Dear Crown Prosecution Service,
Obviously the CPS are in a difficult position when they are obliged to prosecute Police Officers, who also work on behalf of the Crown, but the public expect everyone to be treated to the same standards of Justice with no exceptional secrecy.

FOI Q1.In Court cases the defendants are always clearly identified, and similar standards ordered by the Home Secretary for police misconduct hearings, but West Midlands Police, in their next misconduct hearing of 13th March 2019, mearly identify the accused as PC 22086 Burt and Former officer 20652 Scott, both accused of the same offence of having pornographic and discriminatory material on their mobile phones.Please advise if it is acceptable for defendants in hearings to be allowed to conceal their first names.
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/futu...

FOI Q2.The WM CPS website has `Notes to Editors`allowing the national media to produce reliable articles, but who is supposed to check their accuracy?QUOTE "Meloney Hughes is a Senior Crown Prosecutor with the CPS West Midlands. Paul Davies (20/04/1961) pleaded guilty to making indecent photographs of a child and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment on 7 March 2019 at Walsall Magistrates Court".I know that,in fact,the final trial and sentencing of ex-police officer Davies was at Wolverhampton Crown Court.
It is frustrating to read false information printed in the media when it has been officially sourced.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/west-midlands/new...

FOI Q3.The BBC reported in July 2018 that West Midlands PC Colin Noble is accused of neglecting legitimate police work(in August 2017) while on duty in an attempt to pursue a sexual relationship, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said after completing their report in April 2018.
Mr Noble was charged after the force submitted a file to the Crown Prosecution Service in June 2018.
There is a dearth of information to explain the progress of Court proceedings to resolve the allegations and,therefore,presumably pc Noble is not allowed to be dismissed nor allowed to
continue his usual policing role.
Please disclose what is the current status of this WM CPS prosecution, with detail of anticipated Court dates,if any,and who within the CPS is dealing with it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bi...

End of FOI requests.
Thanking you in anticipation of clarifying all these West Midlands related questions.

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,
Please accept an expansive ammendment to my FOI Q2 reference pc Paul Davies who,according to independent media reports from in Court reporters,was an officer specially appointed to work with young people but,sadly,was exchanging images with them and grooming them to produce explicit videos.
On the basis of the CPS Press Release it seems only the very minimal charges of making 5 images were proceeded with and,as he pleaded guilty,it was a very easy case to complete with the Judge imposing a nominal sentence .
Obviously just because Mr Davies was a police officer he would not be expected to receive special leniancy from the Judge and the CPS, and I accept mistakes can happen regarding mentioning the Court attended,but I would appreciate expanding Q2 to provide more information about the actual trial.
Modified Q2
FOI Q2.The WM CPS website has `Notes to Editors`allowing the national media to produce reliable articles, but who is supposed to check their accuracy?QUOTE "Meloney Hughes is a Senior Crown Prosecutor with the CPS West Midlands. Paul Davies (20/04/1961) pleaded guilty to making indecent photographs of a child and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment on 7 March 2019 at Walsall Magistrates Court".I know that,in fact,the final trial and sentencing of ex-police officer Davies was at Wolverhampton Crown Court.
It is frustrating to read false information printed in the media when it has been officially sourced.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/west-midlands/new...
Please also confirm the full list of charges on which the CPS proceeded the case and confirm the full list of penalties imposed by the Judge,such as any financial penalties imposed or requirement to complete any sexual harm prevention order or sign any sexual offenders register.
End of modified question request.

On first impression the CPS appear to have only pursued minimal charges when this was,in reality, a blatent example of Misconduct in Public Office which,I presumed,would have merited a further charge.
Thanking you for accepting my modified request.

