Opperation Rochester/GWMH

Ann Reeves made this Freedom of Information request to Hampshire Constabulary

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 partially successful.

Dear Hampshire Constabulary,

FOI/DPA Act Request re: Operation Rochester

In 2005, Mr. David A Black was commissioned by Hampshire Police to
write a report about Mrs. Elsie Devine (my late mother) and other
patients who died under suspicious circumstances at the Gosport War
Memorial Hospital.

The report was completed on the 4th January 2005, however my family
were not permitted to see it at the time. Nor were we allowed to
see it at the CPS while we listened to justifications given by Mr.
David Perry QC and Mr. Paul Close. We specifically asked to see the
reports, as his reasoning for not taking the case into a criminal
court were flawed, disjointed and; totally at odds with what was
blatant on the medical file and that of Hampshire Police, who had
informed us that of the 92 cases Elsie Devine's case was fast
tracked to the CPS with serious concerns.

We have only recently studied this report in detail having had the
privilege of seeing and examining Mr. David Black’s opinion in
full. It’s very worrying that Hampshire Police decided to use him
with the vast amount of "EXPERT" medical witnesses with court
experience available? Not only is his opinion untruthful, and
peppered with blatant inaccuracies and contradictions, it was a
shock for us to have discovered that he was an Associate Member of
the General Medical Council at this time. I attach GMC guidance as
a footnote, as it appears from this that he failed to adhere to
their contemporaneous guidance on acting as a medical expert
witness.

Professor Bulstrode was also working at the GMC with Mr. David
Black at the same time, - he is the half-brother of the suspect -
Dr Jane Barton (same mother, different fathers). Moreover the GMC
had an ongoing investigation against Dr Jane Barton and had
enforced no more than 11-sanctions against her at the time. The
obvious contradictions in his opinion have raised suspicions
amongst the bereaved relatives group about the seeming partiality
of his recommendations. But it is also his lack of candor about his
professional links to the suspect’s brother that we also find of
concern?
Why Mr. David Black accepted work from you on the case is a
complete mystery to us, as he should have followed GMC advice,
especially in the case of Dr Jane Barton.

We found his and Dr Dudley's opinions odd at the time (as did other
members of the medical profession who have seen the case notes),
and feel that both Counsel and the CPS may have taken a different
decision to prosecute had different experts written a less slanted
and accurate version of events, bearing in mind the words of David
Perry QC "I must take the opinions of the "EXPERTS" in making my
decision"! It reads almost as if Jane Barton herself helped write
the opinion! In our opinion he should face GMC censure for
jeopardising a criminal investigation in this way, particularly one
involving almost 900 contentious deaths of vulnerable elderly
patients who thought they were there for respite/rehabilitation, as
this case did.

We would be grateful if Hampshire Constabulary could answer the
following questions and provide additional documents regarding the
following points:

1. Could you please explain why Mr. D.A. Black was commissioned to
write this "expert opinion" on Mrs. Devine’s medical file, whilst
he was employed by the GMC? (Highly irregular: see explanatory
footnotes).

2.Were Hampshire Police aware that Mr. Black was employed there?
Were Hampshire Police aware Prof Bulstrode (Dr Barton's brother)
was also employed at the GMC?

3. Could we please have copies of all internal/regional/national
directives explaining how Hampshire Police came to choose Mr. David
Black? We would like to know what protocol for selecting experts
for criminal prosecutions did Hampshire Police use at the time?
When selecting "medical experts" did that same protocol apply to
all Constabularies, or was it specific to Hampshire alone?

4. Could you tell us who made the final decision as to who was
chosen for this task, outlining why Dr Black and Dr Dudley were
chosen above all other "medical experts" against those that have
given evidence in court? Could you tell us if the Chief
Constable/Deputy Chief Constable Readhead now (Chief Executive at
Association of Chief Police Officers Director of Information at
Association of Chief Police Officers) were consulted over this
choice, or even if they took the decision themselves?

5. Could you explain why Dr Dudley was given Dr Jane Barton’s
Police statement before he wrote his expert opinion on Elsie
Devine’s medical file, which was full of glaring inaccuracies and
contradictions, even going against his own practicing? Is this
normal practice during a criminal investigation especially being as
Dr Barton was being questioned under caution?

6. How many different Police forces were involved in Operation
Rochester in total? Could you please name them if any?

7. How much did Mr. David A Black, Professor Wilcox and Dr Dudley
charged Hampshire Constabulary for their "expert opinion" on Elsie
Devine’s medical file? How many hours work did these Expert
Opinions take by each expert?

8. We would be grateful if you could let us know who wrote up the
shockingly inaccurate “Summary of Care” for Mrs. Elsie Devine which
was given to Mr. David Black as part of the documentation to write
this “expert” opinion? Was it a Police Officer (if so their
rank/constabulary)? Where did they get this information from as it
appears so disjointed, we are at a loss? Was it a member of the
hospital staff, or the accused Doctor Barton herself, with the full
knowledge of the hospital management? The latter is a distinct
possibility that should have been explored, since managers handing
over files generally allow the doctors involved to ‘tidy up’ their
notes. Was any forensic comparison of
typewriters/handwriting/ink/style of writing ever conducted?

9. Please could you supply copies of all correspondence, memos,
recorded telephone conversations FOI/DPA (subject access request)
relating to Mr. D A Black and Dr Dudley/Mrs. Elsie Devine/Reeves
family? I appreciate you will need to redact their names.

10. Please could we have copies of FOI/DPA (subject access)
requests, which are still being withheld from us in relation to the
criminal investigation into Elsie Devine’s death? Detective David
Grocott stated he would be releasing the material when all of the
Inquests were over, well they are over and the release of the Baker
Report but we are still waiting, I gather he has since retired?
Hampshire Police have shared all this Data with the General Medical
Council and the Nursing Midwifery Council (Public Body’s Charity)
and maybe many others outside of the CPS. The GMC stated they
cannot release this Data because Hampshire Police will not give
permission. It also gives great cause for concern as when Hampshire
Police passed this sensitive information to the GMC Professor
Bulstrode was working there (Dr Jane Barton’s brother) so did he
enlighten his sister as to the ongoing investigation? Remembering
also there was Mr David Black writing up the Expert opinions.

I am sure Hampshire Police can understand our concerns why we are
refused this information that they have shared with all and sundry,
as Dr Jane Barton and the Nurses involved were not even struck off.

11. Can you please state what law/regulation is being used to
prevent its release to this family i.e. is it a statutory power

held by that person/department or was it a 'discretionary power'
and who?

