Irony of ironies - Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey states that corruption has no place in the Metropolitan Police

Today's Evening Standard has an article about Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (supposedly) seeking to ensure confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service.

A comment late in the piece attracted my attention:

Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey said: “Corruption has no place in the Met Police — and people need to know that they cannot hide behind the veil of the past.”

This is the same Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey who buried the allegations that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball had perverted the course of justice.

Below is the meat of my letter of 9th July 2013 to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe regarding, among other issues,  Deputy Commissioner Mackey perverting the course of justice in that he concealed alleged perversion of the course of justice by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball:

9th July 2013

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe

Commissioner

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

London

SW1H 0BG

MPS Reference: None provided by MPS

Dear Commissioner,

Perversion of the course of justice by

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball

Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey

Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron

Former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page

Conduct of

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan

Former Chief Constable Peter Neyroud

I am writing to you with respect to concerns of the utmost seriousness about the integrity of Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball, and Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron. I suspect each of these officers to have perverted the course of justice.

I also believe that a former Thames Valley Police officer, the then Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page, may have perverted the course of justice in giving untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

I further have concerns about the conduct of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan with respect to the failure of the Metropolitan Police Service appropriately to investigate the allegations regarding Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball and about the conduct of former Chief Constable Peter Neyroud, with respect to the former ACC Page’s investigation and untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

If my understanding of the Law is correct then you are required, in all the circumstances, to make a mandatory referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commision of the matters of concern to me no later than the day following your receipt of this letter.

Further background is to be found in my letter of 25^th May 2013 to the Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit.

The present letter, while lengthy, gives only a compressed account of these matters. I am willing to give a statement to an IPCC-appointed investigator.

Consideration of my concerns by the Metropolitan Police Service

On 25^th May 2013 I wrote to the Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit regarding what I considered to be gross misconduct by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball.

I received an acknowledgement dated 31^st May 2013 from Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron.

I later received a letter dated 7^th June 2013 from Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey.

The superficial impression of Deputy Commissioner Mackey’s response

On the face of it Deputy Commissioner Mackey’s response seems laudable.

He openly lists my concerns regarding the conduct about DAC Ball, not least with respect to the suspected perversion of the course of justice.

He gives detailed consideration of the criteria of what, in Law, constitutes a “complaint” and, in the light of that consideration concludes that he should not record a “complaint”.

Further, again seemingly laudably, he indicates that I may appeal to the IPCC against his decision.

However, a more careful consideration of the letter reveals serious cause for concern.

The dishonesty of Deputy Commissioner Mackey’s response

A more careful consideration of Deputy Commissioner Mackey’s response of 7^th June raises serious concerns.

I view Deputy Commissioner Mackey’s letter to be dishonest. Its effect is to assist with concealment of the serious concerns about DAC Ball’s conduct. In effect, the letter assists in perverting the course of justice.

While it is true that Deputy Commissioner Mackey’s letter gives a detailed consideration of the concept of a “complaint” it is remarkable that he provides no information at all about his consideration of whether my concerns regarding Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball’s conduct may constitute a recordable “conduct matter”.

I believe that Deputy Commissioner Mackey knew, or ought to have known, that an allegation of perverting the course of justice is a recordable “conduct matter”.

Nor does Deputy Commissioner Mackey consider whether such a recordable “conduct matter” is, by Law, required to be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

I believe that Deputy Commissioner Mackey knew, or ought to have known, that he had a duty to refer a recordable “conduct matter” to the Independent Police Complaints Commission “without delay”.

Two explanations occur to me for such  glaring omissions:

1. That Deputy Commissioner Mackey and the Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit are unaware of the concept of a recordable “conduct matter” and that such a recordable “conduct matter” should be referred to the IPCC “without delay”, or
2. That Deputy Commissioner Mackey premeditatedly sought to conceal from me that DAC Ball’s conduct, as I perceive it, constitutes a recordable “conduct matter”. DC Mackey also concealed from me the requirement in Law, at least as I understand it, to make a referral of the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

If DC Mackey’s omission was due to ignorance it raises serious questions about the competence of the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation of recordable “conduct matters”.

If, as I consider more likely, Deputy Commissioner Mackey’s omissions were due to dishonesty that raises concerns of the utmost gravity about the integrity of senior officers in the Metropolitan Police Service, not least questions about the integrity of the Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service.

If the Professional Standards component of the Metropolitan Police Service is itself corrupt then what possible basis is there for the public to trust anything that the Metropolitan Police Service does?

Conduct of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan

I understand DAC Gallan to be in charge of Professional Standards in the Metropolitan Police Service.

If that is the case, then the possibility exists that DCS Bonthron, in the first instance, may have discussed my concerns about the integrity of DAC Ball with DAC Gallan.

The possibility exists that DAC Gallan may have been party to the drafting of Deputy Commissioner Mackey’s letter of 7^th June 2013.

If that is the case it, in my mind at least, raises serious questions about the integrity of DAC Gallan.

I ask you to ensure that whether DAC Gallan played any part in this matter is thoroughly investigated.

In all the circumstances the questions about DAC Gallan’s conduct may appropriately be considered by you to be a possible recordable “conduct matter” which requires to be referred to the IPCC.

Clearly, if DAC Gallan was party to what I view as a premeditated dishonesty with regard to this matter it raises serious concerns about her integrity and about her suitability to head Operation Alice.

