“Principles of appeal handling 13.2 An appeal offers a final opportunity to consider whether the complaint could have been handled better at a local level and, where appropriate, to put things right. If a complainant is still dissatisfied after an appeal he or she may seek to challenge the appropriate authority’s decision through judicial review. 13.3 An appeal should be dealt with in good faith, fairly and in a timely manner. 13.4 Appeals should be handled consistently and proportionately. 13.5 Consideration of an appeal must involve a fresh consideration of the case. Although it is not a re-investigation it should not merely be a ‘quality check’ of what has happened before. 13.6 An appeal must be given impartial consideration. There needs to be clear separation between the original decision-maker and the person who decides the appeal. 13.7 The complainant’s appeal contains their representations, which must be given due consideration. 13.8 The person who made the decision that is being appealed should be allowed the opportunity to comment on the appeal so that this can be taken into account when determining it. 13.9 The right of appeal allows the complainant to challenge a decision or outcome. If the appeal is upheld, relevant action must be taken by the appropriate authority. 13.10 The complainant and, where applicable, the person complained about should be provided with a clear explanation of the outcome of the appeal and the reason for any decision made. …………….. Consideration of appeals “13.63 When deciding whether the outcome is a proper one, the focus should be on whether the outcome is appropriate to the complaint, not simply on the process followed to reach that outcome. The decision should be made on the basis of the evidence available. 13.64 In making a decision about the appeal, the relevant appeal body should take the following into consideration: • any representations the complainant has provided as part of his or her appeal about why the outcome is not a proper outcome • whether an action plan was drawn up and agreed with the complainant setting out the steps to be taken when locally resolving his or her complaint. The outcome of the local resolution should be a clear consequence of the actions agreed • whether both the complainant and the person complained against had the opportunity to comment on the complaint during the local resolution process ……………. • whether any explanation given was sufficiently clear and comprehensive to address the complainant’s concerns …” 13.2 An appeal offers a final opportunity to consider whether the complaint could have been handled better at a local level and, where appropriate, to put things right. If a complainant is still dissatisfied after an appeal he or she may seek to challenge the appropriate authority’s decision through judicial review. 13.3 An appeal should be dealt with in good faith, fairly and in a timely manner. 13.4 Appeals should be handled consistently and proportionately. 13.5 Consideration of an appeal must involve a fresh consideration of the case. Although it is not a re-investigation it should not merely be a ‘quality check’ of what has happened before. 13.6 An appeal must be given impartial consideration. There needs to be clear separation between the original decision-maker and the person who decides the appeal. 13.7 The complainant’s appeal contains their representations, which must be given due consideration. 13.8 The person who made the decision that is being appealed should be allowed the opportunity to comment on the appeal so that this can be taken into account when determining it. 13.9 The right of appeal allows the complainant to challenge a decision or outcome. If the appeal is upheld, relevant action must be taken by the appropriate authority. 13.10 The complainant and, where applicable, the person complained about should be provided with a clear explanation of the outcome of the appeal and the reason for any decision made. …………….. “13.63 When deciding whether the outcome is a proper one, the focus should be on whether the outcome is appropriate to the complaint, not simply on the process followed to reach that outcome. The decision should be made on the basis of the evidence available. 13.64 In making a decision about the appeal, the relevant appeal body should take the following into consideration: • any representations the complainant has provided as part of his or her appeal about why the outcome is not a proper outcome • whether an action plan was drawn up and agreed with the complainant setting out the steps to be taken when locally resolving his or her complaint. The outcome of the local resolution should be a clear consequence of the actions agreed • whether both the complainant and the person complained against had the opportunity to comment on the complaint during the local resolution process ……………. • whether any explanation given was sufficiently clear and comprehensive to address the complainant’s concerns …”
“(1) The question for the police investigation is whether the allegations made in the complaints have been established on the balance of probabilities, taking account of proportionality … (2) The IPCC’s appeal procedure is by way of review; …., the IPCC’s task is to ensure that, following a proportionate investigation, an appropriate conclusion has been reached by the police investigation … Was the conclusion in the police investigation one which was fair and reasonable? (3) An IPCC appeal decision is not expected to be ‘tightly argued’ - nevertheless the conclusion should be clear and the reasons readily understandable … (4) The function of the Court on an application for judicial review of an IPCC appeal decision is confined to the question whether the IPCC has reached a decision which was fairly and reasonably open to it, even if the court might have reached a different conclusion. IPCC decisions involve matters of judgment and the court will allow the IPCC a discretionary area of judgment … (5) Where the IPCC upholds the decision of the police investigation, the question for the Court involves an element of ‘double rationality’: was the decision of the IPCC that the decision of the police investigation was fair and reasonable itself fair and reasonable? The question is not whether the Court would necessarily have reached the same conclusion as the police or the IPCC, nor whether it can be seen with hindsight that an error may have been made …”
“He [the Claimant] has asked for a short statement from myself as SIO so that he can show to the Parliamentary Office to understand his status within the investigation. I am very conscious a formal decision has not been made by CPS, although I know informally that the allegations against [him] are untrue and will not meet threshold.”