Many thanks for your assistance in this matter.
Ann Reeves and family

GMC Guidance:

Understanding the responsibilities of being an expert witness
• Doctors are advised to understand the duties of the role before
putting themselves forward. Attending a relevant, CPD-approved
course can develop a good understanding. They should also consider
organising a proper induction into expert witness work,
particularly in those specialties frequently called on to assist
the
Questions to consider when taking a case as an expert witness?
1. What type of case is it?
2. On whose behalf are you being instructed?
3. What are the timescales involved, and how much time will be
involved?
4. Has the fee scale been agreed?
5. Are you an expert in this area? Can you provide references that
support your evidence?
6. What are the implications for you if the court does not accept
your evidence?

http://www.hospitaldr.co.uk/guidance/how...

Link

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Regards Ann Reeves and family

Hampshire Constabulary

Dear Ann Reeves
 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: HC/00483/14
 
The following request for information under the Freedom of Information Act
was received by the Public Access office at Hampshire Constabulary:
 
Dear Hampshire Constabulary,
 
FOI/DPA Act Request re: Operation Rochester
 
In 2005, Mr. David A Black was commissioned by Hampshire Police to write a
report about Mrs. Elsie Devine (my late mother) and other patients who
died under suspicious circumstances at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital.
 
The report was completed on the 4th January 2005, however my family were
not permitted to see it at the time. Nor were we allowed to see it at the
CPS while we listened to justifications given by Mr.
David Perry QC and Mr. Paul Close. We specifically asked to see the
reports, as his reasoning for not taking the case into a criminal court
were flawed, disjointed and; totally at odds with what was blatant on the
medical file and that of Hampshire Police, who had informed us that of the
92 cases Elsie Devine's case was fast tracked to the CPS with serious
concerns.
 
We have only recently studied this report in detail having had the
privilege of seeing and examining Mr. David Black’s opinion in full. It’s
very worrying that Hampshire Police decided to use him with the vast
amount of "EXPERT" medical witnesses with court experience available? Not
only is his opinion untruthful, and peppered with blatant inaccuracies and
contradictions, it was a shock for us to have discovered that he was an
Associate Member of the General Medical Council at this time. I attach GMC
guidance as a footnote, as it appears from this that he failed to adhere
to their contemporaneous guidance on acting as a medical expert witness.
 
Professor Bulstrode was also working at the GMC with Mr. David Black at
the same time, - he is the half-brother of the suspect - Dr Jane Barton
(same mother, different fathers). Moreover the GMC had an ongoing
investigation against Dr Jane Barton and had enforced no more than
11-sanctions against her at the time. The obvious contradictions in his
opinion have raised suspicions amongst the bereaved relatives group about
the seeming partiality of his recommendations. But it is also his lack of
candor about his professional links to the suspect’s brother that we also
find of concern?
Why Mr. David Black accepted work from you on the case is a complete
mystery to us, as he should have followed GMC advice, especially in the
case of Dr Jane Barton.
 
We found his and Dr Dudley's opinions odd at the time (as did other
members of the medical profession who have seen the case notes), and feel
that both Counsel and the CPS may have taken a different decision to
prosecute had different experts written a less slanted and accurate
version of events, bearing in mind the words of David Perry QC "I must
take the opinions of the "EXPERTS" in making my decision"! It reads almost
as if Jane Barton herself helped write the opinion! In our opinion he
should face GMC censure for jeopardising a criminal investigation in this
way, particularly one involving almost 900 contentious deaths of
vulnerable elderly patients who thought they were there for
respite/rehabilitation, as this case did.
 
We would be grateful if Hampshire Constabulary could answer the following
questions and provide additional documents regarding the following points:
 
1. Could you please explain why Mr. D.A. Black was commissioned to write
this "expert opinion" on Mrs. Devine’s medical file, whilst he was
employed by the GMC? (Highly irregular: see explanatory footnotes).
 
2.Were Hampshire Police aware that Mr. Black was employed there?
Were Hampshire Police aware Prof Bulstrode (Dr Barton's brother) was also
employed at the GMC?
 
3. Could we please have copies of all internal/regional/national
directives explaining how Hampshire Police came to choose Mr. David Black?
We would like to know what protocol for selecting experts for criminal
prosecutions did Hampshire Police use at the time?
When selecting "medical experts" did that same protocol apply to all
Constabularies, or was it specific to Hampshire alone?
 
4. Could you tell us who made the final decision as to who was chosen for
this task, outlining why Dr Black and Dr Dudley were chosen above all
other "medical experts" against those that have given evidence in court?
Could you tell us if the Chief Constable/Deputy Chief Constable Readhead
now (Chief Executive at Association of Chief Police Officers Director of
Information at Association of Chief Police Officers) were consulted over
this choice, or even if they took the decision themselves?
 
5. Could you explain why Dr Dudley was given Dr Jane Barton’s Police
statement before he wrote his expert opinion on Elsie Devine’s medical
file, which was full of glaring inaccuracies and contradictions, even
going against his own practicing? Is this normal practice during a
criminal investigation especially being as Dr Barton was being questioned
under caution?
 
6. How many different Police forces were involved in Operation Rochester
in total? Could you please name them if any?
 
7. How much did Mr. David A Black, Professor Wilcox and Dr Dudley charged
Hampshire Constabulary for their "expert opinion" on Elsie Devine’s
medical file? How many hours work did these Expert Opinions take by each
expert?
 
8. We would be grateful if you could let us know who wrote up the
shockingly inaccurate "Summary of Care" for Mrs. Elsie Devine which was
given to Mr. David Black as part of the documentation to write this
"expert" opinion? Was it a Police Officer (if so their rank/constabulary)?
Where did they get this information from as it appears so disjointed, we
are at a loss? Was it a member of the hospital staff, or the accused
Doctor Barton herself, with the full knowledge of the hospital management?
The latter is a distinct possibility that should have been explored, since
managers handing over files generally allow the doctors involved to ‘tidy
up’ their notes. Was any forensic comparison of
typewriters/handwriting/ink/style of writing ever conducted?
 
9. Please could you supply copies of all correspondence, memos, recorded
telephone conversations FOI/DPA (subject access request) relating to Mr. D
A Black and Dr Dudley/Mrs. Elsie Devine/Reeves family? I appreciate you
will need to redact their names.
 
10. Please could we have copies of FOI/DPA (subject access) requests,
which are still being withheld from us in relation to the criminal
investigation into Elsie Devine’s death? Detective David Grocott stated he
would be releasing the material when all of the Inquests were over, well
they are over and the release of the Baker Report but we are still
waiting, I gather he has since retired?
Hampshire Police have shared all this Data with the General Medical
Council and the Nursing Midwifery Council (Public Body’s Charity) and
maybe many others outside of the CPS. The GMC stated they cannot release
this Data because Hampshire Police will not give permission. It also gives
great cause for concern as when Hampshire Police passed this sensitive
information to the GMC Professor Bulstrode was working there (Dr Jane
Barton’s brother) so did he enlighten his sister as to the ongoing
investigation? Remembering also there was Mr David Black writing up the
Expert opinions.
 