If it is the case that DAC Gallan acted improperly in any way with regard to the allegations regarding DAC Ball, it surely cannot be appropriate that she continues to be in charge of Operation Alice.

Perversion of the course of justice by Former ACC Michael Page

The former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page was in charge of the investigation in 2003 into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

He gave untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry about fingerprint evidence about a break-in at the surgery of Dr. Kelly’s dentist.

There are reasons to doubt the reliability of other aspects of the former ACC Page’s evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

I consider that ACC Page may have perverted the course of justice by assisting in the concealment of the true cause of death of Dr. Kelly.

Conduct of former Chief Constable Peter Neyroud

The then Chief Constable Peter Neyroud was ACC Page’s superior officer in 2003.

I ask that Mr. Neyroud’s conduct be referred to the IPCC for investigation since the possibility exists that he was party to the untrue and unreliable evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry.

The basis in Law indicating a mandatory referral to the IPCC

In this section I set out why I believe that you are required by Law to refer to the IPCC “without delay” the matter to which I draw your attention and, in all the circumstances which apply, no later than the end of the day following receipt of this letter.

My belief that a referral to the IPCC may be required by Law is based on my reading of the Police Reform Act 2002, the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 and the Statutory Guidance issued by the IPCC in the document “Statutory Guidance to the Police Service on the handling of complaints”.

The matter  I am reporting to you is, I believe, such as to constitute perversion of the course of justice by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball (as she now is) with respect to failures to investigate the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

I consider the actions of Deputy Commissioner Mackey and Detective Chief Superintendent Bonthron, similarly, to constitute perversion of the course of justice since they, in effect, conceal what I believe to perversion of the course of justice by DAC Ball.

I believe that those concerns each constitutes a recordable “conduct matter” within the meaning of the relevant legislation.

In Paragraph 8.13 of the IPCC document “Statutory Guidance to the Police Service on the handling of complaints” it is stated that “perverting the course of justice” is considered to be “serious corruption”.

In the boxed list immediately before Paragraph 8.5 of the IPCC Statutory Guidance it is stated that “serious corruption” is a mandatory referral criterion.

Paragraph 8.14 of the IPCC document makes it clear that allegations of serious corruption must be referred to the IPCC “without delay”.

“Interested person” status

I believe you have a duty to provide a copy of this letter and my letter of 25^th May 2013 to the IPCC when making the mandatory referral.

In that context I ask the IPCC that I be accorded “interested person” status as provided for in Section 21(3) of the Police Reform Act 2002.

I give consent in terms of Subsection 21(3)(b) of the Police Reform Act 2002.

I am willing to make a statement on these matters to an investigator appointed by the IPCC and/or, as appropriate, provide further written evidence of the basis for my concerns.

Copying of this letter

In fairness to you I think I should let you know a little of how I intend to copy this letter.

First, given the possibility that the failures in handling of my concerns may be generic among Police forces, I will in due course write to the IPCC asking them to investigate whether or not these failures may be widespread among Professional Standards departments. Should that be the case, as I’m sure you’ll understand, the possibility exists that multiple other recordable “conduct matters” have been concealed, in my view dishonestly concealed across the country.

Second, given the recent Inquiry by the Home Affairs Select Committee into Leadership and Standards in the Police Service, I will in due course be writing to the Chairman, Keith Vaz MP, regarding my concerns on this matter, not only with respect to how this matter has been handled by the Metropolitan Police Service but also its handling by Thames Valley Police and the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner.

Third, I will be giving access to the matters contained in this letter to various media outlets. In fairness to you and to give you time to take the actions that an honest Commissioner might take I intend to impose an embargo on that disclosure of 00.01 on 17^th July 2013.

Actions required of you by Law

In this section I briefly list the actions that I believe to be required of you by Law.

First I believe that you are required by Law to refer this matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission “without delay”.

Second, before appointing an investigator into the conduct of Deputy Commissioner Mackey I believe you are required by Law to consult the Home Secretary, as well as consulting the IPCC.

Third, I believe that you are required promptly to take all necessary steps to ensure preservation of the evidence relevant to this matter.

Actions I request of you

I very much hope that you will resist the temptation to indulge in “institutional protectionism”. In all the circumstances the temptation for you to do so is evident.

In the first instance I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter.

Given that you are, I believe, required by Law to refer this matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission “without delay” it would be helpful if you at the time of acknowledging this letter also informed me how you propose to proceed with regard to the referral of this matter to the IPCC.

I also ask you to give serious consideration as to whether, in all the circumstances which apply, you should suspend Deputy Commissioner Mackey, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball, Detective Chief Superintendent Bonthron and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Gallan. It should be a matter of a brief conversation with each to establish whether there is a basis for suspension, not least in the interests of the credibility of the Metropolitan Police Service and its Professional Standards function.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Commissioner Hogan-Howe did reply but refused both to record the "conduct matters" referred to in my letter and also refused to refer the conduct matters to the IPCC.
 

Allegations of perversion of the course of justice by Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe is quoted in today's Evening Standard as indicating that he will set about restoring trust in the Metropolitan Police.

Of course, Sir Bernard conveniently omits to mention that he is personally subject to allegations of perverting the course of justice.