“…….. College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice ……… “Gold group If there is the possibility of any national consequences arising from a complex child abuse investigation, consideration should be given to establishing a gold group. A clear understanding of the expectation and capability of each partner in gold group is essential to developing a joint-working relationship. The function of the gold group is to set policy and strategy and secure the funding and resources necessary for the investigation. Liaising with the CPS The SIO should liaise with the CPS at the earliest possible stage and at an appropriate level to obtain their views on the scope of any proposed investigation so as to focus operational resources appropriately. They should also obtain relevant and ongoing advice from the CPS to support the investigation. ……. Analysis I have examined the email where DCI Davies provided a further response explaining that the investigation was very much directed by the Gold team, who insisted that the CPS had to be involved and that they would make the decision around any prosecution. DCI Davies also recalls that it was the CPS decision to place Mr Hemming as one of the main suspects within the file, following discussions with them. DCI Davies also explains that it was the CPS who requested the way in which the file was submitted as their premise was around full disclosure so they could realistically understand if prosecution was feasible. The officers in this investigation were dealing with a large volume of information provided by one person but relating to a number of different incidents, events and people over a lengthy period of time. DCI Davies was duty bound to ensure that the investigation was as detailed, wide reaching, and meticulous as possible. This involves collecting all evidence regardless of whether it supports or refutes the allegations, in order for a genuinely independent decision to be made. In cases of this nature that would amount to an indictable offence, only the CPS can make a decision about charges and the police are legally required to provide all evidence to them in order to do so. The police investigation process is not an indication of guilt or innocence, it is simply a way to gather evidence. It is also important to highlight that neither the police or CPS prosecutors are responsible for deciding guilt or innocence, particularly in such serious and complex cases. That is the role of the courts and judicial process. The police responsibility is to obtain all available evidence and provide a case file to the CPS. The CPS prosecutors will then review and consider the evidence, request further evidence and examine all of the information before a decision is made about who, if anyone, should be charged and with which specific offence based on the realistic prospect of conviction test and other threshold tests. It is for the Court to decide guilt or innocence and it is important to make clear that the police are making no judgments about guilt as any potential suspect is considered innocent unless proved guilty and that the person concerned is not able to defend her/himself at this stage of the process. Therefore, for DCI Davies to make a decision that any person allegedly involved may or may not be guilty…. would significantly undermine and frustrate the entire judicial process.Furthermore, to make such decisions outside the actual legislative process would leave the police open to severe criticism and legal challenge in such serious, sensitive, and complex cases. Decision …….. The decision not to bring any charges was a result of the CPS decision that there was insufficient evidence to proceed based on all the information the police had and were required to obtain. When such complex and sensitive cases are being investigated, police officers have a duty to ensure that all available evidence and information is provided to the CPS as it is the CPS who make the charging decisions based on consideration of that evidence, and it is not for the police or individual officers to make that decision.”
“Hi [NAME REDACTED] This the latest from [NAME REDACTED] I can see nothing from the PND return and the information that has been given to me that suggests that Staffordshire or any Force has investigated [NAME REDACTED], [NAME REDACTED] or Sam Smith for anything detailed below. This would be other than the historic offences alleged by [NAME REDACTED]. It may be that if we confirmed this then this would go some way in allaying [NAME REDACTED] concerns and lessening some of the elements of the lawsuit being taken against your Force (I’m not sighted on that but I could imagine this may be included). I won’t send anything yet but can you and your SMT consider this. Otherwise I can still plough on but I would be asking the same question and answering it in the final report.”
“Afternoon Simon, I’m just in the process of realigning SS’s complaints. We have never confirmed whether or not [NAME REDACTED] had been investigated for harassment. Personally, I would think it best addressed in the final report. My rationale for that would be that [NAME REDACTED] is not asking for a specific was he or was he not being investigated. His allegation as he explains below, is more complicated. Additionally the information can’t be weaponised again until the final report is signed off and sent, providing you with some top cover too.”
“The New Evidence …………. …….. DI Simon Thomas who was supposed to be investigating Staffordshire Police stated in writing that he intended to help Staffordshire Police defend or mitigate my claim. Ironically, since I now have that email, the reverse is true. …….. The Criminal Conduct by Simon E Thomas and Gwent Police …………. I refer to his email of15 May 2020 14.23, to an officer at Staffordshire Police in which he proposes a limited disclosure of information would assist them – “lessening some of the elements of the lawsuit being taken against your force”
“…..The police have subsequently deliberately dragged out matters whilst failing to take action, in order to hide their errors. What they should have done was open an investigation into perverting the Course of Justice immediately after my interview under caution in October 2015 or in any event, as soon as they realised there was no probable case to refer to the CPS. The conclusions here are perverse and ignore known facts. DI Thomas records the following: ‘On 01/03/19 DCS Oomer documented in his policy book that the investigation into allegations that Attempted to Pervert the Course of Justice would be placed as low priority. This was due to the following: (1) There was no apparent risk to any persons or subjects. (2) This was supported by the fact that the allegations were historical.”
“ “On 01/03/19 DCS Oomer documented in his policy book that the investigation into allegations that [EB] Attempted to Pervert the Course of Justice would be placed as low priority. This was due to the following: (1) There was no apparent risk to any persons or subjects. (2) This was supported by the fact that the allegations were historical. (3) The Major Investigation Team who were supporting this investigation were dealing with other pressing matters and were suffering from staff shortages. In September 2019 an advice file was submitted to the CPS.”
“CPS……..Guidance for Charging Perverting the Course of Justice and Wasting Police Time in Cases involving Allegedly False Allegations of Rape and/or Domestic Abuse”: Prosecutions for these offences in the situations above will be extremely rare and by their very nature, they will be complex and require sensitive handling. On the one hand, victims of rape and/or domestic abuse making truthful allegations require the support of the criminal justice system. They should not be deterred from reporting their allegations. Nor should they be criminalised for merely retracting an allegation because true allegations can be retracted for a broad range of reasons. Very often such allegations are made by a person who is vulnerable or in the context of a relationship, often with a protracted and complicated history, all of which is bound to have a bearing on the issues in the case. On the other hand, false allegations of rape and/or domestic abuse can have serious adverse impact on the person accused. This is why these cases must be examined thoroughly by suitably experience prosecutors who should strike the right balance between ensuring genuine victims are believed and not criminalised whilst recognising the need to protect the innocent from false allegations. The second question will be whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that an allegation was in fact false. If the evidence is such that the original allegation might reasonably be true then there is not a realistic prospect of conviction and no charge should be brought. The mere fact that the original allegation did not meet the evidential stage of the full code test does not mean that the prosecution can prove that it was false.” ………. CPS:……. “Reconsidering a prosecution decision Some cases may involve the reconsideration of a prosecution decision not to prosecute a case or to discontinue a prosecution……. ……… The CPS has set up specific procedures to facilitate victims’ requests for a review of a decision not to prosecute a case. These include the Victims’ Right to Review scheme (VRR), which applies to all alleged offences involving a victim…...”
“[56]……there are ancillary criminal matters linked to the investigation stemming from [EB]’s allegations. The Claimant was subjected to abusive behaviour and there was a conviction against Declan Canning in February 2018 for sending the Claimant malicious communications. There were threats against third parties linked to the investigation and the Defendant understands there were threats made against Mr Lavery and Mr Smith.”