Mr Craik .. was alleged to be “shagging” Mrs Peacock whose husband Chief Supt Jim Peacock allegedly punched him at a barbecue in June 2007... cover up - Martin McGartland request
Martin McGartland
15 April 2019
Dear Vera Baird / Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner,
I have attached news report from August 2018 Fyi and to assist with the FOI request .
Staffordshire Police have confirmed around that time that; "We have been commissioned to undertake an independent review surrounding allegations in 2007 involving senior officers at Northumbria Police."
I would like the following information and documents concerning this matter;
1. When is the independent review due to be completed (if not already)?
2. Who 'commissioned' the review?
3. Have Staffordshire Police disclosed / shared any draft reports and or findings with You or Northumbria OPCC during the past 12 months?
(a) If they have, please supply date/s.
4. What is the total cost (amount) of the review to taxpayer (to you / Northumbria Police) since the review began and up until the date this request is answered?
4. Will you / OPCC Northumbria (given the serious allegations, claims of serious corruption and criminal offences) be publicly disclosing the full Staffordshire Police review report and findings to the public (who funded to review - good old taxpayer, easy come, easy go). If not, please explain why not?
As well as the above, this request is for copies (or the original document/s);
A, The terms of reference ToR for above independent review;
B, Detailed breakdown of all amounts claimed by Staffordshire Police, its officers and staff relating to each / every amount spent by them, claimed / invoiced to you / Northumbria Police (or which is due to be claimed) relating to the review.
This part of the request is full details, i.e. each / every amount claimed by Staffordshire Police and invoiced / billed to Northumbria Police / OPCC.... including but not limited to; description/s of each / every payment, reasons for all payment , amount/s of each / every , dates of all payments (this part of the request is for everything - as it appears on your internal account systems etc )
C. Copies of all invoices, bills / breakdowns of accounts claimed by Staffordshire Police as sent to you / Northumbria Police for payments relating to the review.
Yours faithfully,
Martin McGartland
New probe into claims 'police covered up' sex scandal bust-up as Line of Duty cops quiz ex-chiefs
Claims were made against ex-Northumbria Police chief Mike Craik and his Assistant Chief Constable Carolyn Peacock at an employment tribunal two years ago
ByJeremy Armstrong
20:13, 18 AUG 2018UPDATED18:15, 19 AUG 2018
Anti-corruption cops are probing an alleged cover-up of a “sex scandal” involving a former chief constable.
Lurid claims about ex-Northumbria Police chief Mike Craik and his Assistant Chief Constable Carolyn Peacock were made at an employment tribunal two years ago.
Mr Craik, now 63, was alleged to be “shagging” Mrs Peacock, now 63, whose husband Chief Supt Jim Peacock allegedly punched him at a barbecue in June 2007.
Mr Peacock, also 63, is alleged to have gone to Mr Craik’s home to confront him after claims of his wife’s alleged infidelity emerged.
Mr Craik’s wife Sharon allegedly hit a panic alarm at the house in Bamburgh, Northumberland, which meant armed cops were called to it.
But the employment tribunal into the sacking of the force’s legal chief Denise Aubrey heard that details of the alleged showdown were removed from police logs, with officers ordered not to discuss it.
Now Northumbria Crime Commissioner Vera Baird has enlisted Staffordshire Police to carry out a review into the claims.
It is being led by Det Chief Insp Phil Duffy, head of Staffordshire’s anti-corruption unit, who has visited the North East to talk to former senior officers in the case.
Ms Aubrey, 54, said: “The timing of this investigation is something I do not understand, given the delay. But I am willing to assist.”
The tribunal upheld her sacking for breaching confidentiality over allegations surrounding Mr Craik.
Northumbria Police’s legal bill for the tribunal was £645,000, including the cost of advice to Mr Craik and other ex-senior officers.
Inspector Paul Gilroy, who was in charge of armed response vehicles, provided a statement to the tribunal in which he said that officers had been deployed at the Craiks’ home in Bamburgh.
“This followed the activation of the personal attack alarm,” he said.
“Before terminating duty I viewed a computer-generated log for the incident to find all the text subject of it had been deleted.
“After speaking to officers dispatched to the incident, it became apparent why the log had been deleted. The incident apparently involved an altercation between the Chief and Mr Peacock.”
