that MoJ employ people of integrity and accountability so I would appreciate the responding person to use their name,or provide a reason for not using their name.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Midlands (RSU) KILO, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon

 

Please find attached the acknowledgment of receipt of your request to
review the FOI response.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer (KILO)

Midlands Regional Support Unit
email: [1][email address]
HMCTS Midlands Region -Working together to support the delivery of a First
Class Justice System

 

For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see:
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Midlands (RSU) KILO,
Thank you for your standard response dated 13th June in response to my reminder that completion is due within the next few days.
I do require an explanation as to the lack of disclosure regarding the total sentancing of the of Police Officer Paul Davies, the media simply reports an immediately imposed jail term of 9 months(probably reduced because he pleaded guilty) and mentioned "The Crown will consider a sexual harm prevention order" without subsequently mentioning if any order was imposed by the Crown.
Obviously the MoJ should know how the law works and I am ignorant of these matters.
In your response please advise,in this situation,how would the case be referred to the `Crown`,who is the person who acts on behalf of the `Crown`and where are they located, did the `Crown`decide to impose any order and,if so,who do they notify to direct that such an order has either been imposed or not.
I am just trying to establish the train of accountability to understand how the system works to include the `Crown`.

By comparison,there was no need for any reference to the `Crown`in the case of the West Midlands senior officer Inspector Lee Bartram where the Judge issued a 16 month suspended sentance and a 10 year sexual harm prevention order,which Chief Constable Dave Thomson said he was going to appeal against its leniency but,sadly,failed to be true to his word.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi...

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Midlands (RSU) KILO, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon

 

Please find attached the response to your request for an review of the
Freedom of Information Act response.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer (KILO)

Midlands Regional Support Unit
email: [1][email address]
HMCTS Midlands Region -Working together to support the delivery of a First
Class Justice System

 

For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see:
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

 

 

show quoted sections

Midlands (RSU) KILO, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon

 

Please find attached the response to your Freedom of Information Act
request.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer (KILO)

Midlands Regional Support Unit
email: [1][email address]
HMCTS Midlands Region -Working together to support the delivery of a First
Class Justice System

 

For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see:
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Midlands (RSU) KILO,
Thank you for the very helpful reply which advises that HMCTS and the MoJ have common access to the offences record database but the CPS have no responsibility to keep records or have access to it.
Just to clarify a final aspect relevant to your response, when the CPS conduct a prosecution of a possible repeat offender how are they able to advise the Court of the offenders previous conviction history?
Thanking you for final clarification.

Yours sincerely,
Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Midlands (RSU) KILO, Ministry of Justice

Dear Mr Fallon

Thank you for your email. Please note that the reply given to you under the Freedom of Information request did not confirm whether the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) do or do not have a responsibility to keep records. They are not a Department or Agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and I cannot comment on their internal procedures or processes.

I am not able to answer your question regarding offenders' previous conviction details held by the CPS as the MoJ is not the appropriate authority to contact in relation to the CPS's procedures. You may wish to contact the CPS; their contact details are Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), The Information Management Unit, Crown Prosecution Service, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AE or email [email address]. You can find further information regarding how to make a Freedom of Information request to the CPS at https://www.cps.gov.uk/freedom-information

Yours sincerely

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer (KILO)
Midlands Regional Support Unit
email: [email address]
HMCTS Midlands Region -Working together to support the delivery of a First Class Justice System

For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

show quoted sections

Dear Midlands (RSU) KILO,
I have already explained my ignorance of how the `justice`system works and I am not asking you to express any opinion about any event,but simply clarify lines of accountability.The media reported "The Crown will consider a sexual harm prevention order" without subsequently mentioning if any order was imposed.
Please clarify how the system works.I presume that the MoJ is a branch of Government eventually reporting to the Prime Minister, and Government is responsible for making the laws.The Crown Prosecution Service is a separate agency striving to achieve convictions using information provided by the police,who are accountable to the Home Office(a part of Government), by employing prosecuting lawyers, but who is the most senior CPS person accountable to in the pyramid of power and,when something is `referred to the Crown for consideration what does that really mean?
Thanking you in anticipation of your public service duty in explaining how the system works in the interests of justice.
I have contacted the CPS directly to understand how they obtain data, but I would appreciate the MoJ clarifying how the pyramids of accoutability operate because there are obviously elements of confusion from the public perspective.
Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Dear Midlands (RSU) KILO,
Thank you for your response,I shall mark it as completed,some information provided.
I posted the request as a service to public knowledge and I am surprised that you do not appear to understand or be able to explain the big picture yourselves.
As far as I can tell it is not the responsibility of the MoJ, or the CPS, or the Courts to keep detailed records of convictions so it appears to be a responsibility of the Police National Computer, but there is still a concern of how the data, apparently held by the police, is validated and supervised.
Many police activities are carried out by civilian employees,with no sworn allegiance to anyone,and a corrupt individual could manipulate data and no one outside of the police would be aware of it as no one appears to be responsible for auditing these police activities.
Thank you for your help,the CPS confirm they know nothing and rely on the police records, and I shall try to chase up the issue further elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)