Tuesday, 24 November 2015

Hampstead Case. IPCC Developments.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) support the appellant's' contention that the Metropolitan Police failed to carry out a proper investigation of the Hampstead case.

I.P.C.C. (Independent Police Complaints Commission). Part 2. Updated Full Version Featuring Omitted Page 2. Complaint upheld
November 23, 2015
The letter summarising the finding can be located here: 
http://www.hampsteadcoverup.com/#!IPCC-Independent-Police-Complaints-Commission-Part-2-Updated-Full-Version-Featuring-Omitted-Page-2-Complaint-upheld/c9i2/564cef590cf2780ba4455664

On the Facebook support page Francis Inglis commented as follows:

Frances Inglis wrote a summary on the FB page which I hope she will not object to me replicating them here.

"I've done a quick check list of what needs to be re-investigated, according to the IPCC: 1. Dr. Hodes' medical report and findings were not put to Mr. Dearman during his interview. Why? 

2. Dearman was not arrested despite the 'arrest criteria' being satisfied. Why?

3. Dearman was questioned only about the swimming pool. Why were none of the other sexual abuse allegations mentioned?

4. Ella's legal team had said the interviewer 'coerced and prompted' the children when they retracted. Why didn't the investigating officer (IO) deal with this accusation?

5. The IO did not explain why numerous lines of enquiries were not carried out – i.e. Dearman's computer, phone.

6. The IO has not explained why it is relevant that no other victims have come forward.

7. The IO has not dealt with the issues of breaches of PACE code G, or Children's Right under Article 3 ECHR.

8. The police said that the children were relieved to be taken into care. However, there was 'no rationale' for that belief because at that time, the children were making the 'cult' allegations and had not retracted their statements.

9. The complaint that 'vital evidence was not secured or deliberately or negligently destroyed or concealed' has been ignored.

10. The complaint said policy had not been followed and there were procedural irregularities. The IO has not mentioned that.

11. The complaint needs to be re-investigated and may be subject to 'special requirements' – because criminal or misconduct proceedings maybe justified. If the appropriate authority does not think it should be subject to special requirements, then they need to give their reasons why.


2. Dearman was not arrested despite the 'arrest criteria' being satisfied. Why?
3. Dearman was questioned only about the swimming pool. Why were none of the other sexual abuse allegations mentioned?
4. Ella's legal team had said the interviewer 'coerced and prompted' the children when they retracted. Why didn't the investigating officer (IO) deal with this accusation?
5. The IO did not explain why numerous lines of enquiries were not carried out – i.e. Dearman's computer, phone.
6. The IO has not explained why it is relevant that no other victims have come forward.
7. The IO has not dealt with the issues of breaches of PACE code G, or Children's Right under Article 3 ECHR.
8. The police said that the children were relieved to be taken into care. However, there was 'no rationale' for that belief because at that time, the children were making the 'cult' allegations and had not retracted their statements.
9. The complaint that 'vital evidence was not secured or deliberately or negligently destroyed or concealed' has been ignored.
10. The complaint said policy had not been followed and there were procedural irregularities. The IO has not mentioned that.
11. The complaint needs to be re-investigated and may be subject to 'special requirements' – because criminal or misconduct proceedings maybe justified. If the appropriate authority does not think it should be subject to special requirements, then they need to give their reasons why."

ME: Perhaps it is worth noting that the very detailed IPCC letter (which I have now had the opportunity of reading) focuses only on the adequacy of the Investigating Officer's (IO) response to the complaints and not the quality of the investigation itself. This is perhaps a fine but important distinction. It means that the IPCC has found in favour of the applicants, namely that the IO has inadequately answered their questions and complaints.
I added the following observations on the FB page that may be worth repeating here:

"Thanks for summarising Frances as I was unable to access the document itself. It vindicates what some of us have been arguing from the beginning. It also raises a BIG question mark over both the Met's refusal to reopen the case and the decisions of both the High Court and Court of Appeal. In any fair minded system, a total failure by the police to investigate properly, would have been grounds to reassess all aspects of the case. 

The fact that the IPCC has found so many causes for doubt, whilst Justice Pauffley after days of 'fact-finding' couldn't, must raise very serious questions over her competence in such matters. 

Nor in my opinion is the IPCC list exhaustive in its identification of potential errors and shortcomings. 

Specifically that the police appear to have notified both school and the principle accused BEFORE actually carrying out an inspection or arresting the individual concerned. (Of course they did not EVEN arrest him) This must break the most fundamental of investigatory rules. 

Why once identified, did they not declare 'crime scenes' of the different identified locations, to at least rule them out if nothing else? 

Why at no stage were computers and other electronic equipment seized before potentially they could be wiped? 