Mr Craik retired in 2010. Asked if he had an affair with Mrs Peacock, he said: “Absolutely not. There was never any evidence other than unpleasant rumour and they are still rumours which are untrue.”
He called the allegations deeply distressing for his wife Sharon.
She said in 2016: “Mike first dealt with this nine years ago but it has come around again. It is nonsense. We did not have a party and the Peacocks have never been to my house.”
The Peacocks, of Ponteland, deny all claims of an affair and a dispute at a barbecue. Mrs Peacock retired in 2007.
Ms Baird and Northumbria Police declined to comment.
Staffordshire Police said:” We have been commissioned to undertake an independent review surrounding allegations in 2007 involving senior officers at Northumbria Police.
"No further comments will be made surrounding this matter.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ne...
Dear Mr McGartland,
Your request is the latest in a series of requests that appear to lack any serious purpose or value.
The ICO advises that public authorities do not have to comply with requests if they are deemed to be vexatious.
Your request when viewed objectively and taken in context, can fairly be seen as an attempt to further your campaign against the office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Northumbria Police and its senior officers. It can therefore be classed as vexatious in nature.
The Act was designed to give individuals a right of access to official information with the intention of making public bodies more transparent and accountable. Your request has been classed as a misuse of this process and is clearly an attempt to disrupt the day-to-day business of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Despite efforts to provide you information, you have remained dissatisfied with responses supplied to you.
Whilst a requestor cannot normally be classed as vexatious, the history of a requestor can be a contributing factor when considering whether a request can fairly be classed as vexatious. This is certainly relevant in this case.
You have submitted numerous requests both to the OPCC and to Northumbria Police and many of your requests level unfounded accusations at public authorities and staff. Your requests also appear to be sent in a “scatter-gun” effort to fish for information to try to obtain some kind of data to score points against the Office of the Police Commissioner.
You are submitting frequent and overlapping requests about similar issues and any response provided inevitably leads to further requests. Such a step is seen as a deliberate attempt to cause disruption to staff within the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner who would have to be extracted from everyday duties should they have to be committed to responding to your requests on this subject.
Your request has been classed as manifestly unjustified, inappropriate and an improper use of a formal procedure. It can therefore be classed as vexatious in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Act and accordingly no response is required to be supplied.
You should therefore accept this as a formal refusal under Section 14 of the Act.
Please note that following this response, requests on this and related matters will be classed as vexatious and no acknowledgement or response will be provided.
Yours sincerely.
Kevin
Kevin Payne
Office of Dame Vera Baird QC
Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria
Martin McGartland
24 April 2019
Dear Vera Baird / OPCC Northumbria,
Only you could make such a comment "that appear to lack any serious purpose or value." ... The request relates to an ongoing external police force review / investigation into the most serious allegations against NP officers and a cover up.
Your Lies and false comments that you make regarding; "Your request when viewed objectively and taken in context, can fairly be seen as an attempt to further your campaign against the office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Northumbria Police and its senior officers. It can therefore be classed as vexatious in nature."
And; "You have submitted numerous requests both to the OPCC and to Northumbria Police and many of your requests level unfounded accusations at public authorities and staff."
You and your staff continue to suppress / cover up information (in serious breach of DPA (not once, twice or three times,,, but more) relating to me, my cases. You will say / do anything to protect Corrupt Winton Keenen, Team Winton and NP when it concerns my cases (and you continue to protect him from investigation - see my other requests). Anything I have said (and in public) is based on truth and facts. No one has taken action against me for defamation (I wonder why QC Baird) ... Answer - it is more than their jobs are worth.... they (as you are well aware) would have to answer questions under oath.... they don't want to do that...
I note you have STILL not give any details concerning your Lies / false claims of my "unfounded accusations at public authorities and staff"????? Its over to you Vera Baird QC / OPCC Northumbria ..... Now Put Up Or Shut Up. This has been circumvented so that questions I have asked will not be answered due to embarrassment of OPCC /NP.
I'm sooooooo looking forward to details (and maybe evidence - of which there is none) of any examples of "unfounded accusations at public authorities and staff.".... For the record I stand by each / every comment I have ever made in correspondence and or in public (because they are all true).
Yours sincerely,
Martin McGartland
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now