I am sure Hampshire Police can understand our concerns why we are refused
this information that they have shared with all and sundry, as Dr Jane
Barton and the Nurses involved were not even struck off.
 
11. Can you please state what law/regulation is being used to prevent its
release to this family i.e. is it a statutory power
 
held by that person/department or was it a 'discretionary power'
and who?
 
Many thanks for your assistance in this matter.
Ann Reeves and family
 
GMC Guidance:
 
Understanding the responsibilities of being an expert witness • Doctors
are advised to understand the duties of the role before putting themselves
forward. Attending a relevant, CPD-approved course can develop a good
understanding. They should also consider organising a proper induction
into expert witness work, particularly in those specialties frequently
called on to assist the Questions to consider when taking a case as an
expert witness?
1. What type of case is it?
2. On whose behalf are you being instructed?
3. What are the timescales involved, and how much time will be involved?
4. Has the fee scale been agreed?
5. Are you an expert in this area? Can you provide references that support
your evidence?
6. What are the implications for you if the court does not accept your
evidence?
 
Your request will be considered in accordance with the legislation and you
will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days,
subject to the provisions of the Act.  In the unlikely event that
Hampshire Constabulary is unable to meet the 20 working day deadline. You
will be informed as soon as possible and given a revised time-scale for a
response.
 
To be accepted, any clarification(s) to your request must be submitted in
writing directly to the Public Access Team at Hampshire Constabulary. 
 
If your request requires either full or partial transference to another
public authority, you will be informed.  Should you have any further
enquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact the Public
Access Helpdesk on telephone number 01962 871541 quoting the reference
number above.
 
Kind regards
 
Mark Farrow | Public Access Assistant
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames
Valley Police
Telephone 01962 871541 | Internal 791375
Address Hampshire Police Headquarters, West Hill, Winchester, Hampshire,
SO22 5DB
 
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Hampshire Constabulary,

Reference FOI request as requested clarification(s) in writing has been sent to Public Access Team at Hampshire Constabulary, on Saturday 15th March.

Please advise receipt of this?

Regards,

Ann Reeves & family

Hampshire Constabulary

Good morning

I can confirm that no clarification email was received by Hampshire Constabulary.

Best wishes
Rebecca Warhurst

Rebecca Warhurst | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley Police
Telephone 01962 814789 | Internal 79 1765
Address Hampshire Constabulary Police HQ, West Hill, Romsey Road, Winchester, SO22 5DB

show quoted sections

Hampshire Constabulary

1 Attachment

 
Rebecca Warhurst | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley
Police
Telephone 01962 814789 | Internal 79 1765
Address Hampshire Constabulary Police HQ, West Hill, Romsey Road,
Winchester, SO22 5DB
 
 
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

Try sending the questions to the appropriate section of the D.O.H.or is this another opportunity turned down by an individual family.
I am not surprised that the Hampshire Constabulary find the latest F.O.I. request vexatious.
I have no doubt they will be subjected to questioning - these cases are not just about Doctors,Nurses,Health Authorities but also the way the Police handled the cases as well. Had they taken action when I first approached them in September 1998 it is possible some of the deaths between then and July 2000 may have been avoided.Had the right case law been followed the outcome could still be different.When are the "ethical" police officers going to step forward and blow the whistle
Gillian M Mackenzie

Dear Hampshire Constabulary,

Thank you for your response on our FOI, DPA (subject access request) which you have refused under s14(1) FOI Vexatious Requests.


You responded to my request 11th March 2014 stated “To be accepted, any clarification(s) to your request must be submitted in 
writing directly to the Public Access Team at Hampshire Constabulary”, this we did on the 13th March. On the 21st March 2014 we requested a clarification that you had received our letter and your response was “I can confirm that no clarification email was received by Hampshire Constabulary”.

From our previously shenanigans’ with Hampshire Police, we were forced to send a registered letter to them dated 25th March to ensure that this request was dealt with as there was no update. You will remember https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/o... we had to revert to this means of communication being as Hampshire Police ignored our previous registered letter. So to put this in perspective we tried to liaise with Hampshire Police “outside” of FOI via a registered letter dated 8th January 2013. However with no response we were forced to use whatdotheyknow to even get an acknowledgment? When this was answered through here, we are then confronted with the question,” do you want this under FOI”? Please note the ordeal we had on the above link?

Hampshire Police are well aware of the authenticity of the FOI/DPA request and under the circumstances it seems they had no intentions of answering… understandably, but just playing mind games and making life as difficult as possible for this family to seek Justice. Perhaps on the other hand this is a new ruling and it would be helpful if you can direct us where we can find that information laid down for future reference?

We are extremely upset at the accusation labeling this Vexatious Requests thus labeling us Vexatious, it is shocking accusations, inlight of the evidence. Please remember our Mother/Grandmother cannot cry out for Justice so we feel it is the duty of the living to do so and more importantly get closure and the answers needed for the 800++ deaths. I hope every single Police Officer would do the same if it were their parent/grandparent/child?

After a 4year Police investigation and 13years being sent from one quango to another requesting for answers and with no less than 11 investigations, we do not think our requests unreasonable and certainly not cause for labelling Vexatious.

Professor Richard Baker stated in his report, “Investigations should continue into the deaths of individual patients. The findings of this review reinforce concerns about what may have occurred in these cases”.He also states, following the investigation into deaths information about the rota followed by Dr Barton and her partners should be obtained and used to explore pattern of deaths. Sadly we have only just had the privilege to read this report after some 10 years and shocked to learn the recommendations. We expected the Police to seek Justice for those families and at the very least be told exactly what happened to their loved ones at the GWMH, but it appears by your response your closing us down with vexatious remarks when what is written is the truth and truthful answers required?

We are also extremely shocked to learn that Hampshire Police has made attempt(s) to open a new channel of communication and disappointed that we have missed out on the opportunity. We most definitely would have grasped this with both hands, so can you please send us a copy of the alleged letter written by Mr. Chris Fitchet and also the letter of rejection? Presumably other families had the same letter and we were not the only ones privileged, as there are a number of relatives which are still requesting and awaiting answers?