Why were NONE of the other accused even interviewed? 

Why was not even one biological sample taken of adults or premises? 

Why, when the first interview was prematurely terminated on the grounds that the children were not represented by an adult 'friend', were they again interviewed under precisely the same conditions the second (and third) times by a police officer? 

Why were the children removed from the mother against the specific advice of a specialist social worker? 

Why was the case closed down so prematurely and specifically even before the medical evidence became available? 

Why by the 8th September, only a weekend after the initial interview, had the officer in charge already come to the conclusion (from the CRIS Report) that there was no substance to the allegations? 

Why was the principal accused treated in such a courteous fawning, manner and not even questioned about the many specific and different allegations that the children had made? 

Why in the face of all this, did the Met refuse to reopen the case?

I am sure this list is not exhaustive, but in the face of it, how could a High Court Judge in all conscience ratify it? 

These are questions that must be answered and the IPCC document is the first glimmer of hope that they will be."

17 comments:

  1. Brilliantly put Tim. And yes, you are right about the fine but important distinction of the IPCC saying that Ella's complaint issues were inadequately dealt with, - as opposed to the IPCC saying that the investigation itself was inadequate (to put it mildly). These 'authorities' are like slippery eels, aren't they? Nevertheless, it will be difficult, to say the least, for the police to justify not arresting Dearman, and not seizing his computer or phone. It will be hard for the police to justify dismissing Dr. Hodes report of sexual abuse to the children and shutting down the investigation before even receiving her report. and so many other aspects that you have mentioned. Let us hope that this will open up the can of worms that the police and other authorities have tried to keep hidden. Let the light SHINE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn't agree more Frances. And thanks for your comment here. Regards, Tim.

      Delete
  2. The Hampstead case police response & High Ct judgement are in lawful fact, an abomination of EU Child Protection Directives.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Debdah, As I have tried to explain previously this line of argument may be emotionally persuasive but it doesn't help much in practice, the reason being that European Directives, even when adopted by the Council having passed through all its legislative stages, still has no direct legal impact on member states, unless and until, they pass their own domestic legislation. Usually member states are given a time frame to do this, but the way in which the domestic legislation is worded and implemented, and as we all know there can be a vast gulf between the two, is left to them. Whether the Commission pursues states that don't implement the spirit and/or letter of the Directive is long and drawn out. There is no route, as far as I am aware, for individuals to pursue Nation States or the EU in the Courts for breach of a Directive. This can only be done where the law allows, for breach of domestic laws that may or not have originated by way of European Directives. So in this case it is only the breach of English laws and approved procedures can give rise to actions either criminal or civil. As far as I am aware the EU Directives may not even have been finalised on the subject or implemented by the UK Government, although the latter may well argue that the systems adopted under the relevant legislation (the Children's Act) are equally robust and fair - a line that both you and I would probably disagree with!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was told by EU lawyers that Directives ARE law in member states by their ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

      However, I was also told by a UK lawyer that UK Supreme Court judges have overturned EU laws against DISCRIMINATION! I.e. their arrogance puts them above ANY law, whether UK or EU!

      BUT: I did make a submission to the Petitions Committee regarding the use of the secrecy of UK courts to cover-up criminal activities - as an amendment to Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent!

      https://www.change.org/p/eu-parliament-abolish-adoptions-without-parental-consent

      Delete
    2. Hi Sabine,

      This is the WIKI summary of Directives at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union) which agrees with my advice.

      "A directive is a legal act of the European Union,[1] which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result. It can be distinguished from regulations which are self-executing and do not require any implementing measures. Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. Directives can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures depending on their subject matter." There is more there so you may want to look it up.

      It is true that not to implement the Directive within the set time limit is a breach of European Law that the Commission can pursue if it wishes but this is a long winded process that is pretty ineffective if the nation state is obstructive. In any event this leaves the whole question of implementation even if the Directive is legislated nationally. In other words my earlier advice still stands as an accurate interpretation of the reality.

      Regards, Tim.

      Delete
    3. Hi [- yes, i understand your reasoning Tim and you are right but so too am i on the issue of CP directives and the lawful right of UK citizens as EU citizens, to uphold them and demand they are implemented; no one but-we-the-people will do this - that much by how is clear. like the UN Report, it is up to British people to home in on the facts and solutions and as both fact & solution EU & UB CP Committees are a professional and legally recognised body of intellectual study & reccomendations i.e. an alternative higher authority supporting our calls for justice; they have provided our defence and we need to use it because there IS nothing or no one else of that same higher authority. To ignore their support just because UK ignores them is like saying 'we won't use our big tanks because the attack is not using them, we'll just stick to our dodgem cars while they splat us with their little tanks'. In interest of child safety, we have NO choice here, except to utilize whatever support we can get, so why ignore Eu & UN? Britain agrees that UN Report is legally valid which is why it was permitted to be published throughout whole of UK & reported in press. Un supports EU Directives. Why not UK - we need to ASK that question especially now, as this case exposes the dreadful scenarios that arise without them. x

