Dear Humberside Police and Crime Commissioner,
I would like disclosing all relevant information to which the Commissioner must comply when taking steps to Dismiss the Chief Constable.
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
for Humberside, Matthew Grove. This is an automatic response
acknowledging the receipt of your email.
Your email will be passed to a member of the team for appropriate action.
Due to the high level of mail we receive every day, an immediate response
cannot be guaranteed, but we would hope to be able to respond to you
within 20 working days.
Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police
Dear Sir, the procedures for a police and crime commissioner to suspend or remove a chief constable are set out in Schedule 8 to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The information you are seeking is therefore exempt under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act, because the information is accessible to you, as it is already in the public domain and can be found here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011...
Would you please note that again you have submitted an invalid request as you do not provide your correct name. Where a request is received and the applicant does not provide their correct name then there is no lawful requirement on a public authority to deal with the request under the Freedom of Information Act because the criterion set out in Section 8 of the Act is not met. As you have been advised of this previously please note that any further invalid requests will not be answered.
If you think that we have not supplied information in accordance with our Publication Scheme or under general rights of access then you have the right to ask for an internal review. Any request for an internal review should be made within 30 days and addressed to:
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside The Lawns Harland Way Cottingham
E-mail: [Humberside PCC request email]
We would aim to complete an internal review within 20 working days.
If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Dear Ms Johnson,
Thank you for the web links.
Can you please acknowledge whether or not the following letter to the Commissioner has been received?
The Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside
40 High Street
Dear Mr Hunter
RE: NEGLIGENCE IN HUMBERSIDE POLICE'S HANDLING OF CRIME ALLEGATIONS
I wrote to Mr Grove with optimism in January 2013 believing that with Humberside Police being held to account by an elected Commissioner, the public would have a more effective means of seeking redress than when the Police Authority was responsible.
It was apparent soon enough that the elected Commissioner didn’t have the powers to do what the public perhaps believe he could. Either that, or the route of least resistance was taken, which in my case was to suggest considering civil redress as a remedy for concerns raised about the Chief Constable failing to address the corruption in handling fraud allegations i.e., refusing to investigate and subsequently mishandling complaints and appeals.
It is illogical when you consider the force’s limited resources that at the same time an unpaid taxpayer has supplied concrete evidence to prove a crime for that person to be fobbed-off and lied to with appeals prolonging over several years with no substance to back up negative outcomes when a decision has eventually been made. The fact that this is happening raises the question of whether the force has its hands tied, to the point where an investigation into local government is a no go area, i.e., the force operates on a discriminatory basis.
None of these issues have been resolved; rather further more serious matters have arisen since where similarly there appears no end in sight, being again embroiled in continual dispute with the force. The force is again failing to resolve the concerns with paperwork being diverted through the same sham process where it is predicted that in a year or two the force will have done nothing except cover for the authorities and to have added to the years of my time that the police have already wasted.
The most serious matter concerns Humberside police stitching me up with fabricated evidence (now having a criminal record and a £600+ fine to pay) for an offence I am innocent of. The suspected motivation being that I had got on the wrong side of the police by highlighting matters in which the force is complicit concerning substantial fraud. In relation to this there has been no outcome and probably not even any steps taken to investigate the police officer complained about for incitement of perjury over the 6 month period since the matter was formally reported. Humberside police also refuses to record as a crime the reported incident, i.e., that submitted about two witnesses lying in their witness statements.
Another matter arising relates to the force responding to a reported crime (perjury to defraud) by stating that such a crime, one punishable as an offence whether occurring in criminal or civil proceedings, was a civil matter. North East Lincolnshire Council obtained a liability order for non-payment of council tax and evidence is held that it lied to the court in a witness statement to do so and consequently costs awarded to the council were obtained fraudulently.
A request was made for the matter to be escalated for the attention of the Chief Constable in order that the anticipated dissatisfaction of a subsequent decision would be subject to external scrutiny rather than the force investigating itself. The force proceeded regardless and the matter dealt with under the Local Resolution process with the outcome (13 January 2016) stating that the issues may be appeal points that could be raised at any subsequent appeal hearings and that the force did not investigate allegations of perjury unless a request to do so comes from the court.
These were spurious statements because the matter is criminal and not something you can appeal to another judge in civil proceedings. In any event, the Crown Prosecution Service's website states that the police do not have to be instructed by the court to investigate perjury.
“CASES INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY
Where a judge or magistrate believes that some evidence adduced at trial is perjured s/he can recommend that there should be a police investigation.
The absence of such recommendation does not mean that there is no justification for an investigation.”
The outcome of Local Resolution process has been appealed with the paperwork submitted 25 January 2016 but six months from the original complaint being made on 12 November 2015 there is still no outcome or any update.
When a member of the public is deemed to have committed an offence (even without or with fabricated evidence) a criminal prosecution is it instituted. However, when it's a council officer committing perjury to defraud a member of the public even when there is concrete evidence, the force falls over itself to protect the council officer from the justice system.
My evidence goes far beyond what would be required to prove the perjury case against the council, yet a blind eye is turned to that crime. On the other hand, the CPS gets away with having successfully secured a prosecution against me on fabricated evidence that even an untrained person would have spotted inconsistencies.
It is no revelation to declare that police officers having to investigate their colleagues fuels the problem, but there is a systematic abuse of the complaints and appeal process that needs to be escalated for the attention at the highest level. There must be some action which can be taken which can make an impact on reforming the dysfunctional process. Though the process is governed by statutory procedures and for that reason outside interference is restricted, the existence of the statutory complaints process should not be seen by the force as an excuse for unaccountability, even though that is in effect what the process enables.
It can not have been parliament's intention when legislating the relevant Act, that all the concerns of the public should be opposed as a matter of course merely on account of there being a complaint and series of appeal processes. There comes a point when an outside body should consider it appropriate to intervene, if not the appeal process, at least the abuse of it.
It appears you have been elected on what could be interpreted to be an undertaking, in part, to root out the corruption within Humberside Police. I would like therefore to see evidence of that with an investigation into the (invisible) Chief Constable's failings who has apparently in order to make life easy for herself, adopted the Ostrich approach rather than confronting failings and providing the public who pay her salary the service they’ve paid for.
Dear Sir, the correspondence that you reference below has not been received in this office. I note that you have addressed it to Pacific Exchange. We moved from that address in August 2014 and we are now based at the Lawns, Harland Way, Cottingham HU16 5SN.
As this is not an FOI request it would not be appropriate for me to respond to the content of your message via this website. If you would like to contact me via a personal email address you will receive a response.
Dear Ms Johnson,
Thank you. The letter (yesterday) was returned to me after surviving what appears an elaborate journey.
It is now back in the system correctly addressed to the P&CC.