We emailed Hampshire Police requesting information on this case on the 21st February 2013. We received a response from Mr. Chris Fitchet on the 22nd February 2013 who stated, he was asked to respond on behalf of D/Sup Farrell, so we are somewhat concerned regarding this alleged letter? Further if a letter was sent to us without response, why was it not followed up especially as Hampshire Police were keen to open a new channel of communication?

As stated in this FOI/DPA request Detective David Grocott stated that he would be releasing documents after all investigations were over but that has failed to happen surprisingly.

We certainly have not and would not scan Hampshire Police Website for updates and I am sure that applies to a number of families, nor do we consider that line of communication appropriate under the circumstances. However if Mr. Chris Fitchet/Hampshire Police had sent us a link out of courtesy and informed us of such then its possible we are likely to get information?

We look forward to receiving the letter and a copy of our response to Mr Chris Fitchet, Hampshire Police have our email addresses and obviously the address to where ever the letter was sent.

Many thanks for your assistance in this matter

Kind Regards

Reeves Family.

Hampshire Constabulary

Dear Mrs Reeves

I just wanted to clarify that your latest request was not actually refused under s14(1), Vexatious Requests: it was refused under s12 of the Act which applies where it would take more than 18 hours to determine if the information is held, locate and retrieve it.

A vexatious warning was included based on the force's attempts to open channels of communication, outside of FOI, in an attempt to assist you. As it appears this did not reach you, I will forward your email below to Mr Fitchet for his consideration.

Best wishes
Rebecca Warhurst

Rebecca Warhurst | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley Police
Telephone 01962 814789 | Internal 79 1765
Address Hampshire Constabulary Police HQ, West Hill, Romsey Road, Winchester, SO22 5DB

show quoted sections

Hampshire Constabulary

Dear Mrs Reeves

Further to my earlier email, I should be most grateful if you could confirm your postal address. Bearing in mind this is a public website, I would recommend you do this via a private, more secure email address or by letter.

Best wishes
Rebecca Warhurst

Rebecca Warhurst | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley Police
Telephone 01962 814789 | Internal 79 1765
Address Hampshire Constabulary Police HQ, West Hill, Romsey Road, Winchester, SO22 5DB

show quoted sections

Dear Ms, Rebecca Walhurst,

Thank you for your response enlightening us,” A vexatious warning was included based on the force's attempts to open channels of communication, outside of FOI, in an attempt to assist you”.

Also thank you for forwarding an email to Chris Fitchet as stated here” As it appears this did not reach you, I will forward your email below to Mr Fitchet for his consideration". To confirm Mr. Charles Farthing has never received any communication either from Hampshire Police in an attempt to open a new channel and give him the opportunity, so will his FOI also be rejected? I wonder how many more will come out of the wood work?

Your response is very ambiguous first of all telling us its going to take more that 18 hours to determine the information under section s 12 of the act, without giving us the opportunity to pay for that service by laying out the deemed hours of work? Then stating, any further FOI/DPA (subject access request) will be refused under “Vexatious Requests, owing to the fact that Hampshire Police made attempt(S) to open up a new channel of communications”. Don't you consider it best to ascertain the facts about this alleged letter before stating such, so please explain further Rebecca as that is exactly what it means in our book? You have closed us down by labeling this “Vexatious Request” thus a) not giving us the opportunity to pay the cost b) not giving us the opportunity to cut the number of requests c) not offering to release our DPA (subject access request) which we understood was law?

Our DPA (subject access request) has been held by Hampshire Police since 2006 when the investigation closed. Only a small portion of this has been released to us with much resistance and I can confirm on reading that there are a number of questions what a Police officer states about me, soon it will be our turn to release information shared with this family.

We are aware that some DPA has been shared with the General Medical Council (GMC) who also will not release this, as Hampshire Police will not give permission. Please bear in mind the GMC is not a government body they are a Public Body “Charity”, so it is very concerning that they are privilege to hold our DPA but the family it concerns are refused?

We are sorry to say threats like “Vexatious Requests” do not build relationships with Hampshire Police Force especially as you state they made attempt(S) to open new channels? We are still waiting to receive the “alleged letter” that Chris Fitchet sent out to us? Can you please chase it up for a copy we are keen to clear this up, as you stated, “I will forward your email below to Mr Fitchet for his consideration". While Chris Fitchet is considering, he has our email addresses as stated previously we have been in touch on email and Hampshire Police were updated to our new address in a registered letter 8th January 2013. So we don’t see the need for me to send yet another (and it has to be) registered letter with our address at great cost of money and time yet again? After all Rebeccca what address did they send this alleged letter to?

The request to see this letter also comes under DPA/ subject access requests should it need to be applied, hopefully that’s not already in the 16 crates and amongst the 4154 documents?

Please can you confirm again whether Hampshire Police will be releasing our DPA (subject access) we seem to be in a bit of a muddled with all these shenanigans? I hope you don’t mind to clarify we would be most grateful and under what section are they withholding this should it be the case?

Looking forward to Chris Fitchet’s email with the attached letter he sent to us and everyone else involved?

Many thanks once again for your assistance.

Kind regards

The Reeves Family

Hampshire Constabulary

Dear Mrs Reeves

To re-iterate, the request was not labelled vexatious but a vexatious warning was issued. The request itself was refused on the grounds that it would exceed the statutory cost limit. I should also stress that in-keeping with the position of the whole Police Service, Hampshire Constabulary does not offer the facility to pay for FOI requests that have been refused under s12 of the Freedom of Information Act.

In respect of any request for information under the DPA, I shall arrange for an appropriate subject access form to be sent to you, bearing in mind this will cover the personal information of living individuals only. As requested in my previous email, I should be most grateful if you could provide a postal address for direct communication so that the force can be sure that any further correspondence reaches you.

Best wishes
Rebecca Warhurst

Rebecca Warhurst | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley Police
Telephone 01962 814789 | Internal 79 1765
Address Hampshire Constabulary Police HQ, West Hill, Romsey Road, Winchester, SO22 5DB

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Rebecca Warhurst,

Thank for your clarification regarding Vexatious Requests, however we beg to differ. You have stated any further request will be refused under "vexatious” thus closing us down. Sorry to say but your reiterations have no foundation.

Quoted; “As requested in my previous email, I should be most grateful if you could provide a postal address for direct communication so that the force can be sure that any further correspondence reaches you.”

As stated in my previous email; Hampshire Police have our address you requested this on here for clarification when we requested this FOI. We complied with your request and it was sent to Hampshire Police, not once but twice, registered the second time, which again you are aware of. Further I have already informed you that we also updated our address in 2013-registered letter you are also aware of that on here, now lets not get silly over this? We consider the common purpose you appear to have applied, has gone far enough.

You are well aware that Hampshire Police have the information otherwise Rebecca you would not have answered the FOI, correct? Why are you totally ignoring what I have stated on here?