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

dennis fallon

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

There is a paedophile network operating within West Midlands Police.In March 2017 a retired Police Officer Peter Hogan,who continued working as a personal Chauffeur to the CHIEF CONSTABLE,was caught with 243 category A images and over 3,000 lower category images,subsequent to being appointed Chairman of School govenors at Baskerville School and giving children advice on how to stay safe online.Recorder Stephen Linehan QC jailed him for 12 months and ordered Hogan to register as a sex offender for 10 years.Difficult to imagine how they manage to infiltrate these organisations with their Uniform providing a shield of respectability.

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

Information Management Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Fallon,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request Ref: 8387

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FOI) request which we received on 11 March 2019.

The FOI Act is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information disclosed under the FOI Act by definition becomes available to the wider public.

There is a 20 working day limit in which we are required to respond to requests.

The deadline for your request is 05 April 2019.

Yours sincerely

Information Management Advisor
Information Management Unit
020 3357 0899
[CPS request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Information Management Unit,
Thank you for confirmation that you will deal with my request.
It is in the public interest to see if the West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service are allowing special treatment for errant police officers,resticting charges or concealing information.If the behaviour of anyone is shameful they should,by definition,be shamed and not given special protection which would be contrary to the public interest.This is just an opportunity for the CPS to demonstrate if,or if not, they are selectively transparent and allow errant police officers to receive special treatment or if they will make an effort to provide obstructive reasonings.The WM CPS went to massive efforts to ensure I was prosecuted and punished for speeding at 35mph on an empty road,even ensuring the result by fetching District Judge Khalid Qureshi all the way down from Manchester to punish me for my justified temerity in pleading `not guilty`,so I just want to ascertain if they are biased in any way,as per my own prosecution allegedly `in the public interest`.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

The Birmingham Mail have reported the full names of the officers which were concealed by the police report in my FOI Q1,namely pc Adam Burt and pc Carl Scott, and they were both found Guilty of Gross Misconduct.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi...

Information Management Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Fallon,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request – Reference 8387.

Please see the attached response to your Freedom of Information request.

Yours sincerely

Information Management Advisor
Information Management Unit
020 3357 0899
[CPS request email]

show quoted sections

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

pc Colin Noble finally in Court,with graphic details mentioned and alleged recorded proof.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi...

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Crown Prosecution Service's handling of my FOI request 'West Midlands CPS Prosecution of Police Officers'.
I accept that my FOI Q1 has been dismissed as `not a valid FOIA request`,but I note that West Midlands Police are employing erratic standards of protectionism,sometimes revealing officer`s full names but when it suits them concealing first names,when other forces such as Greater Manchester Police consistently display transparency.
I note that for FOI Q2 the CPS have corrected the error on their website.
I wish to appeal the poor quality of response to FOI Q2(ii) and Q3 which does nothing to inspire confidence in the CPS by employing excessive exemptions to information which is already in the public domain and is totally unhelpful.
FOI Q2(ii) requests"Please also confirm the full list of charges on which the CPS proceeded the case and confirm the full list of penalties imposed by the Judge,such as any financial penalties imposed or requirement to complete any sexual harm prevention order or sign any sexual offenders register",but your response indicates the CPS does not centrally record sentances(or presumeably charges also).My appeal is that I did not ask for CPS information centrally held,I asked for information held by the CPS,which the local CPS should hold and supply,unless you confirm the local CPS does not keep records.
I note in a totally different case the media reported all the penalties imposed upon an offender,so I am at a loss to know why there is selective secrecy in this case.
https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/147...
FOI Q3 was totally refused on the grounds of personal information, but this is a misapplication of the exemptions and refused to reveal who was dealing with the case, overall a very unhelpful attitude with no useful information provided.
Co-incidentally,without the CPS advising me,the p.c Colin Noble case has just reached the Crown Court with many personal details being revealed,including the name of the Principal Crown Advocate being Robert Price.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi...

If the CPS knew the case was imminently due in Crown Court, and I asked them when it was due, I think it is disgraceful that they failed to advise me of it.
A disgraceful CPS is not a good CPS.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Information Management Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Fallon,

 

Ref: IR/8387/19

 

Freedom of Information Request - Internal Review

 

Thank you for your email dated 3^rd April 2019 requesting an internal
review of our response to your FOI request (reference 8387).

