False witness statement (URN: 16 AY 2837 15)

The request was partially successful.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Humberside Police,

Below is a link to the first of 7 pages of a false witness statement (1 Sep 2015) contained in a Crown Prosecution Service bundle handed to the defendant by the court usher only minutes before a court hearing on 30 September 2015.

https://www.scribd.com/document/32765929...

The witness has signed the statement declaring the following:

"This statement, (consisting of 7 page(s) each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true."

The statement is not true, nor could the person who made the statement have believed it to be so.

Please disclose the following in relation to the witness statement referred to:

1. Was the statement tendered in evidence

2. Humberside police forces policy with regards to dealing with an allegation that such a witness statement is untrue

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Information Compliance, Humberside Police

Thank you for your request for information.  If you are requesting
information under the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental
Information Regulations you will receive a response within the statutory
20 working days.

We aim to respond to any other enquiries within 20 working days. Further
information on requesting information can be found on this [1]link.

 

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

References

Visible links
1. http://www.humberside.police.uk/your-rig...

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

From: me
To: InformationComplianceUnit@humberside.pnn.police.uk
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016
Subject: Freedom of Information request (15 October 2016)

Dear Humberside Police,

Re: False witness statement (URN: 16 AY 2837 15)

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Humberside Police should have responded by 11 November 2016.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

Yours sincerely

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

From: me
To: InformationComplianceUnit@humberside.pnn.police.uk
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016
Subject: Freedom of Information request (15 October 2016)

Dear Humberside Police,

Re: False witness statement (URN: 16 AY 2837 15)

If Humberside Police has not responded by 1 December 2016 I will assume it has no intention of doing so and prefer that I escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

Yours sincerely

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Complaint sent to Information Commissioner's Office concerning the Humberside Police failing to deal with this FoI request properly.

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane, Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

3 November 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FOI REQUEST TO HUMBERSIDE POLICE – (REF - NONE)

I made a freedom of information request to Humberside Police (‘HP’), details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

False witness statement (URN: 16 AY 2837 15)

BACKGROUND

For a number of years I have been engaged in matters relating to fraud committed by private bailiffs working on behalf of local authorities. Since around 2009, Humberside police have for an array of reasons refused to investigate allegations of fraud committed by the firms involved. The force has made it categorically clear that evidence – initially relating to attempts by Rossendales to defraud myself – and subsequently to the matter scaled up and relating to several bailiff firms, does not warrant police resources being used despite the amount, which is based on a five year period, potentially amounting to millions of pounds throughout the country.

Complaints have been submitted in relation to the force turning a blind eye to the complicity of council’s, in response to which the force has been equally negligent in dealing with. The force demonstrates no signs of accountability, appearing to conduct itself without any standard or duty to the taxpayer. Possibly police forces are under pressure to ensure no cases are pursued that might impact negatively on revenue collected and so the fraud associated with private firms awarded government contracts for this work is brushed under the carpet. The force's unaccountability is self evident by it failing to take allegations of fraud seriously and subsequently mishandling complaints against it in regards that failure. For example, a complaint of almost two years duration concluded recently with the expected negative outcome. Initially the complaint was recorded wrongly as 'Direction & Control' instead of a 'Conduct Matter' (a Conduct Matter has a right of appeal, whilst a Direction and Control complaint does not). The police’s strategy to avoid dealing with appeals was discovered to be incorrect after researching the matter and contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) who had agreed that the force was classifying complaints wrongly.

REASONS BEHIND SUBMITTING REQUEST

I have been the victim of a stitch-up involving Grimsby Magistrates' Court, with Humberside Police and the CPS as accomplices abusing the Criminal Justice system by allowing fabricated evidence to convict me for charges of which I am innocent (now with a criminal record and £600+ fine). 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.

The CPS had no evidence with which to justify prosecuting the case so suspected that the CPS Solicitor had been corruptly influenced by Humberside Police/Grimsby Magistrates' court to proceed with a prosecution where the evidence fell below the standards which would be expected for a fair trial.

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 12 month period since the matter was formally reported. Humberside police also refuses to record as a crime the reported incident about two witnesses lying in their witness statements.

Inconsistent witness statements

The offence was alleged to have taken place on public grounds in front of Humberside Police station. In the locality, a cabin had been erected due to building works which was used as the temporary reception/front office.

Inconsistencies were identified which supported the fact that both the civilian witnesses had committed perjury. Evidence is held in two witness statements dated 27 August and 1 September 2015 produced by [A****** and T**** J******] about which there is no question that they contain outright lies. The witness statements are contained in the CPS's case bundle which was handed to the defendant minutes before the hearing at Grimsby Magistrates court on 30 September 2015.

The statements are inconsistent with what was said before they were produced and with the front office clerk’s account in his witness statement (also part of the CPS case bundle).

The front office clerk in his witness statement says he was approached by [Mr J******] who alerted him to the offence taking place. However, by the time [Mr J******] produced his statement, he had changed his mind effectively saying that it looked to him like the offence was going to take place. [Mr J******] was an unreliable witness as he had not seen the offence as he had first alleged, only assumed he had, which was confirmed in-between informing the front office clerk and producing his statement which he changed accordingly.

Other glaringly obvious inconsistencies were identified in the statements recorded in the CPS case file. The fact they appeared not to have been spotted by the professionals involved suggests that it was convenient for them not to be spotted. [T**** J******] for example whose witness statement was produced five days after the alleged offence, had the benefit of knowing what to change or leave out, on account of inaccurate statements having been already identified. Why it was not obvious to the CPS, police and court leads one to suspect that this witness was coached.

The success of the authorities in securing the conviction and defrauding me has partly been attributable to their reliance on my ignorance of the legal system and have been able to keep from me knowing about papers which I should have been served by the CPS and alerted to their importance.

The Crown Prosecution Service held no evidence to support the charge, but a guilty verdict found nonetheless suggesting all the more that the outcome and proceedings were the result of a stitch-up where the Court, Police and the CPS were all complicit.

On appealing the matter to the Crown Court, leave to appeal out of time was refused by Circuit Judge Mark Bury on spurious grounds which were that I deliberately absented myself from trial, and that I put forward no adequate reason for the appeal being out of time despite extensive representations contained in the application arguing why I had not attended the trial and the reason I was appealing out of time.

FOI REQUEST – 15 OCTOBER 2016

HP was written to as follows:

Dear Humberside Police,

Below is a link to the first of 7 pages of a false witness statement (1 Sep 2015) contained in a Crown Prosecution Service bundle handed to the defendant by the court usher only minutes before a court hearing on 30 September 2015.

https://www.scribd.com/document/32765929...

The witness has signed the statement declaring the following:

"This statement, (consisting of 7 page(s) each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true."

The statement is not true, nor could the person who made the statement have believed it to be so.
Please disclose the following in relation to the witness statement referred to:

1. Was the statement tendered in evidence

2. Humberside police forces policy with regards to dealing with an allegation that such a witness statement is untrue

Yours faithfully,

NO RESPONSE

HP did not respond other than those messages which were auto generated.

I communicated on 28 November 2016 to HP that if it had not responded by 1 December I would assume it would have no intention of doing so and prefer that I escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner.

In essence, HP has not responded to any of the communications other than those which were computer generated.

Yours sincerely

Clement, Angela 8587, Humberside Police

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Please find attached response.

Apologies for the delay.

Regards

Angela Clement| Senior Information Compliance Officer| Humberside Police |
Tel: 01482 340669 (3669) | Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Closing In left an annotation ()

Information Commissioner's Decision Notice of 22 June 2017 (Reference: FS50656398, FS50658389, FS50667388)

https://www.scribd.com/document/35207405...

Mark Bentley left an annotation ()

The Crown Prosecution Service should have been on top of this, even if the police were not.

Pre-Trial Witness Interviews

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/pre_-...

"You should go through all the key witness statements and cross-refer them. You should note who corroborates who and any inconsistencies or gaps in the evidence. Check to see that all exhibits are exhibited by the correct person. "

Closing In left an annotation ()

Application for an extension of time to apply to the First-tier Tribunal:

30 January 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/37034146...

Closing In left an annotation ()

Information Rights Tribunal, Appellant's notice (grounds of appeal) against Decision Notice:

30 January 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/37034151...

Closing In left an annotation ()

Information Rights Tribunal Decision (First-tier) refusing to extend the time limit for appealing 'Out of Time':

8 February 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/37135908...

(This decision was made by the Tribunal Registrar. A party is entitled to apply within 14 calendar days for the decision to be considered afresh)

Closing In left an annotation ()

Application for a decision to be considered afresh by a judge, in accordance with rule 4(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009:

21 February 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/37205015...

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org