Further what address did Chris Fitchet send this alleged letter to, please answer and as stated now apply FOI/DPA as clearly there is no intentions of co-operating and there you are stating Hampshire Police wanted to liaise outside of the FOI and had sent us a letter stating so. This letter allegedly sent to all and sundry is the reason for closing us down and labelling our request Vexatious.. odd that many have not recieved yet?

I will endeavor to go through the POST OFFICE to see who sign for this recorded letter, clearly the person receiving such sensitive information is incompetent of doing the job, goodness me what a shambles this is at Police Headquarters.

Delighted to read you will be sending me a form, for our DPA of course your need to ask Hampshire Police for the address. To assist you perhaps you could you let us know if it is available on your website for a download?

Further to your statement the DPA “it is only for the living”. To clarify, Hampshire Police can share my Mothers DPA with the General Medical Council et all that were involved in this investigation of her alleged murder, but me as her next of kin will be refused, is that what your stating? It’s a first time for us to hear this, does it only apply to Hampshire Police, as it certainly has not apply to other organizations, but there again perhaps they were being helpful.

Rest assure I will not be going to the post office again to send yet another registered letter stating my address, this is nothing more than abuse.

Thanking you

Kind regards
The Reeves family

Hampshire Constabulary

Mrs Reeves

Perhaps you would be kind enough to give me a call so that we can forward with this discussion.

Best wishes
Rebecca Warhurst

Rebecca Warhurst | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley Police
Telephone 01962 814789 | Internal 79 1765
Address Hampshire Constabulary Police HQ, West Hill, Romsey Road, Winchester, SO22 5DB

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Warhurst,

Please note our FOI request 10th April which we are waiting an acknowledgement.

You will appreciate a copy and confirmation of this alleged letter is imperative after the damming response, labeling any further request vexatious being as Hampshire Police allegedly tried to open communications outside of FOI but we refused?

We have read the update on Hampshire Police website reference to “Operation Rochester” thank you for highlighting it to us. As this is in the Public domain please note the shocking inaccuracies below and please may we have them corrected?
Elsie Devine did NOT die of Pneumonia; and it was NEVER written on her death certificate in which there were THREE.
1st certificate written up by Dr Jane Barton was renal failure, refused by the Registrar as cause of death.
2nd certificate written up by Dr Jane Barton was a) chronic renal failure, b) chronic glomerulitis which the Registrar accepted.
3rd certificate written by Mr. Bradley (Coroner) stated Kidney failure, drugs given were not appropriate to her condition and symptoms and contributed to her death.

There was NO multi-infarct dementia as there was NO alleged scans to view, conveniently lost by the PHCT. Elsie Devine was still able to write us letters, send get-well cards to my husband in hospital, choose food from the menu, feed herself, dress herself, take herself to the toilet, which was noted with evidence at the inquest, lets not forget that, which Hampshire Police were aware of and also had that evidence.

We have questioned Professor Black’s opinion (GMC member at the time) including Dr Dudley’s shocking inaccuracies thus perverting the course of Justice. Our Mother did not have Multiple Myeloma, which Hampshire Police were well aware of; it was discussed in detail and it is written in my police statement. Our Mother was tested and found it to be negative, yet the Police allowed it to be written into the expert opinion by Black and Dudley? The only truthful opinion was Professor Wilcox and Dr Black’s concern certainly does not reflect his.

It is stated on the Police website that all medication was given to these patients for therapeutic reasons. Therapeutic…we hope no one ever again is given the amount of drugs given to our mum in 23 hours and other patients and its labeled therapeutic? It is a shocking, shocking, statement instructed by Mr. Bradley to the Jury. Lest not forget our mum was sitting happily talking to an external doctor, before this over dosing started and had never had as much as a paracetamol. Hampshire Police are also well aware of Dr Taylor’s visit 15mins before Dr Jane Barton placed our Mother on the terminal pathway as we learn to understand. Unfortunately for us we were not privileged for 7years to see that note in the medical file and nor did Hampshire Police discuss this with the family…that note was removed presumably by PHCT CEO Max Millett when the file was handed to us, but not when it was handed to the Police.

On the website “Operation Rochester” is also states “All cases category 1 and 2 were quality assured by Matthew LOHN”? We were informed by a Police officer that Matthew LOHN refused to sign off Gladys Richards’s case, he went on to say that Hampshire Police were furious over having to find another medical/legal expert to do so as Matthew LOHN had cost the force a fortune. Can you apply this under the FOI please, “Who was the other medical/legal used by the Police”?

The confirmation letter that you requested to enable our FOI to be accepted was delivered and signed for on 26th March 2014. Hampshire Police received two letters then, one ordinary post, which seems they never received (yet again) and the other registered, both contain our address, as did the February registered letter.

I’m sorry I cannot telephone you,I really don't know what there is to discuss and from our experience conversations’ “do not happen”. If Hampshire Police need to contact me Mr. Chris Fitchet has all our contact details; my email address as well as our home address, please also feel free to ask me anything on here?

Hopefully the alleged letter to us and to all the families will arrive soon; and we will not have to wait for the 20day FOI?

What Justice is there in UK for anyone overdosed to this extent and the Doctor walks free, whilst families still have to cope with the abuse from authorities while fighting for answers?

Thank you for you help.
Kind regards
Reeves Family

Hampshire Constabulary

Dear Mrs Reeves
 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: HC/00769/14
 
The following request for information under the Freedom of Information Act
was received by the Public Access office at Hampshire Constabulary:
 
On the website "Operation Rochester" is also states "All cases category 1
and 2 were quality assured by Matthew LOHN"?  We were informed by a Police
officer that Matthew LOHN refused to sign off Gladys Richards’s case, he
went on to say that Hampshire Police were furious over having to find
another medical/legal expert to do so as Matthew LOHN had cost the force a
fortune. Can you apply this under the FOI please, "Who was the other
medical/legal used by the Police"?
Your request will be considered in accordance with the legislation and you
will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days,
subject to the provisions of the Act.  In the unlikely event that
Hampshire Constabulary is unable to meet the 20 working day deadline. You
will be informed as soon as possible and given a revised time-scale for a
response.
 
To be accepted, any clarification(s) to your original request must be
submitted in writing directly to the Public Access Team at Hampshire
Constabulary. 
 
If your request requires either full or partial transference to another
public authority, you will be informed.  Should you have any further
enquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact the Public
Access Helpdesk on telephone number 01962 871541 quoting the reference
number above.
 
Requests for Personal Data via Subject Access and the Data Protection Act
Should you wish to request your own personal data, the subject access form
at the link below should be completed:
[1]http://www.hampshire.police.uk/internet/...
 