 

Your email has been allocated the reference IR/8387/19. The internal
review will be assigned to a Crown Prosecution Service official who was
not involved with the original decision.

 

The due date for this response is 1^st May 2019.

 

We expect to complete internal reviews within 20 working days, although
more complex cases may take longer. We will however endeavour to respond
to you promptly.

 

Kind Regards,

Information Management Unit.

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Information Management Unit,
I acknowledge your completition date of May 1st 2019.
Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

Incredibly,despite all the recorded evidence and testimony of the traumatised woman, and the CPS assessing the trial as justified, after a week long trial pc Noble was judged as not guilty, so either there was insufficient evidence for a conviction or there was a defence argument that is hidden from public view for some reason.These Court cases are amazing,this is not the CPS prosecutor Robert Price`s finest hour but, heyho, at least we discovered pc Noble`s opinion of the quality of his fellow officers.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bi...

Information Management Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon,

 

Please find attached response to your internal review request.

 

Kind Regards,

Information Management Unit.

 

show quoted sections

Dear Information Management Unit,
Thank you for completing the internal review in which you confirm,for various reasons,the public do not have a right to know.
I would just appreciate clarification of one aspect of your response,quote "In addition we have a duty to assist you under Section 16 of the FOI Act, which I conclude we did. In relation to Q2 (ii), in particular your request for the penalties imposed, we guided you to the Ministry of Justice, who are the official holders of sentences imposed by the court. The CPS is not an official holder of that information".
Please clarify your statements,specifically confirm does the West Midlands CPS hold the requested sentencing information `unofficially`but are refusing to disclose it under FOIA as they consider another source to be more appropriate?

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,
I cannot close this request until you have provided final clarification, as requested several weeks ago, and as the respondent has failed to respond I would appreciate completion by someone else by way of appeal.

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Crown Prosecution Service's handling of my FOI request 'West Midlands CPS Prosecution of Police Officers'.

Quoting my last correspondenc"Dear Information Management Unit,
Thank you for completing the internal review in which you confirm,for various reasons,the public do not have a right to know.
I would just appreciate clarification of one aspect of your response,quote "In addition we have a duty to assist you under Section 16 of the FOI Act, which I conclude we did. In relation to Q2 (ii), in particular your request for the penalties imposed, we guided you to the Ministry of Justice, who are the official holders of sentences imposed by the court. The CPS is not an official holder of that information".
Please clarify your statements,specifically confirm does the West Midlands CPS hold the requested sentencing information `unofficially`but are refusing to disclose it under FOIA as they consider another source to be more appropriate?"

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Dear Information Management Unit,
Quote from my original request"It is frustrating to read false information printed in the media when it has been officially sourced", but it now appears the official CPS source link has already been deleted,404 page not found, which makes the relevance of my request less comprehensible.
For the record I will restate the CPS announcement dated 7th March 2019, so that my request can be viewed in context. https://www.cps.gov.uk/west-midlands/new...
CPS Quote "Paul Davies (57) has been sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for making indecent images of a child. He pleaded guilty to the offence on 17 January 2019 at Dudley Magistrates' Court.Davies was a serving Police Officer at the time of committing the offence and held the role as the Young Persons Officer for Dudley. Davies met the 17-year-old when responding to an incident at her college. Having asked for her number, Davies began to message the girl. The messages became sexual in nature and indecent images were exchanged.Screenshots of the indecent images had been deleted by Davies. However, these were recovered by the police during a forensic examination of his phone.Meloney Hughes from the CPS said: “This is a very serious case where the offender was a Young Persons Officer and exploited that position.
“He knew the victim was under the age of 18 when he contacted her and exchanged sexual images with her.
“The offender would have known that his actions constituted an offence, which is why he attempted to deleted the images.”
Notes to editors
Meloney Hughes is a Senior Crown Prosecutor with the CPS West Midlands
Paul Davies (20/04/1961) pleaded guilty to making indecent photographs of a child and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment on 7 March 2019 at Wolverhampton Crown Court".

