Tag: professional incompetence

Posted on

How Establishment Judges Protect The System

Occasionally, High Court judges get in the news for all the wrong reasons. As the text below shows I am unfortunately burdened with having to deal with a judge called Nicholas Lavender. He is known as The Honourable Nicholas Lavender. Unfortunately, I get stuck with his evil twin The Dishonourable Nicholas Lavender. He’s recently been in the news for two key issues. The first of these is his incorrect sentencing of a MP caught committing sexual misconduct, more on this below. The more recent of these two stories concerns his membership of the Garrick club, an all male organisation, which appears to contain a suspicious number of high-level judiciary. More can be seen on this here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/18/garrick-club-bastion-male-elitism

Judge Nicholas Lavender

In 2016, I was subject to a wrongful conviction. The conviction was wrongful because evidence which showed factual innocence was withheld from the court and further evidence which would have undermined the prosecution in respect of the complainant was also withheld. Such information has subsequently been located, such as the complainant publicly being named as serial complainant and compensation seeker. This has resulted in her being the subject of articles in the national press showing her patterns of behaviour for the purpose of obtaining compensation.

It was known at an early stage that the prosecution was wrongful, evidence was being withheld and the whole matter conducted by officers who we have subsequently discovered had committed prior misconduct including data manipulation and computer misuse offences. Humberside Police is still known to be in possession of a significant amount of data showing factual innocence. Efforts have been made to obtain this data via civil proceedings and judicial review.

The British court system seeks at all stages to maintain wrongful convictions by a number of underhanded methods. One of these is that efforts to obtain evidence which is known to exist showing factual innocence will be blocked via a number of methods. One of these is simply hiding the evidence and failing to show this to a defence team. This is illegal and contrary to The Criminal Procedure Investigation Act. This happened in my case. However another means of hiding evidence known to exist is for a judge to effectively act as a “gatekeeper” placing restrictions and denying access to evidence which will show the police, CPS and the court itself have missed conducted themselves in order to obtain and maintain wrongful conviction. This enables any police and legal professionals involved in a deliberate miscarriage of justice to avoid blame for misconduct in public office. 

In my own matter the judge Nicholas Lavender known as The Honourable, Mr Justice Lavender (pictured) acts as gatekeeper to block applications made to obtain data showing factual innocence which would open the way to overturn of the wrongful conviction. 

The High Court

 

As such, Nicholas Lavender knows full well that he is acting to maintain an injustice and doing so oppressively by the continual application of a series of civil restraint orders which act to limit and restrict my ability to use the civil court system to obtain information that would enable the matter to be returned to the Court of Appeal.
This has now become a personal matter for him: in the orders that he makes in relation to myself he insures that the wording he is as disparaging and borderline offensive as possible. In return I am happy to publicise his abuse of office in order to protect persons within the criminal justice system who have committed misconduct in public office. 

 

Image: The Guardian. Disquiet has been expressed over the number of senior judges who are members of The Garrick Club.

It is of course quite logical that one judge would seek to protect his colleagues within the criminal justice system via abuse of his position. This maintains the professional reputation of the criminal justice system and also the idea that mistakes do not happen. It is more important for sitting judges, and HMCTS, to preserve the professional reputation of the criminal justice system that it is for them to look into and find where injustices have happened, and correct them. 

Below is the text of a statement given to Mr Justice Lavender at The High Court in May 2023. This was in relation to his stated aim of renewing a civil restraint order against me for another three years. In any encounter I have had with Lavender. His aim is always to restrict and curtail my ability to be able to obtain redress in relation to wrongful conviction & and any other civil proceedings. 

At this hearing were Francesca O’Neil from The Ministry of Justice and Lynn Temp from the Government Legal Dept. it is telling that these two people from these organisations were invited by the court to this hearing. Because these are two people from two organisations who have the most to lose from a wrongful conviction obtained by manipulated evidence being exposed publicly. They both argued that the civil restraint order should be maintained. This is because the maintenance of such enables them to avoid civil action for failure to produce data showing factual innocence made under relevant data access legislation. 

Any application made in civil proceedings is immediately referred to Lavender, who then strikes the claim out for a variety of inapplicable and tenuous reasons and always with an order which just skims the boundaries of being personally abusive towards myself. 

My statement began with some preliminary discussions. I then went on to say to Lavender:

—————

 

“What this suggests [I referred to other judges who approve applications made in civil and other proceedings] is that it is only you who has a problem with applications that I make, restricting such applications in order to cause unfair disadvantage. 

It also suggests that the restrictions put in place by a CRO are not immutable. That, depending upon circumstances, it is perfectly possible to make an application in any set of proceedings. The wording of the CRO should not have allowed any such applications to have been made. Whereas if I were to make a new claim, this would be immediately put before you, and you would seek any reason possible to strike it out despite the validity of the claim and the clarity of the particulars of claim.

 

It is my misfortune that any claim I make is immediately passed to you. When other judges are involved the CRO is not treated as an issue when it comes to making applications. 

 

You seek irrelevant grounds for striking such a claim out. I will discuss the reasons for this shortly, but the reasons are no different to how they were when we were last at this juncture in 2021.

 

I see that the standard invite has been sent out for today’s hearing and the usual ghouls [named above] are clearly in attendance. These are the two organisations which have a most to lose from my being able to make applications at court. Both organisations were intimately involved in a severe and prolonged miscarriage of justice. Relevant data has been obtained showing that this is a wrongful conviction on the basis of evidence showing factual innocence being withheld in order to obtain wrongful conviction. Evidence was withheld contrary to the order of the trial judge in the case. Despite efforts on my part to obtain this since directly from the organisations concerned. 

This is how you when I first crossed paths because I made an application for judicial review into both CPS and Humberside police for withholding information contrary to the Criminal Procedure & Investigation Act. The matter of the appeal into wrongful conviction is now before a London-based barrister and solicitor. 

Your actions in striking out the judicial review applications, one against each organisation, meant that the information showing factual innocence could not be obtained via reasonable means through the civil courts process.

 

You knew this full well when you made the CRO – and the purpose of extending the CRO in June 2021 – and today (because I am confident that you will decide for, however tenuous a set of reasons that you intend to extend this for a further two years) is to prevent applications being made which will produce further evidence showing factual innocence.



Rather hilariously North Yorkshire police have also decided to pitch in. Since there has been no contact with that organisation between 2019 and today it makes me question why they would bother. And it seems that this is in relation to the fear that at some point in the future that proceedings might commence against North Yorkshire police. This is not a reasonable justification for maintenance of the CRO. 

At some point in the future they may be a form of misconduct against me from any organisation. It’s hard to countenance the idea that a public funded organisation would seek to restrict a person’s ability to be able to make legitimate claims by extension of a CRO which would prevent action against any organisation or individual who commits a tort against them purely out of fear that that individual might at some point launch in action against North Yorkshire Police This is either something that I’m missing the point on or entirely or it’s spectacularly, selfish and the argument is bad on its face being made to protect an organisation but causing significant disadvantage to an individual. 

 

As I mentioned the existence of a CRO prevents legitimate and reasonable claims being brought on the back of torts committed against me. As far as I’m aware it is unreasonable in the extreme for such an organisation to request that the CRO is extended on the basis that they may be future claims against that organisation, including for torts they have not yet committed. 

 

There is an obvious interest in this matter from organisations, such a CPS and Humberside Police. They have committed clear misconduct putting their professional reputation and the careers of serving personnel at risk. 

 

At the last such hearing to decide whether this CRO should continue I spent a considerable amount of my time outlining all of the instances in which you have acted unfairly, unreasonably, or otherwise to abuse your position in order to assist organisations, such as Humberside Police and CPS in maintaining the wrongful conviction. I do not intend again to go over each of these instances in which a judgement has been made which is illogical and contrary to the evidence produced. 

Suffice to say that in all of the instances of claims I have made that have been outlined in documentation for this hearing that there has been a deliberate ignoring of key pertinent facts in the judgment made striking the claim out. 

It is of course much easier to strike a claim out if you ignore a key aspect of the particulars of claim and key evidence that supports them. You even have a set  template on which you will issue such judgements. This template is worded identically on each occasion. Particularly choice phrase that appears within these judgements is “Mr XXXXXX wastes public money and has done so for years.“



What isn’t a waste of public money is your salary. Because you are prepared to act to protect the reputation and interests of bodies within the criminal justice system that have clearly missed conducted themselves. And the evidence that they have misconducted themselves clearly exists and is presently with a London-based solicitor and counsel. 