Please note, however, that the Data Protection Act provides access to the
personal data of the applicant and living individuals only.
 
 
Kind regards
Rebecca Warhurst | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley
Police
Telephone 01962 814789 | Internal 79 1765
Address Hampshire Constabulary Police HQ, West Hill, Romsey Road,
Winchester, SO22 5DB
 
 
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.hampshire.police.uk/internet/...
2. mailto:[email address]

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

I added an annotation on the 13/14 March which went out under What do they know Operation Rochester/GWMH - like Mrs. Reeves I had not been informed of the Hampshire Constabulary Overview and came across it quite by chance on my computer.I appreciate the comments made regarding Matthew Lohn now in the public domain.

Like Mrs. Reeves case the overview contained inaccuracies referring to Gladys Richards.

My mother was not immobile - she was walking with a zimmer within a few days of surgery at the Haslar Hospital .I would confirm that she was accompanied by Nursing staff to give her confidence and I witnessed her walking at least the length of the Haslar Ward. Unfortunately those Nurses for reasons known to themselves and the Coroner were not questioned at the Inquest.

Medication on leaving Haslar as per the discharge letter on 11 August recommends up to 2 tablets of co-codomol IF in pain - she sometimes did not have even that at Haslar. She was put on oramor[ph on arrival at Gosport to the extent of being over-sedated and fell out of her chair three days later - referred back to Haslar but not until after 24 hours where the dislocated hip was manipulated into place. As she was found at Haslar to be completely dehydrated after three days at Gosport, she was kept at Haslar to get her fluid levels up to normal. Discharged back to Gosport with a splint ( as per the discharge letter from Haslar - to be kept on for 4 weeks.) It was immediately taken off on arrival at Gosport and diamorphine given in front of two witnesses. As this was not written up by the Nurse it " never happened" on arrival. although it was witnessed by myself and a Nurse of 40 year's experience.

End stage dementia B....... !! My mother was talkinG SENSE IN hASLAR - COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DUSTING METHODS UNDER THE BEDS - and WHEN SHE CAME ROUND AFTER THE IV SEDATION SHE RECOGNISED ME - ALSO WITNESSED BY nurses AT HASLAR. That is not END stage dementia.Nor were there any signs of pneumonia - I have witnessed that on many occasions but that may have been for the excessive doses of hyrozine given - again in excess and not to be administered in the manner it was in a syringe driver with haloperidol, diamorphine and midazolam - in some incidences the pharmaceutical companies have confirmed some drugs not licensed for that purpose.
In addition Hampshire Police have not mentioned it was the Coroner who stated " a not insignificant contribution by drugs"

While at Haslar she was eating normal food as per the nutrition lists. There was no record of fluids or food being given at Gosport.

In addition the opinion given of end stage dementia by a psychiatrist has no foundation when diagnosed under the influence of haloperidol and Trazadon - two drugs which should never be given together and even at the inquest it was confirmed that Trazadon for the elderly had been withdrawn . I brought that information to the attention of Police in my original Statement - which was not taken until 1999 having seen the police 2 October 1998 and raised official complaints re. Police behaviour - all complaints were upheld by PCA and IPCC although it took three years as the complaints were delayed by Police.

I have far more damming evidence which never came up at the Inquest - but it will be revealed one way or the other. When barristers can be "briefed" directly by the families concerned instead of "busy" solicitors so much the better for justice. My legal aid from the LSC was "backed" by the Coroner and Jack Straw and was not a case done for free for the client and publicity for the legal rep. It was unfortunate that Robert Forrest had to withdraw from being the medical expert for my mother's case due to extraordinary background behaviour
elsewhere - or so it seems to me.Gillian M Mackenzie

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

For starters, may I refer those interested to "Offences against the person Act 1861 - Section 23 .
Gillian M Mackenzie

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

Mr. Lohn would not sign off the Richards case - what exactly does that mean. I understood Mr. Lohn was a solicitor for the GMC. Hampshire police had a very explicit medical opinion given whilst the case was being investigated by an Acting Supt. Ray Burt. Why was Ray Burt taken off the case just as the papers were to be submitted to the CPS for the third time and the medical expert had the riot act read out to him as well by members of the Hampshire Constabulary. Ray Burt "took early retirement" and is still working for Hampshire Constabulary as a "Registrar" of closed files at Winchester or so I understand.

Fortunately for me and through my own efforts I managed to trace that particular medical expert - have seen his full report and he accompanied me to an appointment at the D.O.H. in September and November 2013 together with my hard-working MP. I hope I will still be alive to know the eventual outcome. What exactly is being done by other MPs in the Gosport area.
Is anybody else apart from AR actually doing anything even if it means the Tower of London and "off with their heads". I do not find the present state of play "a wonderland" but I do wonder what has happened to the rule of law in what was meant by England. Gillian M Mackenzie

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

I forgot to mention - no scans of any kind re. dementia had been undertaken by my mother. In addition my mother's spectacles and hearing aids had been "lost"

My mother's last in patient stay at any hospital had been in approximately 1958 apart from having teeth out and cataract operation - I have had the same - I am not ready for the charnel house. Gillian M Mackenzie

Dear Ms Warhurst,

Thank you for your email with the attached alleged letter that we were supposed to have received, what do you mean, "At your insistence, I have attached a copy of the letter"? We should not have had to insist in the first instance, especially considering this alleged letter branded further requests vexatious which is totally unfounded.

Where are the attempt(S) to open up communication all we have seen is one alleged letter sent to the wrong address? You had our email address as proven here and if keen to communicate it was simple, send it also via email? We should say at this point that the address it was sent to also has concierge and they would have contacted us had the letter been received as they have done on previous mail delivered, especially with Hampshire Police on the envelope. One does not jump into the fire with such statements until you are sure regarding this alleged letter was “ever” received? However it is clear to us exactly what is going on here, a game of cat and mouse requesting for an address. “Quote”, “As requested in my previous email, I should be most grateful if you could provide a postal address for direct communication so that the force can be sure that any further correspondence reaches you”? “Unquote”. How many times do we need to send you our address, what a shambles, total shambles? However we can now understand why, as the address it was supposedly sent to, was incorrect?

To reiterate Hampshire Police have received 3 letters, first one sent 8th January 2013 registered, with address update and requesting for FOI, then 2 further letters of which one was registered which you are well aware of too. So even though Hampshire Police have had these letters since 8th January 2013 they have no record? Please bear in mind that is our DPA, which is floating around Police Headquarters or lost? We are surprised its not archived away in the 12 boxes and amongst the 4154 documents?