The basis of my request is to understand the total punishment given to PC Davies,he was a trusted Young Persons Officer but totally undermined the principle of trusting the police and apparently committed Misconduct in Public Office and yet has received a low sentence of 9 months, in reality less because he pleaded guilty,and no mention of rehabilitation or signing an offenders register.
My request is posted in good faith to establish if police offenders are receiving special leniency which would imply that the law is not equitable.

This email is just to put the facts on the record.
The confusion and charade continues further as the jailed pc Paul Davies, who apparently is classed as `former p.c`despite not yet being dismissed, is due to be assessed for Gross misconduct at a misconduct hearing on 9th May 2019, when he will obviously then be immediately dismissed in his absence, having still been on the police payroll until that point.No problem though,it`s only taxpayer`s money. plenty available for free.

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Dear Information Management Unit,
I am prevented from closing this until I receive final clarification about your information status, namely "Please clarify your statements,specifically confirm does the West Midlands CPS hold the requested sentencing information `unofficially`but are refusing to disclose it under FOIA as they consider another source to be more appropriate?"

This is a very simple question that should be responded to IMMEDIATELY, that is today 09 05 2019, unless you can provide a good reason for any avoidance or delay.
Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Information Management Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Fallon,

Thank you for your email which the Information Management Unit (IMU) received 07 May 2019.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) can confirm that we do not maintain a central record or collect data that constitutes official statistics as defined in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007.

The official statistics relating to sentencing, criminal court proceedings, offenders brought to justice, the courts and the judiciary are maintained by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), therefore, in our response to your FOI Request reference 8387, in relation to question two(ii), we referred you to the MoJ as sentencing is the court’s exercise and the MoJ have the most accurate information on sentences awarded.

I hope this assists.

Yours sincerely

Information Management Unit
020 3357 0899
[CPS request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Information Management Unit,
Your response is, quote,"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) can confirm that we do not maintain a central record or collect data that constitutes official statistics as defined in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007".
I clearly have NOT asked if you keep a central record or collect data to form official statistics, I cannot understand why you choose to answer alternative questions as I presume you are not being deliberately devious, I do not have the slightest interested in bulk data or statistics, I am simply asking,in the public interest, to know the TOTAL punishment,in the specific case reported by Meloney Hughes, a Senior Crown Prosecutor with the CPS West Midlands, regarding police officer Paul Davies (20/04/1961) who pleaded guilty to making indecent photographs of a child and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment on 7 March 2019 at Wolverhampton Crown Court".
Obviously I shall have to contact the MoJ tomorrow if you are asserting that,after the trial,you have no written record anywhere about the specifics of the trial conclusion when you have invested so much time and taxpayer`s money prosecuting it.
This would allow the public to assume that something is defective about the WM CPS recording procedures, and I presume,on the basis of your response that the CPS, and not the Judge or the Courts,have the responsibility of forwarding the results of cases to the MoJ whilst deleting the information from their own records.
Unless I hear to the contrary I shall presume my assumptions are correct and contact the MoJ tomorrow to chase up the information.
If the Courts are giving convicted police officers exceptionally low punishments it cannot ethically be right.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Dear Information Management Unit,
I shall mark this request as CLOSED by way of refusal, the evidence apparently revealed by the communications thread indicating that no one at the CPS had the integrity to name themselves or confirm that they held the final result of the Court case in which the CPS was involved, which seems to indicate obsessively secretive,contrary to the public interest, or an attitude of just don`t care, contrary to professional behaviour.
Thank you for demonstrating your true colours,I have contacted the MoJ to chase this up and see if they operate to different standards.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org