Misconduct of Professional Standards Department and IOPC casework manager Sarah Turner

June May (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information 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.

The request was refused by Independent Office for Police Conduct.

June May (Account suspended)

Dear Independent Office for Police Conduct,

Re, "Supplementary evidence in support of misconduct of Professional Standards Department and named officers"


See paragraphs 5 and 7 in the extract of casework manager, Sarah Turner’s, appeal outcome letter (IOPC Decision letter 14 December 2018)

' 5. You assert again that you have been wrongly convicted and that your report of 19 February 2018 provides evidence pointing to the cause of the wrongful conviction. I do not agree with your assertion based on the evidence available and furthermore, I note that your case has been to the CCRC and was unsuccessful.
7. You reiterate that your arrest was unlawful. I disagree and concur with the conclusion made by the IO. You appear to be unhappy with the IO’s discussion of PC Blake’s statement when he discusses ‘further grounds for arrest’ and necessity for arrest with your refusal to provide your name. The arresting officer provides further reasoning for his decision to arrest, not an alternative. I fully agree with the reasoning provided by the IO and furthermore highlight that the custody sergeant could have refused detention and did not and an Inspector further reviewed the position in custody. '

The above strongly suggests that the casework manager has no understanding whatsoever of the necessary components that are required for a lawful arrest under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (para 7 above). Neither did she have any regard in paragraph 5 of the limited jurisdiction of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

Q. Are casework managers not required to have the appropriate knowledge to enable them to deal with complaints and appeals fairly so that the complainant is spared from further injustice?

Yours faithfully,

June May

!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 June May

We will not be answering your request because it is invalid. Our reasons for this conclusion are the same as we gave in respect of the requests we received from the WhatDoTheyKnow user June May on 24 and 26 July. Our letter of 30 July refers.

We will re-consider your request on receipt of evidence of identity confirming that this is a legitimate request for information by 'June May'.

Guidance is attached that outlines the type of documents that you may provide to verify your identity. You should use a postal or personal email address to send this evidence and quote reference numbers 1007816.

Once you have provided satisfactory evidence that 'June May' is your real name, we will be happy to progress 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


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