It also states in their letter "This does not affect your right to continue to make applications under the FOI which will be address in accordance to legislation". Can you please explain then why you stated any further requests by us were to be branded vexatious?

It appears that this family was the only ones to have had the privilege to receive this letter out of the 12 cases that went to the CPS and the Gladys Richards case that had an Inquest? Goodness knows why we are the privileged ones, everyone should have be given the opportunity to comunicate and receive the unanswered questions pending?

We sense no customary obligation to show courtesy towards a member of the public and; more so to us who have been dealing with the alleged murder of their mother/grandmother for the past 13-years.

Under FOI/DPA please can we have a copy of all my correspondence? Do we really need to fill in the form and pay the monies?

Kind Regards
Reeves family

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

On receipt of Mrs. Reeves annotation of the 23 April I telephoned Hampshire Police. I do not know anything about a letter being sent to anyone - My case went to the CPS three times - twice in 1998 - in October without a statement or sight of the medical file - again in November 1998/February 1999 in the same state and again after an investigation by Acting Supt. Ray Burt in December 2000 with an EXPERT medical opinion plus the other papers for a professional investigation.

In the first two instances the case law was based on Adomako - which would have made sense if there was only 1 case - when other people came forward in 2001 that was not applicable. The "treatment" of victims at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital I would allege had become a matter of POLICY adopted and or "passed" by all involved. Doctors are responsible for their patients not Nurses to decide when and how to give excessive drugs without a qualified assessment.( the drugs written up in anticipation) The behaviour of [police once it had been established as being incompetent, a matter to be covered up by any means or so I would allege. It was known that at least one Police Officer wanted to look at the files of other patients before my case was submitted for the third time - he was not allowed to follow his instinct. Despite being taken off the case I was informed that he would have permission to accompany me to London when the case came up. I was asked if I had had the opportunity to have a Family Liaison Officer. I was more than impressed with the Acting Supt. and indeed if a Family Liaison Officer had been appointed of the calibre I had later I probably would have given up years ago !

I spoke to a Mr. Mark Farrow this morning - a civilian working for Hampshire Police who said he would pass the message on - I hope it will not be another case of missing information. I intend to continue with my instinct and every ounce of my remaining energy. Of course the Police would prefer to have letters than exposure under What do they know.
Gillian M Mackenzie

Hampshire Constabulary

Dear Mrs Reeves
 
Further to your most recent email, you have requested information under
FOI and the DPA.  Please find below the formal response under the FOI
element of your request.
 

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Hampshire Constabulary can |
| | neither confirm nor deny that it |
| | holds the information you |
| | requested as the duty in s1(1)(a) |
| | of the Freedom of Information Act |
| | 2000 does not apply, by virtue of |
| | the following exemptions: |
| |   |
| | S40(5)(a)(i) Personal information |
| |   |
| | Information disclosed under the |
| | Freedom of Information Act is |
| | disclosed into the public domain, |
| | effectively to the world, not |
| | just to one individual.  To |
| | confirm or deny whether personal |
| | information exists in response to |
| | your request could publicly |
| | reveal information about an |
| | individual or individuals, |
| | thereby breaching the right to |
| | privacy afforded to persons under |
| | the Data Protection Act 1998. |
| Under FOI/DPA please can we have a |   |
| copy of all my correspondence? Do | When confirming or denying that |
| we really need to fill in the form | information is held would breach |
| and pay the monies? | an individual's rights under the |
| | Data Protection Act 1998, Section |
| | 40(5) becomes an absolute |
| | exemption, and there is no |
| | requirement for me to provide |
| | evidence of the prejudice that |
| | would occur, or to conduct a |
| | public interest test. |
| |   |
| | Where personal information is |
| | requested under FOI that relates |
| | specifically to the applicant or |
| | a third party, anything other |
| | than a neither confirm nor deny |
| | response would inadvertently |
| | disclose personal information. |
| |   |
| | This letter, however, should not |
| | be taken as confirmation that we |
| | hold the information you have |
| | requested. |
| |   |
| |   |
| |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

 
In respect of the DPA, an individual may obtain their own personal data,
if held by the force, by exercising their right of access under s7 of the
Data Protection Act 1998.  The application form may be found at the
following link:
 
[1]http://www.hampshire.police.uk/internet/...
 
For full disclosure of any information that may be held, including the
personal data of others, you may wish to contact your legal representative
to discuss the possibility of obtaining a court order.
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
 
If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision made
by Hampshire Constabulary, you can lodge a complaint with the force to
have the decision reviewed within 2 months of the date of this response.
Complaints should be made in writing to the Public Access office at the
address at the top of this letter.
 
If, after lodging a complaint with Hampshire Constabulary, you are still
unhappy with the outcome, you may make application to the Information
Commissioner at the Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, via telephone on 0303 123 1113 or
01625 545745 or at the website [2]www.ico.org.uk
 
Yours sincerely
 
Rebecca Warhurst | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley
Police
Telephone 01962 814789 | Internal 79 1765
Address Hampshire Constabulary Police HQ, West Hill, Romsey Road,
Winchester, SO22 5DB
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.hampshire.police.uk/internet/...
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. mailto:[email address]

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

Within a few minutes of posting my last annotation and telephone call to Mark Farrow I received a telephone call from Ms. Warhurst. She informed me that she has no idea whom I should approach regarding the inaccurate comments on the internet contained in Operation Rochester Overview put out by Hampshire Constabulary unless I like to go through F.O.I. I will ask the D.O.H. to note when I have my next interview - no wonder the Police Budget is stretched by "creative" posts.
Gillian M Mackenzie

Dear Ms Warhurst,

Thank you for your response we are most grateful for all the information.

Please find copied and paste for your convenience part of an email sent to us May 2010

"I am aware that Mr Close from CPS wrote to your solicitor recently explaining the reasons for the delay and his intention to arrange a meeting in the near future.

Once I have the decision of the CPS and dependent on the outcome I have every intention of publishing material connected with the case in line with Freedom of Information. and will be communicating this with all other agencies connected with this enquiry. This was outlined last year and further clarified in a letter to you dated 13th January 2010.

I'm sorry that the matter is taking longer than expected but I'm assured that the CPS are working hard to conclude their work as soon as possible".

This is now 4 years later and we are still waiting...Why? It is nothing more than Police bullying.

Let us hope the pending Inquiry is a Public Inquiry and not a Hillsborough type where Police refused to cooperate. Let us also hope the terms of reference will stop any further coverup.