Below is the meat of a letter I sent to Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan on 22nd February with respect to allegations of perverting the course of justice by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball, Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

22^nd February 2014

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan

New Scotland Yard

London

SW1H 0BG

Dear Ms Gallan,

Perversion of the course of justice by

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball

Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey

Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe

I write to report to you as Head of Professional Standards in the Metropolitan Police Service what I believe to be “recordable conduct matters” with respect to the actions of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball, Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey and Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

In my view each of these three officers has acted so as to pervert the course of justice or otherwise commit “serious corruption” in the definition of such in the IPCC Statutory Guidance.

Given that the matters I raise with you are “recordable conduct matters” which relate to a “relevant offence” I believe you are required by Law to record this matter and to refer it without delay to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for investigation.

The background

On 25^th May 2013 I wrote to the Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service alleging that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball had, in concert with others, perverted the course of justice.

I received an acknowledgement dated 31^st May 2013 from Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron. No reference number was provided.

I later received a letter dated 7^th June 2013 from Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey

Deputy Commissioner Mackey refused to record my concerns regarding DAC Ball and further refused to refer the matter to the IPCC for investigation.

In both respects Deputy Commissioner Mackey acted contrary to the applicable Law as I understand it.

In light of that serious misconduct by Deputy Commissioner Mackey I wrote to Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on 9^th July 2003.

Sir Bernard replied in a letter dated 8^th August 2013. The Reference Number QU/01430/13 was given.

Sir Bernard refused to record the “conduct matters” enumerated in my letter of 9^th July 2013.

In refusing to record these conduct matters, Sir Bernard acted contrary to the applicable Law, as I understand it.

Your own conduct

In my letter to Sir Bernard of 9^th July 2013 I raised the question of whether or not you had been party to the process that led to Deputy Commissioner Mackey refusing to comply with the applicable Law and record a conduct matter with respect to DAC Ball.

Sir Bernard indicated that he refused to record a “complaint” regarding your conduct.

The issue was not, in my estimation at least, a “complaint” but was a “conduct matter” of such a nature that Sir Bernard was required by Law to record the matter and refer it to the IPCC.

I ask you to consider whether the Law requires your own conduct in this matter to be recorded as a possible “conduct matter” and referred to the IPCC.

Actions requested of you

I ask for prompt acknowledgment of this letter.

The applicable Law, as I understand it, is set out in my letter to Sir Bernard of 9^th July 2013. It requires recording and referral to the IPCC “without delay”.

If you believe that my understanding is materially incorrect please inform me of such.

However, if the matters raised with respect to the conduct of DAC Ball, Deputy Commissioner Mackey and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe are “conduct matters” in Law which require to be recorded and referred “without delay” to the IPCC I ask you to act in accordance with the requirements of the Law.

With respect to Sir Bernard’s misconduct, should you feel that the Law precludes you from recording and referring the matter I ask that you forward this letter to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, indicating whether or not what I believe to be a “conduct matter” with respect to Sir Bernard is such and the implications in Law as to the course of action which, by Law, must be followed.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

A new offence of "police corruption" is to be introduced in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

One of the most interesting aspects of Theresa May's statement today -  The Ellison Review - Oral Statement to Parliament - is that the Home Secretary proposes to introduce a new offence of "police corruption" in an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.

Neither the scope nor the definition of the proposed offence of "police corruption" was disclosed in the Home Secretary's statement.

I expect that what I often think of as the Association of Corrupt Police Officers, ACPO, will attempt to make it as difficult as possible for a Police officer, particularly a senior Police officer, to be convicted of such an offence.

Given what I believe to be the endemic nature of corruption in multiple British Police forces the definition of the proposed offence will be of profound importance to whether substantive progess is, or is not, made in clearing corrupt Police officers from the higher echelons of British policing.

Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate and its cover-up: The role of Chief Superintendent Andy Tarrant

A few days ago, comments attributed to the former Police Constable Ian Richardson were published in The Times.

PC Richardson was present on 19th September 2012 in Downing Street when Plebgate had its genesis.

I have, for some time, been urging the Police and the IPCC to investigate the role of Police Federation officials in the Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate affairs.

Interestingly, in the statements he gave to the Times Ian Richardson also raises that issue.

He, it seems, wrote to the head of the Diplomatic Protection Group, Chief Superintendent Andy Tarrant and spoke with him, expressing his concerns about the role of Police Federation officials in the Plebgate aspect of the matter. It is unclear to me whether Mr. Richardson had also identified the role of Police Federation officials in the Midlands of England.

If what the Times reports regarding Mr. Richardson is true, then it seems to me that Chief Superintendent Tarrant has acted so as to conceal a conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office by Police Federation officials.

I view Chief Superintendent Tarrant's conduct as constituting gross misconduct with the effect of perverting the course of justice.

Yesterday, I wrote to Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan requesting that the Metropolitan Police Service record a "conduct matter" with respect to Chief Superintendent Tarrant and that the matter be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, as required by Law.

The meat of the letter follows.

28^th February 2014

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan

Room 1806

New Scotland Yard

London

SW1H 0BG

Dear Ms Gallan,

Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate:

Conduct matter

Chief Superintendent Andy Tarrant

Possible perversion of the course of justice / misconduct in public office

I write to ask that you record a conduct matter with respect to Chief Superintendent Andy Tarrant.

I believe that, in Law, you are required to record this conduct matter and to refer the conduct matter “without delay” to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

In The Times newspaper dated 12^th February 2014 the following words appear:

“The following Monday, Mr Richardson asked to see the head of the Diplomatic Protection Group, Chief Superintendent Andy Tarrant, and delivered a letter raising concerns at the reporting, the behaviour of the federation and inaction of Met bosses. The superintendent told him there would be an inquiry into the leaks but no examination of what was or was not said in Downing Street.

When he offered his pocket book, with his notes of the incident, Mr Richardson was told: “Your notes are of no interest to anyone in this organisation.”

You will, I anticipate, be aware that “Mr. Richardson” was Ian Richardson, formerly a Police Constable in the Diplomatic Protection Group.

It seems to me that Chief Superintendent Tarrant has acted so as to conceal the truth about what I believe to be a Police Federation conspiracy to oust Andrew Mitchell MP from his job.

The perceived conspiracy has, as you know from previous correspondence, aspects relating to the Metropolitan Police Federation and to three Police Federations in the Midlands of England.

I view the perceived Police Federation conspiracy as constituting conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

For Chief Superintendent Tarrant to refuse to investigate the former PC Richardson’s concerns is, in my view, a gross dereliction of duty, raising the most serious concerns about Chief Superintendent Tarrant’s integrity and honesty.

In my opinion Chief Superintendent Tarrant’s misconduct constitutes one or both of the criminal offences of perversion of the course of justice and/or misconduct in public office.

That being the case I consider that you are required by Law to record a “conduct matter” and to make a referral to the IPCC.

Section 21(3) of the Police Reform Act 2002

I wish to be treated by the IPCC as an “interested person” and consent to being kept informed about the progress of the IPCC investigation.

Actions requested of you

I ask that you promptly acknowledge receipt of this letter and, as required by Law, record the conduct matter with respect to Chief Superintendent Tarrant and make a referral to the IPCC without delay

I do hope that on this occasion you will take the opportunity to comply with the applicable Law.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

cc Andrew Mitchell MP

Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate and its cover-up: Letter to Sarah Green, Deputy Chair, IPCC

In my previous post,  Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate and its cover-up: Letter of 28th October 2013 to three Chief Constables I mentioned that I had written to Sarah Green, Deputy Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission asking her to use the powers of the IPCC to require West Midlands Police to comply with the Law and record and refer alleged "conduct matters" with respect to Sergeant Chris Jones and Sergeant Ian Edwards.

Below is the text of my letter of 12th February 2014 to Sarah Green. I think it is fairly self-explanatory.

In addition to matters relating to West Midlands Police it also raises similar issues with regard to concealment of "serious corruption" by the Metropolitan Police Service.

12^th February 2014

Sarah Green, Deputy Chair

IPCC

PO Box 473

Sale M33 0BW

Dear Ms Green,

Plebgate: Police Federation Conspiracy

1. IPCC failures
2. Request that IPCC require recording of Police “serious corruption”

I am writing to you in your role as the IPCC Commissioner with territorial responsibility for the Metropolitan Police Service and for West Midlands Police.

You are likely aware of the media coverage today of statements by retired PC Ian Richardson to the effect that the Plebgate incident was hijacked by the Police Federation.

You are, I imagine, also aware that I am deeply concerned about what I perceive as misconduct by your predecessor as Deputy Chair, Deborah Glass, and the cover up of that misconduct by Dame Anne Owers.

One effect of the perceived misconduct by Ms. Glass was to impede proper investigation of the role of the Police Federation in the Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate incidents.

I write to put on record my deep concern about continuing IPCC failures to uphold the Law on this matter. Failures which may also be yours given your territorial responsibilities.

Midlands Police Federations Conspiracy

On 28^th October 2013 I wrote to the Chief Constables of West Mercia, West Midlands and Warwickshire alleging that Inspector Ken Mackaill, Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton, Sergeant Chris Jones and Sergeant Ian Edwards had conspired to oust Andrew Mitchell MP from his post as Chief Whip.

The allegation was that inter alia each individual had committed a criminal offence. In my view the allegations constitute “conduct matters” and the Law requires recording of those allegations by the Police and referral to the IPCC.

I later forwarded to the three Chief Constables and the IPCC a critique of the Reakes-Williams which demonstrated serious failings in that investigation.

Contrary to the view conveyed to the Home Affairs Select Committee by Ms Glass there were visible, serious deficiencies in the Reakes-Williams investigation.

The Chief Constables of West Mercia and Warwickshire acted in accordance with the applicable Law and referred my letter of 28^th October 2013 to the IPCC. I assume, but cannot be certain, that they recorded the matter as a conduct matter with respect to the officers in their respective forces.

The Chief Constable of West Midlands did not do so.

I ask that you exercise the powers conferred on the IPCC by virtue of Paragraph 11(5) of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and that you require West Midlands police to record the conduct matters with respect to Sergeant Chris Jones and Sergeant Ian Edwards.

Metropolitan Police Federation Conspiracy

On 29^th October 2013 I wrote to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe regarding the possible participation of John Tully of the Metropolitan Police Federation, among others, in a conspiracy to destabilise Andrew Mitchell MP.

That letter was copied to Deborah Glass.

I received a platitudinous response from one of Sir Bernard’s staff.

To the best of my knowledge Sir Bernard has neither recorded the allegation regarding John Tully nor referred it to the IPCC nor taken any steps to investigate it.

I ask that you exercise the powers conferred on the IPCC by virtue of Paragraph 11(5) of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and that you require the Metropolitan Police Service to record the conduct matter with respect to John Tully.

As you will see from my letter of 29^th October 2013 I at that time had already arrived at the view that others in the Metropolitan Police Federation were likely to be involved in any such conspiracy, as indicated by careful consideration of contemporary media reports.

Plebgate – Actions of PC Toby Rowland

On 31^st January 2014 I wrote to Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan, communicating to her the case that PC Toby Rowland may have committed an offence contrary to Section 137 of the Highways Act when he prevented Andrew Mitchell MP exiting Downing Street on 19^th September 2012.

As I understand the Law, an allegation of a criminal offence is a recordable conduct matter.

Accordingly, I ask that you exercise the powers conferred on the IPCC by virtue of Paragraph 11(5) of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and that you require the Metropolitan Police Service to record the conduct matter with respect to PC Toby Rowland.

IPCC failures – the need for a public statement

The IPCC, in the person of Deborah Glass, has visibly failed the public and Andrew Mitchell MP with respect to the IPCC handling of Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate. At least that’s my considered opinion.

Given your territorial responsibilities it occurs to me that you, too, may be party to those serious failures by the IPCC.

I ask that the IPCC gives serious consideration to making a full public statement honestly admitting its failures in handling these matters.

Action requested of you

For the avoidance of doubt the actions I request of you are these:

1. That you promptly acknowledge receipt of this letter,
2. That the IPCC accords me “interested person” status with respect to my reporting of the conduct matters regarding Sergeant Ian Edwards, Sergeant,  Chris Jones and John Tully as well as those conduct matters referred to the IPCC by the Chief Constables of Warwickshire and West Mercia. I give my consent to being kept informed.
3. That the IPCC requires the West Midlands Police to record the conduct matters regarding Sergeant Ian Edwards and Sergeant Chris Jones
4. That the IPCC requires the Metropolitan Police Service to record the conduct matter relating to John Tully
5. That the IPCC makes a comprehensive public statement on Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate including full acknowledgement of the past failings to which I refer earlier in this letter.

It seems to me that if the IPCC is incapable of competently and lawfully handling matters relating to the Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate affairs it raises grave concerns about the capability of the IPCC to handle any major investigation.

In that context I am giving serious consideration to the possibility of my writing to Lord Justice Goldring drawing his attention to the basis for my very serious concerns about the competence and integrity of the highest echelons of the IPCC.

I look forward to your early reply.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

cc Rachel Cerfontyne, Deputy Chair, IPCC

Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate and its cover-up: Letter of 28th October 2013 to three Chief Constables

One of the huge failures of investigation in recent times is the IPCC-supervised process which purported to investigate Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldgate.

For information on some aspects of the matters which concern me see below the text of a letter sent on 28th October 2013 to the Chief Constables of Warwickshire, West Mercia and West Midlands.

The matters raised are, as I understand the Law, subject to mandatory recording and referral to the IPCC.

Chief Constable Shaw of West Mercia Police and Chief Constable Parker of Warwickshire complied with the Law and referred the letter to the IPCC with respect to the West Mercia and Warwickshire officers mentioned in the letter.

However, West Midlands Police refused to record conduct matters with respect to Sergeant Chris Jones and Sergeant Ian Edwards.

I believe that the failures of West Midlands Police are contrary to the Law and, consequently, I have written to Sarah Green, Deputy Chair of the IPCC with territorial responsibility for West Midlands Police asking that she use powers conferred by Paragraph 11(5) of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to require West Midlands Police to record the "conduct matters" with respect to Sergeant Chris Jones and Sergeant Ian Edwards, respectively Secretary and Chair of the West Midlands Police Federation.

A reply from Ms. Green is awaited.

Here is the text of my letter of 28th October 2013 to the three Chief Constables:

28^th October 2013

Chief Constable David Shaw, West Mercia Police

Chief Constable Andy Parker, Warwickshire Police

Chief Constable Chris Sims, West Midlands Police

Dear Chief Constables,

Plebgate: Multiple possible recordable conduct issues and possible criminal offences

I write to you following the Home Affairs Select Committee meeting held on 23^rd October 2013.

It seems to me that the evidence disclosed there and elsewhere raises the question of multiple “recordable conduct issues” which seem to me to satisfy the definition of “serious corruption” as specified in the IPCC Guidance or “misconduct in public office” or both and which have either not been investigated or have been inadequately investigated by your respective forces.

The issues of concern cross the boundaries of your respective three Police forces. Given that background and the potential seriousness of these possible recordable conduct matters, if proved, I suggest you carefully consider whether these are matters which are required by Law to be referred without delay by each of you to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

As you will appreciate the issues are complex and public understanding of the issues is hampered by seeming continuing concealment from the public of some relevant documents.

The issues of concern to me will be briefly summarised in this letter under the following headings:

1. Possible misconduct in public office
2. Possible assistance of an indictable offence
3. Possible perversion of the course of justice
4. Possible conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
5. Inadequacies of the Smith/Wreakes-Williams investigation
6. Did the “three officers” lie to the investigation?
7. The October 2012 investigation
8. The actions of the “Appropriate Authorities”

Possible misconduct in public office

I ask that possible misconduct in public office by Inspector Mackaill, Detective Sergeant Hinton, Sergeant Jones and Sergeant Ian Edwards be investigated, specifically that one or more of those named individuals acted individually or jointly so as illegitimately and unlawfully to jeopardise the position of a member of the UK Government, specifically Mr. Andrew Mitchell MP.

Elsewhere in this letter I refer to the first three Police officers named in the preceding paragraph as “the three officers”.

The Report of Temporary Inspector Smith and Chief Inspector Reakes-Williams states specifically that the issue of whether or not it was “appropriate” to seek the resignation of a member of Government was not considered. I believe it should have been. Given that statement this is, so it seems to me, an issue that has not been previously investigated.

Alternatively or additionally I ask that you investigate whether one or more of the named individuals, possibly together with others, conspired to commit misconduct in public office.

I suggest there is evidence suggesting that the actions of Simon Payne might also require to be formally investigated, given his stated position of keeping the Police Federation campaign personal.

Possible assistance of an indictable offence

I understand misconduct in public office to be an indictable offence.

I further understand there to exist an offence of assisting in the commision of an indictable offence.

If it is the case that the three officers and/or others may have committed the offence of misconduct in public office those who assisted them in doing so may also have committed a criminal offence.

I ask you to investigate the conduct of the staff of Gaunt Brothers and, if appropriate, others, with respect to whether or not their actions constitute a criminal offence.

Possible perversion of the course of justice or “serious corruption”

During the meeting with Mr. Mitchell in October 2012 the point was made repeatedly that if Mr. Mitchell’s evidence was true then the  Metropolitan“Police log” had been falsified.

In that context of a seeming duty to report possible corruption by one or more Police officers one would expect the three officers to have taken steps to ensure that the possible Police corruption was reported and thoroughly investigated.

It seems from the evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee that none of the three officers reported the matter formally.

The predictable effect of the seeming decision by the three officers is that possible Police corruption (in the Metropolitan Police) was concealed. (The officers could not know in October 2012 of the impact of the CCTV evidence many weeks later.)

It seems that the three officers decided not to report the matter.

It seems to me that with respect to the seeming decision not to report possible Police corruption the three officers may have perverted the course of justice (by concealing possible Police corruption in the Metropolitan Police), or have committed misconduct in public office and/or be guilty of “serious corruption” as defined in the IPCC Guidance.

Possible conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

It is likely from the transcript of the meeting between the three officers and Andrew Mitchell that the officers had been in contact with Metropolitan Police officers. The extent of such contact remains unclear. Sergeant Jones states, “They don’t wish to have a misconduct hearing in the Met.”.

The three officers, so far as I interpreted the evidence at the Home Affairs Select Committee, took a decision not to report potential Police corruption.

I interpreted one answer when listening to the broadcast as indicating that this decision not to report emanated from some further contact with the Metropolitan Police. If such contact took place with the Metropolitan Police and in effect the three officers were told or induced to kick into touch the issue of possible Police corruption in the Met this seems to me to raise further serious questions about the conduct of the three officers and any such Metropolitan Police officers they contacted, specifically the possibility exists that the three officers may have conspired with officers of the Metropolitan Police Service, most likely members of the Professional Standards function, to conceal possible corrupt behaviour by one or more members of the Metropolitan Police Service.

It seems to me that this potentially immensely serious matter requires thorough, independent formal investigation.

Inadequacies of the Smith/Reakes-Williams investigation

I will use the term “Smith/Reakes-Williams investigation” to refer to the investigation originating in December 2012. It seems to me that there are several evident deficiencies in that investigation which call into question the competence and/or integrity of that investigation.

When the IPCC decided that the investigation be “supervised” had they been informed of the existence of the October 2012 investigation to which I refer later in this letter? Were they given full access to the documentation of the October 2012 investigation prior to coming to a decision on the scope of the Smith/Reakes-Williams investigation?

Who decided that a Temporary Inspector be tasked with, so it seems, carrying out the misconduct interviews in such an important matter? Was a temporarily promoted officer chosen as being least likely to “rock the boat”?

Is it correct that both Temporary Detective Inspector Smith and Chief Inspector Reakes-Williams are members of the Police Federation?

It seems to me that there is the appearance that the investigation of Temporary Detective Inspector Smith may have been biased. I note his use of terminology for example that terms such as “confirmed”are used, so far as I can identify, with respect to the evidence of the three officers but not to that of Mr. Mitchell. If the investigation was unbiased one might have expected neutral terms such as “stated” for the summary accounts of both Mr. Mitchell and the three officers. TDI Smith also accepts as fact what the three officers claim to have been their understanding.

It further seems to me, from the fragmentary evidence presently in the public domain that TDI Smith may have given the three officers an “easy ride” in the misconduct interviews.

So far as I can identify TDI Smith has identified no relevant words of Mr. Mitchell that would have changed the interpretation of what he said on 19^th September 2012. His analysis on that and other grounds seems to me to be biased in favour of the three officers.

TDI Smith states that Mr. Mitchell was asked once to explain “exactly what he did say”. I cannot identify any point in the transcript of the meeting where Mr. Mitchell was asked to explain “exactly what [he] did say”.

I have concerns about how narrowly the terms of reference were drawn and, in the light of emerging evidence, that they were not appropriately reviewed and/or amended. Why, for example, were the questions of misconduct in public office and/or perverstion of the course of justice neither identified nor investigated?

I note that Sergeant Ian Edwards of West Midlands Police Federation stated that he had informed the media of the date and time of the meeting between the three officers and Mr. Mitchell.  We are asked to believe that none of the three officers (Police Federation colleagues of Sergeant Edwards) was aware of that. So far as I read the various versions of the reports the directly relevant questions were not asked by TDI Smith.

Why, given his written statement, was the conduct of Sergeant Ian Edwards not formally investigated?

Did TDI Smith draw to the attention of the Appropriate Authority the potential relevance of the actions of Sergeant Edwards disclosed in his written statement and, for example, in the West Midlands Police Federation Press Release of 11^th October 2012? Was consideration given to a formal investigation for possible misconduct? If not, why not?

Why was Sergeant Edwards not interviewed (possibly under caution)? Why was Sergeant Edwards not asked which media organisations he informed of the date, time and place of the meeting with Mr. Mitchell? Why was Sergeant Edwards not asked what he had led the media to expect to happen at that meeting?

Did TDI Smith obtain and preserve any email or other written communications between the three officers and Sergeant Edwards (and possibly Simon Payne)? If not, why not?

Did TDI Smith obtain and preserve any email or written communications with Jon Gaunt by any of the three officers or Sergeant Edwards? If not, why not?

Elsewhere in this letter I draw attention to the facts indicating that, in my view, the criminal offences of “misconduct in public office” and “perverting the course of justice” may have been committed by one or more of the three officers. It seems to me that the seeming failure of the Smith-Reakes-Williams investigation to identify such matters gives cause for serious concern as to its effectiveness. Given the seeming inadequacy of the investigation the question of the integrity of that investigation also arises in my mind.

In that regard I am aware that I hold a view different from that of Deborah Glass who, I understand, views the Smith-Reakes-Williams investigation as satisfactory.

How did it come about that the IPCC opinion in July 2013 that there was a case to answer regarding gross misconduct was, in effect, kicked into touch? Who decided that? On what grounds?

I note that version “C” of the report is signed by Chief Inspector Reakes-Williams but the Recommendations that are ostensibly his are not those he stated to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 23^rd October 2013. The “final” report, in this respect, it seems to me, is essentially fraudulent. The manner in which Chief Inspector Reakes-Williams was induced to sign a formal document which provided a false account of his Recommendations, or otherwise came to do so, requires to be investigated in my view.

Did the “three officers” lie to the investigation?

I ask that the question of whether or not the “three officers” lied to the Smith/Reakes-Williams investigation be formally investigated.

The officers, for example, indicated to the Temporary Detective Inspector Smith that they didn’t know how the media knew of the meeting with Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

However, the West Midlands’ Police Federation Press Release of 11^th October 2012 quotes Inspector Mackaill and states that DS Hinton and PS Jones will attend the meeting. Are we seriously asked to believe that the three officers were ignorant of this and related matters?

The October 2012 investigation

In the documentation disclosed by West Mercia Police to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 22^nd October 2013 brief mention is made of an investigation conducted in response to concerns expressed in October 2012 by a Mr. Plume.

Little is revealed to the public or, it seems, to the Committee. Appendix C to the Smith/Wreakes-Williams investigation is not disclosed to the public and I assume it was not disclosed to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

It is evident that Mr. Plume identified multiple concerns regarding the conduct of Inspector Mackaill. Were each of these properly investigated? Or were they, conveniently, kicked into touch?

I note that Temporary Detective Inspector Smith considered the October 2012 investigation “proportionate”. I wonder, given the seeming deficiencies of his own investigation, if that term is a synonym for cursory.

In the brief information publicly disclosed it seems that Inspector Mackaill may have lied to the investigator. Inspector Mackaill claims that Mr. Mitchell refused to clarify what he had said. I am unaware in the transcript published by the IPCC of any refusal by Mr. Mitchell to do so.

I ask that Chief Constable Shaw gives careful consideration whether it is appropriate to refer the October 2012 investigation to the IPCC for further rigorous investigation.

I also ask Chief Constable Shaw to give careful consideration as to whether Inspector Mackaill lied to the investigator in the October 2012 investigation and what action ought appropriately to be taken.

The actions of the Appropriate Authorities

In this section I do not attempt to distinguish between the three Chief Constables as Appropriate Authorities and other officers acting with delegated authority.

Chief Constable Shaw clearly saw the toxic potential of this matter when making the December 2012 referral to the IPCC. Thereafter it seems to me that the Appropriate Authorities acted at various times in such manner or failed to act with the effect of amplifying the toxic potential.

I understand the Law to oblige the Appropriate Authorities to preserve all relevant documentation. Did the Appropriate Authorities take steps to preserve documents including emails among the three officers and, following the emergence of the possibly relevant roles of Sergeant Ian Edwards, Simon Payne and Jon Gaunt, emails between those individuals and with the three officers? If not, why not?

Did the Appropriate Authorities monitor the investigation? Were they aware of the actions of Sergeant Edwards? What assessment did they make of the potential significance of them?

Did the Appropriate Authorities consider the possibility of Misconduct in Public Office? If not, why not?

Did the Appropriate Authorities consider the potential significance of the decision of the three officers not to report possible corruption in the Metropolitan Police? If not, why not? What assessment, if any, was made of the possibility that this might constitute perverting the course of justice?

It seems to me that a competent, honest investigation of the conduct of the three officers would have considered whether they perverted the course of justice by, so it seems, deciding not to report possible Police corruption in the Metropolitan Police Service. So far as I can establish none of TDI Smith, CI Reakes-Williams, DCC Chesterman, DCC Brunton or ACC Cann (and possibly others) identified this as a potentially significant issue. I find this inexplicable if they were competent Police officers acting honestly

Did the Appropriate Authorities act such as to sweep things under the carpet? It seems to me that there is at least an arguable case for suggesting that.

It further seems to me that the recent informal reviews conducted by the each of the three Police forces was contrary to what is required by Law.

The allegation in the media was that senior officers, in effect, supressed evidence of misconduct and/or gross misconduct. In my understanding of the Law an allegation of that nature is a mandatory referral to the IPCC. So far as I can gather it was not referred to the IPCC.

I ask each of the three Chief Constables to consider whether his own actions (and/or failures to act) as an Appropriate Authority or those acting on his behalf require, by Law, to be referred promptly to the IPCC for investigation.

In the normal course of events the actions of the Chief Constables might appropriately be raised with their respective Police and Crime Commissioners. Given the public statements of the latter I see no sound basis for considering the Police and Crime Commissioners to be sufficiently independent of the Chief Constables in this matter to give reassurance of independence.

Actions requested of the three Chief Constables

In the first instance I would appreciate from each of the three Chief Constables acknowledgment of receipt of this letter.

Given the circumstances I can see that you may wish to, or may be required to, act jointly or individually on particular components of the matters I raise. In any event, I ask each of you carefully to consider whether he has a duty in Law promptly to refer one or more of these areas of concern to the IPCC.

With respect to any of the matters raised which are referred to the IPCC I request that I be kept infomed as provided for by Subsection 21(3) of the Police Reform Act 2002. I give my consent as specified in Subsection 21(3)(b) of the Act. Should any of the Appropriate Authorities decide to investigate on its own part I ask similarly to be kept informed and consent to the same.

I ask you as a matter of urgency to consider whether you have a duty in Law to seize (or otherwise obtain) and preserve all  email and/or written communications among any of the three officers, Sergeant Edwards, Simon Payne and Jon Gaunt. I will likely delay public release of this letter to give you opportunity to seize and preserve any such communications. Of course any failure to preserve documents earlier is also a matter of concern.

I understand, given the seriousness of my concerns, that the Law imposes a short time limit for you to decide how to proceed regarding these matters and, implicitly, inform me of how you propose to proceed.

I am copying this letter to Keith Vaz MP and Deborah Glass.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

cc

Keith Vaz MP

Deborah Glass, IPCC

 

As you can see the letter was copied to Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee and Deborah Glass of the IPCC.

Deborah Glass's failure to act correctly was one factor that led me to making a formal complaint about her conduct: FUQQ.EU Deborah Glass - Is Deborah Glass a fit person to be an IPCC Commissioner?

My critique of the Reakes-Williams investigation into SuttonColdfieldgate is here:
FUQQ.EU - Chief Inspector Jeremy Reakes-Williams: Why was the Reakes-Williams investigation into SuttonColdfieldgate so inadequate?

I know from personal experience about Police corruption and cover-up

Below is a response to a blog post by Bernard Rix here:I have a complaint about the police…

Mr. Rix would like to see it being easier to offer praise to the Police.

Me? I'd like to see it be much easier for members of the Public to have their complaints about Police misconduct including "serious corruption", in the definition in the IPCC Statutory Guidance, heard.

Let me tell you a story ...

On only one occasion in my life have I gone to a Police station to report a suspected crime.

I spoke to a helpful woman Police Constable who, as I had anticipated, was out of her depth.

We're not talking theft or simple Saturday night yobbishness. The issue at hand was serious criminal behaviour by two well-known public figures.

She, sensibly, asked a Sergeant to speak to me.

The female Sergeant was unhelpful and aggressive. She told me that [redacted] Police didn't investigate [redacted organisation].

The persons whose crimes I reported are well-known public figures.

The penalty, on conviction, for the alleged crimes is life imprisonment.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Sergeant was perverting the course of justice.

When I got home I made full contemporaneous notes.

I made a formal complaint to [redacted] Police's Prossional Standards Department about the Sergeant's conduct.

The PSD gently jogged along, eventually arranging to meet me face to face.

Two affable Inspectors, who I suspect were close to retirement, chatted to me in a totally non-aggressive manner.

Later someone interviewed the Sergeant who, of course, given the passage of time could claim "not to remember" saying things that appeared in my contemporaneous notes.

End result?

My complaint was kicked into the long grass.

I subseqnently wrote to the Deputy Chief Constable of the time.

Result? More flattening of the long grass.

Finally, I wrote to the Chief Constable.

Result? Yet more flattening of the long grass.

The two public figures have neither been investigated nor charged.

Maybe one day they will begin a life sentence but not, I suspect, before there is a massive clear-out of corrupt Police officers.