These organisations have themselves attempted via every means possible to conceal the evidence of professional misconduct for the purpose of reputation management. Your primary concern in imposing and renewing a CRO is therefore to maintain the reputation of the convicting court, police and CPS.

In the last hearing of this nature in June 2021 I pointed out salient facts. Firstly, that evidence proving both these organisations acted to cause a deliberate miscarriage of justice and obtain a wrongful conviction has been secured. I also stated that rather than you taking the reasonable line of requesting to see the withheld evidence showing factual innocence and then making an order [to CPS and Humberside Police] to supply the missing data you instead decided to support the misconduct carried out by the state and its agents by again extending the restraint order. This is despite the fact that it was pointed out to you clearly that there has been a significant miscarriage of justice and sufficient evidence exists of this for solicitor and barrister to have received several hikes in their legal aid funding.

 

However the professional and public reputation of the CJS comes first regardless of how obvious the miscarriage of justice is.  Hence, the reason some very high-profile miscarriage of justice cases spend years languishing in prison, despite the fact that it is known where the evidence of factual innocence is and who is holding it. 

 

Maybe your role is not to assist in finding of fact but rather to support the reputation of a system in which you work while you have a little fun yourself along the way. I refer to the case of your sentencing of Labour Party Peer Lord Ahmed. Having myself been on the receiving end of your florid pronouncements, made without any form of justification about me in your judgements, I can imagine the joy you got in being able to pronounce in the Lord Ahmed case. A matter in which you spent so long proclaiming about actions that Lord Ahmed has carried out that you forgot the basic issues involved in sentencing, leading to a successful appeal and a reduction in his sentence.

 

…I doubt that I’m the only person who you have acted to complicate their appeal into wrongful conviction by the application of a CRO.

You are fully aware on the basis of evidence put before you in the two judicial review applications in 2018, that there has been a significant miscarriage of justice, but rather than make relevant orders and allow applications that would have enabled the production of the relevant information you chose instead to apply a CRO, restricting my ability to obtain evidence for the purpose of appeal.

 

You now seek to extend the civil restraint order for a second time. I’m reasonably sure that such would be on unprecedented act.

 

Certainly, it would be unprecedented restriction upon my ability to be able to correct torts and take reasonable action to protect my own interests via the civil court system.

 

In the last such hearing in June 2021, I spoke at length about several civil claims that had been shut down by you contrary to established procedure, reasonableness or fairness. The entire text of a very lengthy series of submissions made at the last hearing was made available online shortly afterwards. And on my blog this forms the most accessed page. 

 

I do not intend to repeat the contents of the submissions made in June 2021. The text of those submissions are of course freely available online. However, in this instance I will focus on one particular case which acts as a microcosm of your handling of any claim brought by myself or now it would seem also my family members. 

 

Claim number XXX was dismissed again unreasonably and without proper grounds on the basis that it was believed that I was behind a claim made by my mother in respect of XXXXXXXXX Council. Why was this unreasonable? The answer to this is very simple. Because at any point you could’ve ordered that my mother appeared by video link or took an oath in her home witnessed by the family solicitor to say that she was the person behind the claim, directing it and instigator of it. Instead you took actions to limit her ability to be able to make a reasonable claim in respect of XXXXXXX Council mistreatment of her for an entirely unfair and inappropriate reason. It was within your capability to be able to confirm that my mother was the person behind the claim at all stages. But you did not seek this information, and instead sought to strike the claim of a third-party out. Not only the claims I bring but also those brought by my relatives and immediate family are now also liable to dismissal on the basis that they will be scooped up and put in front of you by court staff.

 

This is an abuse of power. It is an absence of duty of care and a clear breach of the principles established in The Equal Treatment Bench Book. You prevented my mother from being able to take action in relation to an actual harm caused to her by XXXXXXXXX Council.

 

On this basis it is foolish for me to assume that there will be any fairness or reasonable treatment within this hearing. There has been malpractice and discriminatory behaviour known from you towards me since 2018. The point of this hearing is simply to re-establish the civil restraint order for another two years. 

 

The rejections of legitimate meritorious claims made of the course of the last two years, which do not in any way represent an excessive number of claims but which were rejected with wording from you that I have described in this statement, was done on purpose to enable the hearing today to further extend the civil restraint order. In other words the purpose of the of this hearing is simply to rubberstamp what has been in the your mind for around two years: that myself, as claimant should be further disadvantaged, limited and exposed to professional misconduct by other persons and organisations, without ability for legal recourse to correct torts against me. This is all to protect CPS, Humberside Police and Hull Crown Court from the effects of their own professional misconduct and negligence.

 

Anything I say within these proceedings, any comments I make and any legal arguments, however evidenced and persuasive will be ignored. This is because in every encounter with you over the last two years you have presented an unrealistic picture of the merits of claims that I have brought purely for the purpose of dismissing such claims. As such all the involvement that I’ve had with you over the last two years has, from your perspective, been for the purpose of establishing a case for the hearing today, in which you’re able to again justify the reimposition of the CRO for another two years.

 

Again, this is not fair or reasonable approach to take. But your interests lie in protection of criminal justice system from exposure of its misconduct, particularly public exposure leading to loss of confidence in such bodies as work within the CJS. As such again all of your actions over the last two years have been to enable you to rubberstamp another two-year stretch of a CRO today. As the appeal into my wrongful conviction moves forward I hope you’re prepared to be on the wrong side of history.

 

I also hope you’re prepared to be in a position in which your actions in seeking to maintain the wrongful conviction & protect those responsible for it and limit and restrict my ability to make applications in civil court cases in respect of it should be exposed publicly at a point where the wrongful conviction is overturned.”

 

———————————————-

Final word.

Looking at the membership of the Garrick club, which Nicholas Lavender is a member of it is clear and logical that Lavender would seek to protect the establishment that he Is a significant part of. The more high-profile members of the club can be seen here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/gallery/2024/mar/19/garrick-club-notable-members-in-pictures

Extract from The Guardian article on High Court judges who are members of The Garrick Club. 19.3.24


Lavender uses his position as a High Court judge to protect elements of the criminal and civil justice system, which have missed conducted themselves causing disadvantage to the public and potential loss of professional reputation to the courts. As such, Lavender is prepared to misuse his position in order to protect his colleagues and the system in which they work.

This is the low standard of British justice in the early 21st-century.

Posted on

Elder Abuse? Social Worker Coverup in Evidence to The High Court



This article, as seen below, was originally printed on this blog in August 2022.

Following an application made in September 2022 by the legal firm Weightmans of Liverpool at The High Court the blog was temporarily removed.

It is clear why the firm wished to remove the contents of this post. This is because they intended to commit significant malpractice towards Mrs. X, the subject of legal action brought by the firm on behalf of Wakefield Council as can be seen in a new blog entry which can be found at:

https://legalbabble.law.blog/2023/06/27/what-is-the-cost-of-a-human-life-in-modern-britain/

That entry details matters in more depth. The data seen here shows the position as of mid-2022 before the more significant misconduct carried out against Mrs. X took place.
The level of professional misconduct by the firm alongside the negligent handling of the case by the Court, who were well aware Mrs. X had protected characteristics and suchlike, led directly to the death of Mrs. X in February 2022. I have, therefore re-published this blog post, and it should be read in conjunction with the more recent post, the link to which can be seen above.



The position of Social Worker provides unique opportunities to the holder of such a post.

People who have a manipulative desire to insert themselves into the lives of others for malignant intent have a golden set of opportunities in such as social work.

When such a person is found out there is invariably an attempt to cover up their tracks. Often assisted by the Local Authority that employs them.

Just such an incident is the subject of this blog post.

In this post you will learn of the efforts of a social worker from Wakefield District Council to harass an elderly person within their region and the subsequent medical effects of the harassment on the elderly person. For the purpose of this we shall call her Mrs. X.

You’ll also see how the social worker then attempted to lie regarding communications with the elderly persons general practitioner.

Most damningly the social worker’s lies appear in a statement to the High Court made in order to try to cover up her actions and distance herself from being the cause of Mrs X’s subsequent deterioration.

Joanne Cave is a social worker for Wakefield District Council.

There have been a series of errors, omissions and malpractices from Wakefield District Council Social Services over a period of time lasting more than a year. Mrs X, the pensioner concerned, has had to suffer a series of significant errors in documentation created by the council, and the creation of reports by social services which failed to properly mention Mrs X’s medical conditions in order in part to deny her access to council services.

The Council has also sought to withhold documents requested as part of subject access requests and mishandled applications for such as discretionary disregard. In short Mrs X has been subject to appalling service by Wakefield District Council who refuse to accept responsibility for such.

An NHS assessment of Mrs. X in May 2022 at which social worker Joanne Cave was also present was the turning point for this.

This assessment showed that the prior reports written by social services at Wakefield District Council which failed to mention Mrs X’s medical conditions were clearly factually incorrect and that the medical conditions suffered by Mrs X are severe and have a significant effect on her quality of life.

Mrs X commenced series of legal proceedings regarding the council over such matters as their failure to correctly record data on her. Social worker Joanne Cave rang Mrs X to ask her questions about such legal proceedings and did so in such a way as to place Mrs X under undue stress and anxiety.

You may well wonder why a Social Worker was ringing to question someone under their care about legal issues and the claim they were bringing when Wakefield District Council has its own legal representation employed to do such things.

Social worker Joanne Cave and her immediate superior Mehmun Nessa were aware that these calls were placing Mrs X under undue stress and causing anxiety. This is clear from the content of a separate statement to The High Court not included here.

This does not stop them calling Mrs X on three separate occasions however to ask about legal proceedings Mrs X brought.


Medical report showing UTI contracted in the immediate aftermath of the call.

Because of a frail health suffered by Mrs X the stress she was placed under by the initial phone call from Joanne Cave induced in her a urinary tract infection which has since led directly to a permanent nocturnal incontinence. This can be seen in the above medical report. The UTI was contracted immediately following the phone call as a result of worry and anxiety caused by it.

Above is an extract from the GP’s medical report showing this UTI. As stated during this call Cave attempted to question Mrs X about legal proceedings, putting her to great distress and anxiety.

As a result of this a complaint was made to Social Care Complaints at Wakefield District Council. The council acted immediately on this complaint By deciding to ignore it and refusing to take any action.

However Joanne Cave herself was made aware of the terms of the complaint by Social Care Complaints and attempted to contact Mrs X’s GP to determine the extent of the urinary tract infection caused by her oppressive and distressing phone call.

Email from the GP practice confirms no data was passed to Joanne Cave.

It is clear from the data above that social worker Joanne Cave attempted to obtain information on the medical situation regarding the UTI from Mrs X’s GP.

However this was not obtained as Cave failed to obtain or to supply copies of any form of authority and indeed no authority to access her medical records was given by Mrs X.

What are the significant errors in Cave’s statements to the court?

 Cave tactically lies in her statement and claims the contact with the surgery for help came 31.5.22.

The medical record show the matter was actioned by a GP on 24.5.22. This is to minimise her involvement in the UTI contracted by Mrs X. There is no other reason Cave would have miss-reported the date of the call for help by Mrs X to the GP.

 Cave purposefully states that Mrs X was seen in the surgery. This is clearly incorrect.

 Cave claims she emails the surgery twice.

This is not the account given by the surgery. They do not state an email was received. Instead they explicitly state no email was not received. Cave claims they were emailed twice. No copy of any consent was received by the surgery. This is clear.

 Cave seems to claim asking the surgery to contact Mrs X on her behalf.

The surgery did not make contact with Mrs X or relatives in respect of any matter related to Cave’s call to them.

 The dates of calls etc. given in the surgery email and Cave’s statement are also inconsistent.

The content of the GP email seen above are clear on this. Joanne Cave appears to have acted to mislead The High Court.

The issues are now clear. Joanne Cave sought to mislead the Court in respect of information passed over from Mrs X’s GP.

There are numerous claims across each of Cave’s two statements to The High Court regarding dates of calls with the GP and data passed over. Invariably these claims seek to put the date of the UTI contracted outside of the timeframe around the call made by Cave to Mrs X.

But regardless of the distress and medical effects caused by the first call a second call from Joanne Cave’s supervisor Mehmun Nessa was made in July 2022 and then a further call from Cave herself in August. A statement provided in proceedings by Cave makes is clear Wakefield Social Services are aware of the distress this places on Mrs X.

In statements to the High Court Cave have sought to mislead regarding information passed over by the GP surgery. That the surgery is clear that no information was passed over and no forms of authority were returned.

Joanne Cave’s assertions in her statements regarding data passed over by Mrs X’s GP are therefore total fabrications.

Recordings made by the GP surgery confirmed this, and the surgery itself confirms that no data was passed over to social worker Joanne Cave.

It’s clear then that Joanne Cave has misled the court in her statements. This amounts to perjury, misconduct in public office and an attempt by Cave to absolve herself of any responsibility for inducing in Mrs X a urinary tract infection in May 2022.

That anyone should lie in a statement in court is a serious matter. Any person doing so has committed perjury and is liable to find themselves in contempt of court for such behaviour. Generally we would expect that anyone acting as a social worker, who has regular and frequent contact with the vulnerable, the confused and the easily harmed should hold themselves to higher standards.

In this matter Joanne Cave rang Mrs X in May 2022 to attempt to obtain information which was related to legal proceedings. This is clearly not her job as a social worker but Mrs X was more likely to “let her guard down” with such a person than if a solicitor called. In order to be able to discuss these mattes with Mrs X Cave began the conversation on a separate matter, discussing any care that Mrs X may want and her medical needs. Joanne Cave then began to broach the subject of civil legal issues causing Mrs X distress and anxiety. This a direct cause of a UTI and subsequent lasting nocturnal incontinence.

Mrs X is currently therefore worse off medically and in terms of her health and well-being as a result of contact with Wakefield Social Services.

In happier days a Social Worker would not lie to a court in order to try to cover up the fact of their own misconduct toward a client.

These are not happy days. These are days in which people who work for large organisations will lie, conceal, dissemble and manipulate in order to cover up facts around their own professional misconduct and incompetence.

Joanne Cave, Social Worker for Wakefield District Council has been thoroughly and completely caught out on this matter.

Will we have to wait too long to see the effect of any internal investigation into the provision of knowingly incorrect data in court proceedings by Wakefield District Council? An internal investigation as been requested but those familiar with this Council’s propensity for dissembling, hand-wringing and wrangling would be wise not to hold their breath.

Posted on

Schoolboy Error by Senior Judge Helps Sex Offender

I have previously spoken on this blog about judicial office holder Mr. Justice Lavender and his limitations as a judge.

This can be found at: https://legalbabble.law.blog/2021/06/11/dirty-tricks-in-the-high-court/

Nicholas Lavender, sometimes called The Honourable Mr. Justice Lavender.

These include a tendency to support the state, and other judges, wherever possible even in the face of overwhelming data that the evidence against a member of the establishment or public body might be correct.

Now, Mr Justice Lavender has been publicly humiliated by judges at The Court of Appeal over his sentencing of former Labour politician Nazir Ahmed.

Here’s how they seemed to have happened, according to an article in the Guardian newspaper. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/mar/17/peer-nazir-ahmeds-jail-term-for-1970s-sexual-assault-cut-by-three-years

The simple fact is that the correction made by the Appeal Court judges is over matter that Mr Justice Lavender would have been well aware of at the point of sentencing.

However, it would seem that Nicholas Lavender was more interested in pontificating during sentencing and giving his opinions regarding Ahmed’s offending than he was paying attention to the correct sentencing guidelines and requirements on his position as judge as set out in law.

It must’ve irked Nicholas Lavender that he had to sentence effectively a member of the establishment when Lavender spends so much of his judicial career supporting the establishment and covering up the effects of their misdeeds.

However, it’s disturbing to know that the little frisson of joy Lavender had when sentencing blinded him to the requirements to properly sentence the offender for the offence committed.

Given that this is a schoolboy error can it be inconceivable that there will be additional future appeals made in cases sentenced by Lavender, who may have become overexcited in other cases and overlooked clear issues that would reduce the sentence?

Watch this space!

Posted on

Evading Scrutiny – West Yorkshire Combined Authority’s problem with the truth

You will be advantaged by learning four things from this blog entry:

  1. The means by which police force’s skew complaint investigations in their own favour. 
  2. How local Mayor’s office’s deliberately mishandle appeals regarding how police have handlined a complaint. 
  3. How the Mayor’s office then themselves avoid accountability for their behaviour. 
  4. The degree of contempt with which all of the above hold the public.

The issue concerns a mishandled complaint to West Yorkshire Police, then subject to an appeal to West Yorkshire Combined Authority Policing and Crime office. The appeal to WYCA was actioned so poorly as to amount to an unacceptable breach of standards and so a complaint was made about this. That office’s Jane Owen then arguably commits misconduct in public office with a misleading response designed to avoid any accountability for West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

Prior to reading this blog entry you may wish to look at the other post regarding how West Yorkshire Combined Authority deflects complaints made about itself and minimises complaints made about West Yorkshire Police. This can be found at:

Turning a Blind Eye. How West Yorkshire Combined Authority Helps Local Police to Evade Accountability.
My prior blog post on how West Yorkshire Combined Authority assists police to evade accountability.

Well it appears that little has been learned from that prior matter and appeals to the Combined Authority that West Yorkshire Police have mishandled a complaint made are still subject to evasion and avoidance by the office of Deputy Mayor Alison Lowe, who has ultimate responsibility for the mishandling of the appeal.

Alison Lowe, Deputy Mayor and the person responsible for policing issues at West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

Here’s how this happened in this specific instance… 

A complaint was made to West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD). The result of this was the usual lazy evidence-free shonking off of the complaint. The matter was referred to the Deputy Mayor’s Office at West Yorkshire Combined Authority who deliberately or accidentally failed to spot where PSD skewed their complaint investigation. 

There are a number of investigative criteria for the Deputy Mayor’s office to follow.

These are:

[Whether due regard was given to relevant guidance]

In this matter reference was made in the PSD or Deputy Mayor’s responses to College of Policing guidelines and how these were supposed to have been followed. The Deputy Mayor’s Office failed to locate the College of Policing Guidance to compare the outline of how police should have behaved in the incident subject to the complaint with objective standards.

The response of PSD was not set out in a format that showed a correct formal investigation had taken place. This was ignored by the investigator for the Deputy Mayor, Karen Gray. 

The next line of investigation missed by Karen Gray was:

[Whether reasonable lines of enquiries were undertaken to be able to provide a reasonable and proportionate outcome] [Where any aspects of your complaint were not addressed, or any lines of enquiry were not pursued, whether there were sound reasons given for this]

Neither the Mayor’s Office nor West Yorkshire Police made any enquiries with third party witnesses to establish what happened. 

In similar prior incidents it is known that and attempt has been made to contact witnesses by PSD, but not in this matter.

Again this shows that the standards outlined above in regards to the following of reasonable lines of inquiry have not been undertaken by PSD. The Deputy Mayor’s Office failed to consider this matter. 

[Whether enough information was given to the complainant to address the complaint and support the outcome]

PSD failed to respond to a request for information in their complaint response. Again the Deputy Mayor’s Office fail to spot this. Here a potentially significant breach of established protocol at the incident complained of has not been addressed by PSD & the matter has been ignored in the appeal to the Combined Authority.

[Where any aspects of your complaint were not addressed, or any lines of enquiry were not pursued, whether there were sound reasons given for this] 

The initial response of PSD failed to reply to the issues raised in the original complaint. This was again not addressed or spotted by Karen Gray in her appeal investigation. And the format for a formal, structured complaint response from PSD was not used.

[Whether reasonable lines of enquiries were undertaken to be able to provide a reasonable and proportionate outcome] 

The Deputy Mayor’s office failed to consider that the actions of the officers complained of forms a pattern of behaviour from West Yorkshire Police. 

In short then the appeal investigation by West Yorkshire Combined Authority’s Karen Gray was the usual mix of evasion of issues that she would have to find against police. Combined with a total failure so spot the ways in which police had skewed their own investigation to favour themselves.

A complaint was made about the exceptionally poor service provided in the appeal investigation by Karen Gray. 

This was responded to by Jane Owen, Casework Officer at West Yorkshire Combined Authority Policing and Crime office.

The response was:

Having carefully considered all your complaint points, I have concluded that this is not about the service this office has provided but rather is about how West Yorkshire Police handled your complaints CO-1490-22, CO-3251-20 and CO-2771-21 and is also about the outcome of the review of CO-1490-22 which was provided to you by Karen Grey on 20 October 2022. 

This is clearly outright mendacity. The complaint was clearly directed at Karen Gray’s seeming inability to be able to conduct a proper investigation and avoidance of consideration of key issues within the single complaint raised of poor service in this matter.

It is also an outrageous attempt to deflect any investigation into the very poor service standards at West Yorkshire Combined Authority Policing and Crime office. This is the kind of response provided when an organisation knows full well that their behaviour would not stand up to any form of scrutiny. 

Jane Owen goes on to state: 

As you are aware, the statutory guidance does not make provision for review outcomes to be challenged through the complaints process and consequently, if you wish to challenge the outcome of Karen’s review of CO-1490-22, you should consider seeking independent legal advice. 

This is also clear misdirection and also untrue. The link seen above details the complaint investigation into a prior mishandled appeal to WYCA carried but by Jane Owen’s colleague Julie Reid.

There is an offence in law of misconduct in public office. Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003[2004] EWCA Crim 868. 

The offence is committed when: 

  • a public officer acting as such; 
  • wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself; 
  • to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; 
  • without reasonable excuse or justification. 

Let’s pause a moment and consider the overall picture.

The police failed to investigate a complaint made correctly and in line with their own prior procedures for so doing. When this was referred to West Yorkshire Combined Authority Policing and Crime office as an appeal to their Karen Gray, Gray lets police off the hook by failing to investigate several issues that show police failed to act correctly and in line with The Police Reform Act 2022. When these are pointed out in a complaint her colleague Jane Owen intervenes and outrageously claims that the issues raised as complaints about West Yorkshire Combined Authority Policing and Crime office are not in fact about that office as a means of deflecting any investigation into the suboptimal nature of their appeal investigation.

If you can think of a more blatant effort to conceal a public body’s failings performed in such contemptible way then please let me know. The actions of both Karen Gray in failing to conduct an appeal investigation correctly (not for the first time, it must be said) and those of Jane Owen in attempting to conceal or deny the failure of Gray by refusing to action a complaint amount to misconduct in public office.

You can see a video below of the hot air West Yorkshire Combined Authority spouts about their Police and Crime Plan. None of this concerns efforts to hold Plod to account for misdemeanours.

Outside of the Met West Yorkshire Police is regarded as the most corrupt and incompetent force in the UK.

Posted on

Systemic Failures at ICO Exposed

The purpose of ICO – the Information Commissioner’s Office – is to stated on their website to be to…

…uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

However when ICO themselves are subject to a data access request they are prepared to break the law regarding such.

Given that ICO is charged with upholding the law in relation to data access requests this evasiveness ensures that they have lost the moral authority to be able to enforce data access legislation when things go wrong.

More damming though is that a recent investigation revealed ICO’s means of investigating disclosure breaches is so weak and inept as to render it futile to raise issues before them.

Put simply here’s what happened…

I made a data access request to Wakefield Council. The Council only provided four pages to begin with, then produced more but significantly failed to include the first 53 pages of data from the request, so ICO were informed after the Council had been given ample chance to correct matters.

The original matter put to ICO as a formal complaint was:


The final response is seen attached. Not only has the data requested not been provided but also the Council has directed me to the wrong agency to seek the answers / disclosure wanted. This is clear in the attached PDF. In fact the majority of the questions I am directed to seek answers to elsewhere comprise of information from Wakefield Council that only they have access to. The response of the Council is therefore misdirection as well as a breach of the relevant Act in failing to provide the data requested on 12.4.21.

Therefore I refer this matter to you for assessment on if the Council has fulfilled its obligations in respect of provision of data. The attached Word file contains all correspondence from April 2021 onwards.

Wakefield Council is the preferred workplace of people too inept to survive in a commercial environment.

ICO responded after some months and their Case Officer Rachel Webster stated:

In my view I have fully considered the data protection issues you have raised and in light of the Council’s response I do not believe there are any outstanding data protection issues that we would want to pursue further with the Council at this time. As I have explained in correspondence to you our role is not to necessarily resolve every aspect of an individual’s complaint to their satisfaction.

My reply to this was sent shortly after, on 30.3.22 and stated:  

There are 54 pages outstanding that have not been produced from a data access request. This is something I have been clear about across this process and the disclosures remain outstanding.  

What proof have the Council shown to ICO that the relevant data has been produced? 

Further that ICO tried to shuffle off responsibility for adjudicating on the data access failure by the Council. Outrageously Webster suggested:

I understanding you are currently taking legal action against the Council and it may be that these issues are resolved as part of that process.

Now here’s where things get funky.

In my email of 30.3.22 I requested:

It is for ICO to resolve the issues put before it: the Council has failed to produce data as the result of many requests to do so and was in breach of the law in repeated failures to disclose. ICO’s responsibility is to chase such matters and ensure compliance outside of any other process.

And of course I stated:

What proof have the Council shown to ICO that the relevant data has been produced?  

And ICO’s response to this on 7.4.22 was:

We take information provided by organisations in response to data protection complaints in good faith. As a decision by our office is only a view or an opinion rather than a final determination we do not have to request evidence/proof from organisations concerned. In this case the Council believe they have fully complied with your request however it is clear from your correspondence that you disagree that this is the case and the information is outstanding. We have raised your concerns with the Council and we’re satisfied with the Council’s response and that at this time there is no further action for us to take in relation to your case.

That’s right. You read that correctly.

ICO does not seek out or require proof from organisations that they have complied with their responsibilities. Indeed in a situation such as this where a member of the public asserts that they have not then ICO will accept the comments of the organisation that they have over and above any evidence that the public has provided.


ICO then attempted to fob me off with some data in response to a request I made. The data was not that which I requested.

I in fact requested all communication between Wakefield Council and ICO. My response to ICO was sent 9.4.22 and stated:

Further that the data supplied does not support comments made in your emails to me about information supplied by the Council to ICO.

ICO claim that the Council’s attempt at a get-out-of-gaol-free card in this matter was to state that they had a particular defence in law as to why the data had not been provided. The data produced by ICO between them and the Council did not contain this claim from the local authority. So where did it come from? A further data access request was made to ICO for proof that the Council had stated to ICO what ICO claimed the Council had stated.

Simple enough you would have thought. Especially in the light of ICO’s failure to produce the relevant data in copies of correspondence with the Council.

ICO failed to produce this data. I wrote back to state:

Given ICO’s stated position as regulator for data access / information rights issues this is simply not good enough. At a minimum I would expect fulfilment of the data access request made and chased 7.4.22. That such disclosure from ICO should show that ICO has interacted with the Council on the matter of IC-134978-B9K1 and that the Council has responded appropriately back to the matters raised in this complaint.  

ICO shot back with:

Thank you for your email below. I note your comments and can provide the following response. I can reassure you I have considered all the information provided by you and the Council in relation to this case.

This amounts to two failures to provide data requested. In the second instance ICO purposefully fail to address the renewed request for specific data from their office.

Given that the data I provided showed that the Council had clearly withheld disclosure for no legitimate reason it seems odd that ICO should prefer the Council’s response, especially in a situation in which they appear to have provided ICO with no supporting data.

It’s a relief to anyone who brings a data access complaint to ICO to learn that, as stated in theur response to me of 30.3.22:

…our role is not to necessarily resolve every aspect of an individual’s complaint to their satisfaction. Rather we consider data protection complaints that are brought to us partly in order to identify issues with an organisations information rights policies/procedures.

Which in practical terms means that ICO will ignore issues in complaints brought by the public which it finds irksome to deal with. This may mean that if enquiries with a misconducting organisation are going to be long and drawn-out that ICO will ignore complex aspects of the complaint made. Historically even in matters where there is a significant breach of the law by an organisation ICO also fails to act punitively and instead builds up a file of data on the organisation’s failings.

A case review was requested and completed 22.4.22 by Lead Case Officer Alison Fletcher.

Again this failed to address the issue of the data requested from Wakefield Council to ICO which supported the comments made by ICO, as had all the prior responses from Rachel Webster. A further response from Alison Fletcher also failed to address the issue of the data not being supplied

Does ICO have a specific reason for withholding the data requested? Likely this is a matter of professional reputation. That a full disclosure of the data I requested would show that ICO failed to investigate this matter to a reasonable standard and perhaps that the Council did not provide them with the data ICO claimed they did. This has to be the case since I provided sufficient evidence to show Wakefield Council had breached its responsibility in law to provide all the data I originally requested from them. The sign of a weak investigation is in the reply provided by ICO which stated:

We take information provided by organisations in response to data protection complaints in good faith. As a decision by our office is only a view or an opinion rather than a final determination we do not have to request evidence/proof from organisations concerned

As I mentioned the practical effect of this is that if an organisation claims not to have breached the law then ICO simply accept what the organisation have said without evidence and contrary to any evidence provided by the public, however strong.

This is indicative of ICO being an organisation that is unfit for purpose. You might of course argue that they are functioning perfectly: that one part of the State has acted to deflect and cover the illegality of another.

However it is ICO’s careful avoidance of producing data requested showing what the Council stated to them which suggests most strongly that they are unable to properly police the wild west of data legislation.

Just to recap in relation to the seriousness of the malfeasance from ICO. When data was produced showing correspondence from the Council to ICO nothing supporting the comments claimed to have been made by the Council had been sent to ICO, who then went on to be unable to produce the info from the Council supporting what they say the Council had said.

When the body charged with taking others to task for failure to observe information rights law believes itself to be exempt from such laws – and likely making up excuses for organisation’s failures – can there be any doubt that ICO cannot remain much longer in its present form?

Service standards from The Information Commissioner’s Office are frankly not very good!
Posted on

An Easter Miracle!

Only around one in ten complaints made to the police of poor conduct, breach of the College of Policing Code of Ethics etc. are found in favour of the person who’s complained.

This is because poor, ineffectual and incompetent investigations into complaints are par for the course from police forces. The more misconduct that’s happening in a force the greater the urgency to suppress public admittance of this by mishandling complaints.

The mantra is “We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong”. Every police force does this.

As a police force West Yorkshire Police has more to hide than most. They’ve an international reputation for corruption and incompetence but also an obsession with maintaining a public image. Consequently obtaining agreement from them about their low standards of policing requires more of an effort than with most other forces.

In this instance however they were banged to rights.

A transcript of a online live chat with an officer left them with no wriggle room. This is proof of why all your interactions with the police should always be recorded… because the first instinct of most police officers when caught out is to lie.

The report made concerned a crime committed in the breach of s.92 of The Care Act 2014 (as amended). Wakefield Council had knowingly as a care provider created false information on a person receiving care in their area. This is a criminal offence under the Act.

I’ll write more on this in a blog entry one day soon.

Note also the length of the replies given. When police are trying to hide something in a complaint response they avoid discussing the subject, fail to speak to relevant people and avoid issues they’d find uncomfortable to discuss. Here, as I said, a transcript of the chat means they can’t avoid making a finding against themselves.

It should be noted that police have still failed to investigate this offence reported. So despite an unusual degree of honesty seen below it’s still a case of “bad cop – no donut for you”.

I present the Professional Standards Department response in full with a few small redactions.

From: Allen, Gemma <gemma.allen@westyorkshire.police.uk>
Sent: 14 April 2022 07:32
To: XXXXXX@XXXXXX <XXXXXXXXXX>
Subject: Your complaint to West Yorkshire Police [OFFICIAL]

Classification: OFFICIAL

Dear Mr. XXXXX,

I refer to the complaint that you made to West Yorkshire Police. I am sorry that you have felt dissatisfied with the service offered by West Yorkshire Police on this occasion and, where we can, seek to learn from feedback offered by members of the public.

I can confirm that this matter has been recorded in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002 under Complaint reference CO-2675-21. Please quote this reference number in any future correspondence regarding your complaint arising from the same matter.

It has been established that your complaint raised the following concerns / allegations. In response, I have made reasonable and proportionate enquiries into this matter and can offer you the following explanation of the enquiries conducted, what facts have been established, the outcome and any proposed action to be taken:  

Complaint 1: Delivery of duties and services

Employee concerned:  Staff member 730037 Maroof

Details of allegation:

You state that the call taker has incorrectly referred you to the council to make a complaint whom you state have committed a criminal offence under The Care Act.

The operator has asked you to provide evidence that the council’s acts were purposeful and fraudulent however you believe that this should be the role of the police and is not your responsibility.  

Enquiries conducted: 

The details of the Police chat transcript have been reviewed. 

The call taker, staff member 730037 Maroof has been requested to provide a response.

The Department of Health guidance for providers regarding The False or Misleading Information Offence has been reviewed.

I have consulted with The Police National Legal Database (PNLD). 

A request for review has been made to The Force Crime Registrar. 

Facts established: 

The Police chat transcript shows that you have made an allegation to West Yorkshire Police that Wakefield Council have produced a social care document which includes the purported current health situation of a family member which is out of date. You state that your family members health has deteriorated over the past year and yet old records have been used to produce the report. You report that you believe this was an intentional act by a social worker as it was likely to avoid the provision of social care for the patient who would otherwise be identified as having clear social care needs. The chat transcript shows that the call taker, 730037 Maroof sought advice and directed you to make a formal complaint against the council in the first instance. You state to the call taker that the “Article 16 right to restrict the processing of the data has been applied.”

The call taker, 730037 Maroof has responded to your complaint to state that he felt that referring you to the Councils complaints process was an appropriate response at the time. The call taker has expressed his apologies if his assessment of the information was incorrect. 

It has been confirmed that The Care Act 2014 has put in place a new criminal offence applicable to care providers who supply, publish or otherwise make available certain types of information that is false or misleading, where that information is required to comply with a statutory or other legal obligation. The offence is contained at Section 92 of the Care Act 2014. FOMI is a criminal offence and the investigating body for that offence will be the police, conducted in line with the “The Director’s Guidance On Charging”. The police can pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry. FOMI is a strict liability offence that applies to providers of care services as corporate bodies or partnerships. This means that a prosecutor has to prove that the information was, as a matter of fact, false or misleading, but does not have to prove that there was intent to provide false or misleading information on the part of the corporate body or partnership.

The Police National Legal Database (PNLD) outlines that Section 92 of the Care Act 2004 creates an offence so that providers of health services and adult social care in England, which supply, publish or otherwise make available information that is false or misleading, could be subject to criminal sanctions. The offence applies to a care provider as a corporate body.

92(1) A care provider of a specified description commits an offence if –

(a) it supplies, publishes or otherwise makes available information of a specified description,
(b) the supply, publication or making available by other means of information of that description is required under an enactment or other legal obligation, and
(c) the information is false or misleading in a material respect.

However, it is stated in law that it is a defence for a care provider to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to prevent the provision of false or misleading information as mentioned in subsection 1. This means that if the Council have already taken reasonable steps to rectify the matter then the offence has not been committed. By taking steps to restrict the data by invoking Article 18 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which provides an individual’s right to restrict the processing of the data, they have fulfilled this responsibility. Article 16 of GDPR then covers the rectification of the data.

Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Fraser from the Force Crime Registrar has reviewed the matter and confirmed that your report is a state based crime therefore the Police only have to record the offence when the relevant “points to prove” are made out. Unlike victim based crimes the Police do not have to record these offences at the point they are reported.

Finding: The service level was not acceptable under the circumstances

Rationale: 

The information you have provided on the chat record shows that the matter has been reported to the council and that they have already taken reasonable steps and exercised due diligence in restricting the data. The matter does not require recording or further investigation at this time. 

My enquiries show that Call taker Maroof has attempted to ask reasonable questions during your chat report when he has asked you if you have evidence to prove that it was done purposely and fraudulently. The call taker appears unfamiliar with Police Procedures around reporting of potential state based offences however he is not a Police Officer and could not reasonably be expected to know that the offence of FOMI does not require criminal intent on the part of the perpetrator. The call taker has attempted to seek advice whilst you remained on the chat facility and it appears he has been given information which has led him to make a recommendation that you should firstly report the matter to the council. His assessment would have been reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances if you had not already provided information to suggest that you had already reported the matter to the council. It appears that the matter was not fully understood and that you required further clarification before the chat was ended. It would have been more helpful to your understanding for the call taker to refer you for an appointment with a Police Officer so that the outcome could be fully understood and explained in more detail.

In conclusion, it is considered that learning has been identified in respect of this complaint.

Outcome/Action: Learning from Reflection

Details: An opportunity for learning has been identified which has been provided to the call taker through his direct supervisor.

Complaint 2: Individual behaviours

Employee concerned:  Staff member 730037 Maroof

Details of allegation: You state that the call taker terminated the chat abruptly with no explanation

Enquiries conducted: 

Call taker Maroof has been requested to provide a response. 

The chat transcript has been reviewed. 

Facts established: 

Call taker Maroof has responded to state that due to time passed he cannot fully remember his reasons for ending the chat at the time. After review of the transcript he states that he may have felt that he had advised you what to do and so believed the chat could be closed. It may have been that you had gone offline after receiving his response so he assumed it was completed. He added that he can’t say for sure given the time that has passed but either way he does not think that he gave “no explanation” as he clearly provided advice on what you should do.

The chat transcript shows that the chat was ended 20 seconds after the call takers last response to you.

Finding: The service level was not acceptable under the circumstances

Rationale: 

The outcome of this complaint should be read in conjunction with the information provided in Complaint 1. Although the call taker has remained respectful throughout the chat, it does appear that you had not been provided with a sufficient explanation of the outcome or the opportunity to understand the advice provided. This is believed to be because the call taker did not fully understand the police procedures around state based crime reporting.  

In conclusion, it is considered that learning has been identified in respect of this complaint.

Outcome/Action: Learning from Reflection

Details: An opportunity for learning has been identified which has been provided to the call taker through his direct supervisor

It is considered that reasonable and proportionate enquiries have been made into this matter. The issues you raise in your complaint do not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against any officer concerned and therefore the matter has not been considered by the Crown Prosecution Service. 

You have the right to a review of the above decision. Should you wish to request this, please contact the below review body by the 13th May 2022. Please quote the relevant complaint reference number (above) if you request a review. 

Due to the wording of your initial complaint, the review body is: 

West Yorkshire Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Should you wish to request a review, please contact:https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/policing-and-crime/complaints-and-conduct.

Please accept my apology on behalf of West Yorkshire Police for any confusion, inconvenience or distress that this incident has caused, and I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. I hope the above action taken re-assures you that your complaint has been taken seriously and demonstrates West Yorkshire Police’s commitment to continuous improvement.

I hope that any future contact you may have with West Yorkshire Police will not be adversely affected by this experience.

Yours sincerely,

PC 1449 Allen

Service Review Team

22566

Professional Standards Directorate

*   Email: Gemma.allen@westyorkshire.police.uk

+ Address: West Yorkshire Police, Professional Standards Directorate, Headquarters, WF1 3QP

Posted on

In It Together? Is ICO Incapable of Holding Certain Bodies to Account?

Introduction

This blog entry gives a glimpse into how The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) operates. ICO is charged with supervision of information rights in the UK and acting to assist when things go wrong.

Much anecdotal evidence suggests ICO may act to shield certain favoured organisations.

On 5.7.21 I contacted The Information Commissioner’s Office with a complaint. This stated:

For a civil hearing on 9.6.21 a copy of any criminal record regarding me was requested. CPS supplied erroneous data to the Court. The error was a serious and significant one… This is not only offensive but also a matter to cause exceptional damage within the hearing. Such [the retention and supply of incorrect data] being an exceptionally serious offence.

In 2019 I had been made aware that this incorrect offence was recorded against me and had requested a correction. It appears CPS [The Crown Prosecution Service] did not correct the error, as they admitted only after the hearing.

The incorrect data was supplied to The High Court sitting at Leeds County Court for a hearing on 9.6.21. This caused embarrassment, distress and actual loss.

CPS were informed of the error prior to the hearing. They failed to correct the record prior to the hearing and failed to inform the Court prior to the hearing also.

CPS did not correct the error for the hearing as the transcript of the hearing also shows: the matter of them providing incorrect data to the Court became a significant issue within the proceedings and I was left unable to prove that this record of this offence was wrong. Since the record however came from an official source the Court will have been inclined to believe it.

Accordingly I looked to ICO on this matter to enforce my right to be protected from the incompetence clearly shown by CPS on this matter and the effects that this has had on me.

I sought from ICO first a detailed ruling in relation to this matter that CPS has breached the law. I sought also that CPS should be subject of a fine or other action from ICO in relation to the significance of the error made. Especially when they failed to correct a prior record showing the data to be in error and failed to act to correct the record when informed of the error prior to proceedings.

Finally I required assistance from ICO to correct the records of CPS.
CPS have previously stated in 2019 that the error has been corrected only for it to be repeated again in June 2021: this shows that they cannot be trusted to hold correct data or act properly in line with their legal obligations. Spoiler alert: neither can ICO!

One thing in their credit it that CPS admitted to ICO the error in a letter sent to me. However account details a series of errors that should not have been made had CPS been compliant with and following the law.

CPS Legal Services claimed to ICO that the record was corrected with the Court. What they failed to state was that the record was only corrected a substantial time after the hearing had concluded. A data request to the Court showed this and caught CPS out. It might be thought that ICO would look more severely on this matter for this. They failed to even properly consider all of the data put in front of them.

This blog entry therefore details how and why ICO are unwilling or unable to hold CPS to account even in a situation in which there has been a clear and catastrophic data mishandling.

What Went Wrong

CPS failed to correct data held on me in error in 2019. ICO were aware of this matter at the time. Art. 16 of GDPR relates to the right to rectification. Data was held on me in error by CPS showing a supposed offence had been committed when in fact it had not. The nature of this offence was exceptionally serious and so the onus was on CPS to create and maintain correct records even more strongly than normal due to the exceptional damage such incorrect data could create if released to a third party. CPS previously claimed to have corrected the record in January 2019 but it subsequently emerged that this was not done, breaching my relevant rights (Article 16) and CPS’ legal obligations in the process.

In a matter at The High Court sitting at Leeds in June 2021 however a copy of this incorrect data on me was produced. I contacted CPS prior to the hearing to inform that an urgent correction was required. They failed to make this correction prior to the hearing. This amounts to an exceptionally serious data error and is the cause of loss and embarrassment.

On 5.7.21 I wrote to ICO and made the following complaint regarding CPS:

I refer also to the email to CPS in respect of their illegal retention of incorrect data on me and their sharing of this to third parties in June 2021.

A series of questions are asked of CPS in the email from me below of 3.8.21. I also request additional data from them. I exercise my Article 16 GDPR rights also. CPS’s response to this of 11.8.21 is to ignore all these matters and refuse further correspondence. I consider this to be the criminal office of attempting to conceal, destroy or hide data from disclosure.

The consequences of CPS getting an individual’s data wrong are serious, significant and occur more often than expected.


On 23.12.21, some five months after alerting ICO of this matter they wrote back to me to request further information. The Case Officer for ICO was Ian Sangan.

By the end of January 2022 there had been no movement in the complaint made to ICO and so I chased the matter up. This produced a response one day later which stated:

We have considered the information available in this case, and we are of the view that CPS have presently complied with their obligations under data protection law. We will now outline the reasons why we believe this to be the case.

We can see that the last meaningful correspondence received from the CPS was July 2021. Our view is that the CPS addressed the issues surrounding the erroneous data still held on record, and advised this has been rectified and removed. The CPS have also advised that the relevant court appear to have been notified of the rectification, and were made aware of the lack of reliability of this data. The CPS have clarified to you that this was rectified prior to the hearing itself.

We can see that the organisation historically received a rectification request in 2018, and that some of the erroneous data remained on your record. Ultimately this is not something that the ICO can reasonably ignore. As such, we have today contacted the organisation and provided them with some best practice advice going forward.


In other words for a matter of a major data error with that data released to a third party, and data which the Data Controller claimed had been corrected in 2019 ICO chose to take no action bar some advice to CPS. It is difficult to imagine a more serious breach of GDPR and the obligation to retain correct data on a person than the failure to correct information pointed out to be in error in 2018 and yet retained until 2021, then supplied to a civil court in proceedings. This is what has happened here. That this matter is not treated with the seriousness it so clearly merits forms the initial issue in a complaint of poor service to ICO.

It is of course clear that the data provided by the Court showed that CPS only corrected the record with the Court AFTER the hearing had taken place, and this data was provided to CPS which makes their comment that The CPS have also advised that the relevant court appear to have been notified of the rectification, and were made aware of the lack of reliability of this data even more puzzling. 


I appealed the decision of ICO on that basis and also that:

The ICO findings admit that you are aware that data was not corrected in 2018 and CPS admit this also. ICO has not concluded that CPS breached GDPR in the retention and supply of data in error. This is the minimum that can be expected in this matter in respect of an adjudication from CPS’ professional regulator for data issues. The original issue is the creation and retention of incorrect data in 2017 – 2018 which ICO ruled on in 2018. The seriousness of the matter is increased by the failure to correct under Article 16 in 2018 following the ICO ruling then.  

ICO in effect failed to assess if my Article 16 rights were breached by failure to correct the record acknowledged by CPS to be held in error in 2019.  

ICO’s response was to refer the matter to a reviewing officer. The response was:

In this case the CPS acknowledge their mistake in their letter of 02 July 2021 when they stated that they had retained a reference to a conviction… which was incorrect. In their letter of 02 August 2021 they stated; ‘This file has now been rectified and the information removed as soon as the error was noted’.


No interest in the significance of such an error or the consequences of it. The creation and retention of incorrect data is ignored by ICO as is the continued retention of it past 2019 despite CPS being aware of the error from that point. In effect ICO fail to reach the obvious conclusion suggested by the data supplied to them that CPS failed in their key duties and then attempted to cover the error up by lying that the record had been corrected with the suggestion this was done in time for the hearing.

It is my view that historically the CPS retained incorrect personal data about you which they went on to share with Leeds County Court and at that time it appears that this would have infringed data protection legislation. However when Ian Sangan assessed your case he was doing so based upon the knowledge that the CPS had rectified the inaccurate information in 2018. On this basis he reached his view in January 2022 that the CPS were complying with data protection legislation. With regards to the erroneous data that was held on your record prior to 2018; the actions of the CPS in sharing inaccurate information with Leeds County Court appear not to have been compliant with data protection law, at that time.

Clearly CPS failed to correct the data in 2018 / 2019! Apart from the judgment that inaccurate data was shared with the Court no action was taken by ICO. Truly a toothless watchdog!  

ICO’s John Turner wrote to me on 16.2.22 to state:
If you would like to complain about the service you have received from us I would remind you that you may be able to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via your MP.

He of course failed to mention that the matter could be put to the First Tier Tribunal who deal with matters related to information rights issues and complaints about ICO handling of matters. Possibly this was deliberate to avoid such clear evasions of responsibility by ICO being adjudicated against.  

Evidence of an inability or unwillingness on the part of ICO to properly hold organisations to account is growing.


On 12.8.22 I wrote to CPS again to state:

In your response of 11.8.21 you fail to take action in respect of the request at c) to show that the records have been corrected. This is a second breach of my Article 16 rights. I have strong grounds to believe that you continue to retain wrong data on me with the potential to cause significant damage if this is released to third parties.

I believe CPS continue to hold incorrect data and that ICO has failed to take action to assist

Following all this two data access requests made of CPS on 16.2.22 and 2.3.22.

Neither of these requests has received a response or acknowledgment from CPS who are again in breach of the law. The time period given under law has now lapsed and the Data Controller has now broken the law by failure to respond. The matter was referred to ICO.

You will likely not be surprised to hear that the response came from ICO’s master of deflection John Turner who stated:
I can concur that there has been no communication between ICO and CPS since 28 January 2022. The only communications on the case since that date have been between the ICO and you.

Following your request for a case review this was conducted on 14 February 2022 and you were sent a copy. There was no purpose to involve the CPS in the review and they were not contacted. 

I re-iterate your case is now closed and the ICO will not be taking further action  

…in other words the issue raised of two further breaches of information rights law by CPS has been cuffed off and ignored by ICO.

Conclusions

A significant series of breaches of the law have been committed by CPS and yet ICO’s investigation into these has been weak, evasive and failed to consider key evidence which shows that CPS sought to mislead ICO.



A more recent data access request to CPS has again breached the law by their failure to reply or disclose the data. Again in this matter the response of ICO is exceptionally weak and evasive. They are taking exceptional steps to avoid action to enforce the law.

ICO appears to have a “special relationship” with certain other organisations. For example it is exceptionally unlikely that they will hold such as NHS Digital to account for even very significant errors with patient records. It appears that they hold the same relationship with CPS and there must be some form of agreement for ICO not to take regulatory action equivalent to the errors these organisations commit. Instead ICO performs a series of twists and turns to avoid assessment of relevant data showing significant misconduct has taken place.

This has the effect of weakening trust in ICO’s ability to hold organisations which misconduct their data handling responsibilities to account and will eventually result in ICO being closed down as unfit for purpose. Unless of course the purpose is to assist state-run bodies in evading accountability.

Posted on

West Yorkshire Police Caught Out Over Serious Misconduct Issue

When caught out the first reaction of many police officers is to lie.

The blog entry below relates to an illegal arrest and breach of PACE by West Yorkshire Police. Even by the low standards of that force this is a shocker.

This blog entry also relates to a effort to hide information by Plod’s Right of Access dept. and a clear effort to deceive by West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards dept.

The last two offences were exposed by the active intervention of The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who have forced police to produce documents Plod has spent the best part of a year trying to hide precisely because they prove misconduct in public office.

The background to the complaint is related to an ultra vires arrest of myself on 22nd of May 2020 without legal justification or reasonable grounds. Here’s a little background:

In May 2020 I was sent in error documents and data intended for the Metropolitan Police. This data concerned Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings against an individual living in Kent and was sent to me accidentally by The Ministry of Justice.

The data amounted to a significant data breach containing as it did many personal and financial details for this man. Given the seriousness of this I informed The Information Commissioner’s Office that a significant data breach had taken place.

Four days later I was arrested by West Yorkshire Police on the request of The Ministry of Justice under allegations that I myself had breached The Data Protection Act.

This is of course not true. Emails obtained from the Data Security Manager at HMCTS Liverpool state that they intend to have me arrested “to give him a shock” following my referral of this matter to ICO. And of course the matter was not pursued beyond the inconvenience of arrest.

This arrest also resulted in the removal of electronic devices from my home containing legally privileged, legally professionally privileged and litigation privileged materials stored electronically on those devices. This is a breach of PACE 19.6. The subsequent examination of the contents of these devices by digital forensics officers at West Yorkshire Police without triage of the privileged contents amounts to a breach of common law, which Plod then tried to hide.

As you might expect from the generally inept nature of this force the efforts to hide the data on this illegal examination resulted in the eventual revelation of misconduct in public office.

A complaint about the illegal arrest was made to West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards (PSD) in June 2020.

Part of the response to this dated 14.8.21 from the reliably evasive PC Vicky Silver at West Yorkshire Police PSD states:

The devices which were seized from your home were booked into property stores under crime reference 13200256161 and itemised to be ‘Nokia Mobile phone’ Exhibit reference DMW1 and a ‘HP Laptop’ Exhibit reference DMW2, seized devices were booked into property with the intention for these to be examined, upon the MoJ being informed of the process and timescales involved they requested no further action be taken and for your devices to be returned. PS Shand confirmed no examination took place on your devices and they were not examined, nor switched on whilst in Police possession. The records held show the devices were only removed from property stores in order to affect their return to yourself. 

Much of the above was a lie. The most significant elements of which West Yorkshire Police have now been caught out on. 

PS Shand refers to Police Sgt. Anthony (Tony) Shand. The disclosures forced by ICO show that his testimony to PSD regarding the devices not being digitally examined was a lie.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has been involved in a data access request made to Right of Access at West Yorkshire Police from August 2020. This request was originally made 27.8.20.

West Yorkshire Police Right of Access dept. has ever since been attempting to withhold evidence such as radio traffic, CCTV footage and the record of what happened to the electronic devices when in police custody.

The below is an extract from a Right of Access dept. letter to me dated 5.3.21. It can be seen that both the image showing the property record is cropped and they also deny the items were taken out of the property store for digital examination.

Cropped at the point of items being booked in. ICO later compelled the release of the unedited data.

ICO as Right of Access department’s professional regulator has made an active intervention and compelled the release of documents from West Yorkshire Police which were previously withheld.

These documents show the booking out of the electronic devices when in the property store for digital forensic examination, thus breaching common law, as of course legally privileged materials were stored on them. The version seen above was cropped to hide the removal of the devices for examination, breaching common law in so doing.

A copy of the most recent disclosure showing the data which ICO forced police to disclose is below. This shows data wholly contrary to what was stated in the PSD complaint response, seen above, of August 2020 and Right of Access department’s response of March 2021. The devices clearly were removed on the dates shown for digital forensic examination. Below is seen the unedited version of the property record – that shown above was edited by Right of Access dept. to remove incriminating data.

Laptop booked out for forensic examination 26.5.20 and returned to property store 10.6.21.
Likewise phone booked out on same date and later returned when examined.

On this basis PS Tony Shand in his testimony to PSD and PC Vicky Silver both sought to purposefully mislead in the response to the complaint made.

Right of Access dept. also sought to mislead in their response to me of March 2021 and further edited the property record by cropping out the incriminating data.

Both departments and individuals at West Yorkshire Police have stated things that they know to be untrue in an effort to avoid professional embarrassment, an allegation of misconduct in public office and the breaching of Common Law in relation to privileged material on the electronic devices. There is also the breach of PACE 19.6 in the removal of the devices from my home.

Right of Access dept. attempted to withhold the relevant document until instructed by their professional regulator ICO to release the information. Indeed an examination of the images on this page shows that they deliberately cropped the first disclosure sent to me in March 2020 to hide data. This amounts to a breach of S.77 of FOI 2000 by West Yorkshire Police as there has been a purposeful effort to hide relevant data. This is a criminal offence under the relevant Act.

That there existed significant opportunity for WYP to produce the relevant data prior to ICO intervention but they avoided doing so to try to hide misconduct in relation to the electronic devices.

The purpose of withholding the data was to avoid professional embarrassment to West Yorkshire Police over a breach of Common Law in the retention and examination of legally privileged material contrary PACE 19.6 and the seizure and retention of the same without a warrant.

It is now clear from the disclosure made as the result of pressure from ICO that West Yorkshire Police has not only committed purposeful misconduct in public office over the seizure, retention and examination of legally privileged material without a warrant but also that they have attempted to cover this up by wholly misleading statements in the complaint response and the subsequent effort made to hide disclosure requested.

Had ICO not forcibly intervened in this matter then the degree of misconduct and breach of legally privileged material would have remained hidden.

Given that they lie so glibly over such a serious matter none of the other assertions made by West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards dept. in any complaint response can be trusted to be factual and truthful.

As anyone who has ever dealt with that department will be aware!

Posted on

Active Discrimination by Ministry of Justice?

I have been contacted by the carer of a disabled lady who has detailed a level of misconduct from such as The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), HMCTS, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office & others that makes for shocking reading.

The lady concerned has learning disabilities and for the purpose of this blog entry and to preserve her anonymity we’ll call her Liz. She required ICO to modify their communications with her in order to assist her disabilities. ICO failed to do this, which if course made communication with them very much more difficult, and so she launched a Judicial Review. This brought her into contact with the civil court system where arguably she suffered worse discrimination than originally from ICO.

The Equality Act 2010 and the United Nations Convention on disability rights are supposed to help to enforce, protect and promote the rights of disabled people to access public services and promote equality of access to such.

However as is so often the case in modern Britain the aim falls far short of the reality. As I’ve said Liz’s issues began when The Information Commissioner’s Office failed to communicate with her in a format she could read and understand; she has limited reading and comprehension skills.

Things frequently go from bad to worse when an organisation fails to make adaptations to assist the disabled. This is true of ICO but the same issues were experienced in Liz’s dealings with The Ministry of Justice.

I should add at this point that all of the organisations mentioned in this blog entry will also have guidelines in respect of how to treat everyone equally. They have all fallen far short of this leading to mistreatment and injustice.

An email to me from this lady’s carer shows that further injustice happens from HMCTS…

“When she has attempted to request accessibility from HMCTS, regarding Judicial Reviews against The Ombudsman’s refusing to send her written correspondence, refusal to contact her by phone and when she phones their services to request accessibility, complaints responses and S.A.R’s.”

When Liz called HMCTS she was apparently verbally abused by their staff over the phone. Liz has communication difficulties and it is easy for someone to misinterpret these in a phone call. There are recordings of such calls to Manchester Civil Justice Centre.

When Liz asks for responses to her complaints due to her communication difficulties staff fail to respond appropriately or make proper allowances for her disabilities. This is of course the nub of her original complaint to the Courts in the first place! She has also been supplied the personal data of another HMCTS service user, although this is not unusual given that organisation’s haphazard approach to data protection & privacy.

Most damming of all is the response of Customer Investigations at the MoJ’s head office.

This is the final port of call to get a complaint response outside of referring a complaint against HMCTS to civil action. There are also apparently call recordings retained where Richard Redgrave, the head of Customer Investigations starts laughing and finds it funny that his original land line is inactive and been inactive for the 18 months this lady has attempted to phone him on it. There has been a similar inappropriate responses from The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The courts have failed to provide the lady with any adaptation and assistance with access to their services with the seeming result that her civil claim failed and there are presently costs against her. Any correspondence from the Court is problematic as this lady cannot read. Again a required adaptation has not been made. Rather more cruelly a Civil Restraint Order was made against her and this of course results in further disadvantage.

I have a list of several named Court staff who have apparently treated this lady appallingly on the account given by her carer.

The adaptations that are needed for her to be able to deal with the Court effectively and understand the process are not extensive but are clear and evident. The level of learning difficulties experienced means that the Court has a higher level of duty of care towards someone who has such restrictions in their everyday life. Indeed there is a simple moral duty here also.

I don’t know why the Courts have failed Liz so badly.

I suspect that it would be more time-consuming and awkward to make the adaptations she needs and that because of speech issues phone calls from her would be very difficult to understand. This requires time and patience. It is not beyond the ability of any organisation however! It is equally not beyond the ability of MoJ to ensure that all service users are treated equally and fairly.

What looks like deliberate cruelty from several members of HMCTS staff takes considerably more explaining though.

That they have not treated Liz kindly, made appropriate adaptations to accommodate her disabilities and even at times shown outright cruelty is an indication of how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started