Kind regards

Reeves family

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

I doubt whether even the Police can refuse the Home Office if by chance they should be involved at any time - As time is running out for me due to old age etc. I shall certainly take all steps necessary to reveal this appalling scandal which has taken over more than 15 years of my life. I went to the police in an attempt to stop "the procedures" at the GWMH to no avail - but the Police are involved in their own cover-up of incompetence,likewise I would allege Hospital health Authorities, lack of knowledge of very basic law and even worse a CPS,Treasury Counsel relying on non medical/legal experts with little or no experience of opinions for a Court case.

I never had the opportunity of meeting Treasury Counsel or Paul Close. I understand a comment was made that the "Richards case was going nowhere".Unfortunately that is hearsay until somebody puts it in writing who was a witness to the statement. I was under the impression that the CPS had a duty to advise the police on points of law and case precedent. Perhaps that was at a time when the CPS took on A level pupils to help them out during a busy time - how many of them passed I wonder.

With lack of knowledge presumably re Article 2 at Coroner level,and details of the European Convention on Article 2 which stood until the 1998/2000 ratification of Human Rights, Medical experts who had not received all the information from the Police, or my solicitor , attempts to sign off my case as closed etc.sloppy preparation by part of my legal team etc. etc.I wonder what comes out next.

I almost forgot - I had relied on a Nurse giving more explicit details in her Statement and I did not see that until approximately 2003-2004. When I realised so much had been left out by a professional for their own protection I asked to make an addition to my original Statement - the request was refused by Police Officers. Those details did not come out at the Richards inquest although they were known by my solicitor.It was a pity my medical expert had not been briefed or my barrister - understandable I suppose but the solicitor did not attend every day either to put the matter right.

It is time for this never ending game of ring , a ring of roses" and time for them to all fall down. More anon about officials who could not prepare a plate of bread and butter in a bakery.

Gillian M Mackenzie

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

I do not want a Public Inquiry at this stage which could jeopardize a fair trial for a good many involved - not just a single person- take heed of the latest Hillsborough inquests - but there is not much attention in the media as to what is going on elsewhere with the IPCC dealing with police , shredded paper etc - wait and see what happens at the conclusion of that - I understand there have been resignations already which no doubt have something to do with it at this stage and whistle blowing ethical Police officers. That is why details in the public domain at this time could be a disadvantage for some cases - I have nothing to lose and have given up that I will be around at the conclusion . Let us hope the IPCC uses a "PA" who can read her own shorthand this time without the excuse from a Commissioner to cover further incompetence and suggestion I should start all over again . The complaints being dealt with at the initial 4 hour interview covered very very senior officers. The offer of an interview with Nick Hardwick never materialised .
I should mention as nothing was done , all those senior officers did very well for themselves later on.

Gillian M Mackenzie

Hampshire Constabulary

1 Attachment

 
Rebecca Warhurst | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley
Police
Telephone 01962 814789 | Internal 79 1765
Address Hampshire Constabulary Police HQ, West Hill, Romsey Road,
Winchester, SO22 5DB
 
 
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Hampshire Constabulary/Ms Warhurst,

Thank you for your response to my FOI we are most grateful for the clarification. Perhaps Mrs. Mackenzie should request who signed her mother’s case off as it is confusing that a Police Officer inform this family of such?

To reiterate, we have not received a letter directly from Hampshire Police with the view of opening up communication, thus now labeling our requests vexatious.

• This alleged letter could have been sent via email by the officer communicating with us, if Hampshire Police were so keen to open up communication? There was no communication from the officer in form of an apology when this alleged letter transpired and his alleged attempt(S). Is that the sort of courtesy one can expect? As stated by you on here “I will forward your email below to Mr Fitchet for his consideration”, we never had a response from him and wonder what his consideration was as you relaid the message perhaps it should be followed up?

• You repeatedly asked for my address on here when this alleged letter transpired why, when Hampshire Police have our updated address sent as requested for confirmation of the requests over the last year, via registered letter, also stated on here?

• Further, I had to repeatedly request for a copy of this alleged letter and finally through FOI, do you consider that to be correct procedure after all you unjustifiably labeled any further requests vexatious because of it?

• I finally had it emailed to me by yourself the FOI officer NOT Hampshire Police with the wrong address on it?

• No other family received this letter who are still waiting on answers and surprisingly it seems Hampshire Police therefor are only keen to assist this family?

• All these shenanigans are a far cry from Hampshire Police sitting in our family home over 4years, officially and unofficially to lunch, coffees, beer and more.

We will be requesting our DPA by registered post.

Thanking you for your assistance kind regards

Ann Reeves and family

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

I already know unless I am very much mistaken and the circumstances - and the further outcome - thanks for your concern. Wish I had confirmation from a witness that anybody was told "The Richards case is going nowhere ".
Gillian M Mackenzie

Ann Reeves left an annotation ()

Please contact John White at Black Lapthorn he was present during our meeting at the CPS with Paul Close after all he is a lawyer.
John White heard every word spoken and was taking minutes so we understand. Also present were two other members of families who we invited to attend to hear our case being discussed in the hope it would help them. Paul Close discussed the case of Gladys Richards as I informed you at the time and confirmed it on email. Hope that helps, our memories have not failed us yet.

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

Re. "helpful" information of 23 May - yes I recall the e mail and immediately contacted the two gentlemen from other families at the time - they could not recall the comments. I was unaware that Minutes were being taken - quite bizarre that it was never mentioned to me by that "clerk" and even more out of order that the CPS representative discussed or allowed a mention of my case with unrelated families before my mother's inquest - so much for data protection. I was never given the opportunity to discuss with CPS or Treasury Counsel. Gillian M Mackenzie

Gillian Mackenzie left an annotation ()

How many other families queried the death certificates when the death was registered - and how many had various versions given ?. Any query on the first certificate should have been referred to the Coroner as a matter of course. What, if anything, happened to the Registar who should have been aware that various queries were being made for patients from the same source. - why were these facts and queries over death certificates not mentioned at the inquests ?. Were the Police investigators aware of these queries re. the registration irregularities - does anybody know ? They were certainly aware regarding my case although I did not know it until a month after registration when I approached the police.

I had not realized that Matthew Lohn was a Doctor as well as a Solicitor - although that is not always a recommendation as no doubt many realize. However I would certainly recommend Matthew Lohn who I allege was aware of the medical EXPERT opinion at the time which was turned down by CPS, I allege on the wrong points of law and case precedent.

" The Law is as much interest to the layman as it is to the Lawyer " Lord Balfour

" Wrong must not win by technicalities" 485. The Eumenides. Aeschylus

"The Laws are like cobwebs - where the small flies are caught and the hornets break through" Francis Bacon

Perhaps I should not be quoted re. my thoughts at this time!!
Gillian M Mackenzie

Ann Reeves left an annotation ()

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Martin Luther King: