Police Solicitor - Duty Solicitor [Title Edited]

The request was partially successful.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Humberside Police,

[extraneous and potentially defamatory material removed]

can it be confirmed that Humberside police's solicitor is the same solicitor with the 'so called' independence status as per the force's "Duty Solicitor"?

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...

Green, James 8935, Humberside Police

3 Attachments

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR

Your Ref:
Our Ref:F-2016-00254

07 March, 2016

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

Thank you for your request for information dated 09 February, 2016 concerning Taxpayers money paid to the force's solicitor and the independence of the duty solicitor.

This is to inform you that all information relating to your request has been considered and a relevant response has been attached.

Should any further information be requested regarding this topic, a separate request will need to be submitted.

If I can be of any further assistance on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

James Green
Information Compliance Officer
101
Humberside Police
Corporate Development Branch
Information Compliance Unit
Priory Road
Kingston Upon Hull
HU5 5SF
Fax:

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR
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

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Green, James 8935,

Is Humberside police's solicitor the same solicitor, John Barkers, that mugs the taxpayer for bogus "Duty Solicitor" services?

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (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

25 September 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FOI REQUEST TO HUMBERSIDE POLICE – POLICE / DUTY SOLICITOR (REF - F 2016 254)

I made a freedom of information request to Humberside Police (‘HP’) on 9 February 2016. Details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...
Police Solicitor - Duty Solicitor [Title Edited]

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 (a law unto itself). 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.

CASES HIGHLIGHTING DISCRIMINATORY APPROACH BY FORCE

I have been the victim of a stitch-up involving Humberside Police fabricating allegations to convict me for charges of which I am innocent (now burdened 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 Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had no evidence with which to justify prosecuting the case so suspected that the CPS had been persuaded to proceed with a prosecution where the evidence fell below the standards which would be expected for a fair trial. HP refuses to record as a crime the reported incident about two witnesses who lied in their witness statements, who are believed to have done so as a consequence of police incitement. The force’s duty solicitor, who had been appointed on being falsely imprisoned at the police station, was instrumental in the stitch-up as he failed to correspond after being updating of the proceedings. Consequently, it was only found out from the usher minutes before being called into the courtroom that there was no entitlement to legal representation.

Contrast this with another matter relating to the force responding to a reported crime (perjury to defraud) by stating that such a crime, one punishable as an offence whether occurring in criminal or civil proceedings, was a civil matter. North East Lincolnshire Council obtained a liability order for non-payment of council tax and indisputable evidence is held that it lied to the court in a witness statement to do so and consequently costs awarded to the council were obtained fraudulently.

In the first case there was neither a crime committed nor any evidence with which to justify an investigation but because it involved a member of the public ignorant of the law (easy target) there was no hesitation in proceeding on fabricated evidence that even an untrained person would have spotted the inconsistencies.

In the second case the police obstructed a crime being investigated in circumstances where the allegations had been proven far beyond what would be required to prove the perjury case against the council, and failure to investigate left the offender at liberty to continue causing the victim injustice.

RELYING ON THE FORCE SOLICITOR’S WRONG ADVICE

Injustices in both cases concerned the force neglecting to investigate allegations of perjury levelled against two members of the public in the criminal matter and local authority in the Council Tax Liability case. The decision in both cases was supposedly attributed to advice given by the force solicitor, that being that the police did not investigate allegations of perjury unless a request to do so comes from the court.

The advice was discovered to have no sound basis as the police do not need instruction from the court to investigate perjury. On its website under heading "Cases Involving Allegations of Perjury", the CPS states:

“Where a judge or magistrate believes that some evidence adduced at trial is perjured s/he can recommend that there should be a police investigation.

The absence of such recommendation does not mean that there is no justification for an investigation.”

Under ‘Offences’, Section 106 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 provides the following:

“FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS TENDERED IN EVIDENCE

(1) If any person in a written statement admitted in evidence in criminal proceedings by virtue of section 5B above wilfully makes a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine or both.

(2) The Perjury Act 1911 shall have effect as if this section were contained in that Act.”

SUMMING UP

When a member of the public is deemed to have committed an offence (even without or with fabricated evidence) a criminal prosecution is it instituted. However, when it's a council officer committing perjury to defraud a member of the public even when there is concrete evidence, the force falls over itself to protect the council officer from the justice system.

FOI REQUEST – 9 FEBRUARY 2016

HP was written to as follows:

“Dear Humberside Police,

I hope it can be agreed that a two tier system exists, where on the one hand, a crime deemed to be committed by an average taxpaying member of the public (whether there is evidence or not) is, as a matter of course, processed through the justice system with the end goal being a conviction and obtaining revenue from imposing fines, cost etc. On the other hand, if the crime is committed by, or on behalf of the state, a limitless amount of taxpayer's money is ploughed into ensuring the course of justice is perverted and no investigation of the victim's allegation takes place.
North East Lincolnshire council for example, had been exposed for committing perjury (see link http://tinyurl.com/h8an4hs), but the force, rather than investigating the matter (for which evidence was handed it on a plate) misused taxpayer's money by engaging its solicitor to achieve the best chance of avoiding its duty to solve the crime, thus brushing the matter under the carpet.

1) How much taxpayer's money is paid to the force's solicitor for the purposes of perverting the course of justice, i.e., avoiding crime committed by, or on behalf of the state?

2) As the case used in the example showed total incompetence, can it be confirmed that Humberside police's solicitor is the same solicitor with the 'so called' independence status as per the force's "Duty Solicitor"? ”

RESPONSE – 7 MARCH 2016

HP referred to a previous response F-2014-933 in which it issued a section 14 notice in respect of repeated and vexatious requests for information concerning Rossendale Bailiffs and Fraud.

REQUEST FOR REVIEW/CLARIFICATION – 7 MARCH 2016

HP was asked whether the force's solicitor was the same solicitor as the "Duty Solicitor" (item 2 in request), but never responded to.

CONTENTION

HP has clearly caused gross injustice over a prolonged period which would support my motives being genuine to find out how the force successfully operates with such disregard for the people it is supposed to serve. Therefore, this request is not vexatious.

Yours sincerely

Nellie Layne left an annotation ()

Information Commissioner's Decision Notice (6 March 2017): FS50636604

(FS50622654, FS50636574, FS50636604, FS50637739 FS50650239)

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...
_____________________________________________________
Information Rights Tribunal, Appellant's notice (grounds of appeal) against Decision Notice:
https://www.scribd.com/document/34411549...

Papers supporting Grounds of Appeal:
https://www.scribd.com/document/34411539... Exhibit 1
https://www.scribd.com/document/34411530... Exhibit 2
https://www.scribd.com/document/34411516... Exhibit 3
https://www.scribd.com/document/34411506... Exhibit 4
https://www.scribd.com/document/34411495... Exhibit 5
_____________________________________________________

Commissioner’s Response to appeal:
https://www.scribd.com/document/34707850...
_____________________________________________________

Information Rights Tribunal, Appellant’s Reply to Commissioner's Response to the Appellant’s grounds of appeal:
https://www.scribd.com/document/34850080...

Supporting papers of Appellant’s Reply:
https://www.scribd.com/document/34850090... Exhibit A-1
_____________________________________________________
Tribunal's decision (20 October 2017):

https://www.scribd.com/document/36212181...
_____________________________________________________
Application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, appealing First-tier Tribunal's Decision (Information Rights).

https://www.scribd.com/document/36477038...
_____________________________________________________
Tribunal judge's decision on an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal:

https://www.scribd.com/document/36539584...

(Permission refused on account of the application being made 6 hours and 57 minutes after the 28 day time limit)
_____________________________________________________
Request for extension of time to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal:

https://www.scribd.com/document/36551305...

(application unwittingly submitted 6 hours and 57 minutes after the 28 day time limit)
_____________________________________________________
Tribunal judge's decision on a re-application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal which included a request for extension of time to apply:

https://www.scribd.com/document/36603077...

The re-submitted application was erroneously sent omitting information referred to on the application form for permission to appeal, namely "reasons why the application is late"

Permission was refused because of this. The missing information (the reasons) has now been sent.
_____________________________________________________
Application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal (the First-tier Tribunal refused permission).

1 January 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/36849189...
_____________________________________________________
Acknowledgement of application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal:

4 January 2018

https://www.scribd.com/document/36951293...
_____________________________________________________
Decision letter of application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal:

18 January 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/36963193...
_____________________________________________________
The judge's reasons for refusing permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

https://www.scribd.com/document/36963211...

There is a right to apply for the decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing which must be in writing within 14 days from the date of the letter of 18 January 2018.
_____________________________________________________
Letter in response to the Upper Tribunals Notice of Determination of Application for Permission to Appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

31 January 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/37043750...
_____________________________________________________
The Upper Tribunal's acknowledgement and response:

9 February 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/37114559...

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org