      Delete
    4. Sorry to be so dumb Debs but what does 'UB' and 'CP' stand for as I am not sure. Also I applaud your efforts and using the EU/UN documents in a persuasive capacity. However to place reliance on them in legal proceedings in the English courts, though perhaps understandable in the context of 'drowning man clutching at straws' invites disappointment, as they have at present no legal standing and will not up to and until they have been implemented by domestic legislation. The danger is the the whole defence and counter-claim could be regarded as inadmissible and get no further than that. The arguments need to rely on English law made by Parliament and case law made by the judges. This is not to say that international sources cannot be used as for example European Convention on Human Rights which since 1.1.2000 has been incorporated into British law and which Cameron's Cons is now trying to back track on. This CAN be cited for defence purposes.

      There also appears to be a touch of confusion over the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. As far as I understand it these are the latter being taken by DPP using a case prepared by the police. It requires a defence not a counter-claim. A counter-claim is entered in civil proceedings for damage and/or injunction where counter claims can be lodged. As previously pointed out, in a criminal case the prosecution must PROVE the allegation as to both fact and breach of the relevant law/section of Act, and therefore if a defence is to be mounted it is these that must be addressed and disproved.

      If the person prosecuted believes that either the arrest/prosecution is unfounded, separate remedies are available which requires either the DPP, or individual in a private capacity to prosecute the identified offences.

      I thought the document you prepared with Sabine very articulately and cogently presented the arguments in her favour but sadly if it is not based on English law/precedent, it is unlikely secure the desired result.

      Delete
    5. Sorry typo's - my keyboard broke yesterday, am using this tiny thing with all but two letters gone from bottom keys lol! Am dyslexic too so they are often hard for me to spot. Yes, we are taking a long shot, but we have no other option because too many children are at risk: In this case, the counter-prosecution charge highlights that children remain at risk and also, that charges against herself are specifically part of a DENIAL that children are at risk; it's not just a personal issue between Sabine & Plaintiffs. So in that sense, it is quite an unusual and unique case because it is lawfully suspected criminals bringing charges against her who are also, a risk to children. The fact is, regardless of what we call the case, in her defence Sabine is proving charges against her are malicious in light of evidence against Plintiffs, because actually, according to the law, their charges of harassment are supported enough for them to bring a case and, we have found that Britain does at least need to apply SOME of the Directives - but to apply NONE at all? And then go around prosecuting those who complain about that and who express concerns about child safety? We cannot disprove that Sabine has been a 'whistleblower' what we CAN prove is that her motives are HONOURABLE and are fully supported by an established framework of lawfully accepted protocols to address lawfully identified crimes; the case against her is malicious in light of the evidence and actually, all four necessary points are satisfied to support her claim.

      Anyway, tremendous work on your part Tim, we are all indebted to you for your diligence and keen eye - me especially! I know my approach is a bit 'rasta' as it were, but then look at the 'loopholes' the corporations run away with? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. x

      Delete
    6. Dear Debs, Thanks for this.

      As you know I have throughout this case endeavoured to apply as best I could a rational, objective approach to the facts as revealed and observed. It is a statement of the obvious (but still worth saying) (and to misquote Wittenstein) 'of that we do not know we cannot speak'. The significance of this of course is that there may be much more to this case 'than meets the eye' which if we knew might have a significant impact upon our opinions.

      It is perhaps worth repeating that I am wholly behind the thrust of your argument in the prepared document you have circulated, specifically that the voracity of the children's allegations has never been negated or properly investigation, which provides an unassailable moral justification for actions on their behalf.

      However, this must always be distinguished from a legal defence to a criminal charge. Sadly although in Britain the law is still built on abstract principles of justice, to equate the two is a mistake. If it were true, there would never be any miscarriages (of justice) of which there have been many notable cases including that of Jill Dando still unsolved and not wholly unconnected to Hampstead either!

      You mention "whistle blowers". With respect as far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong) but the case does not centre on 'whistle-blowing' but the crime of 'harassment'. Clearly the two are not the same. I am speaking a bit off the top of my head, which I know is dangerous as I haven't had sight of the charges, but as far as I am aware the allegation is that S. by her actions has harassed certain named persons. If the charge related to breaching High Court orders of secrecy the process would be quite different and for 'contempt'.

      If I am right, the relevant questions to ask are 1) Did S. do as is claimed on the charge sheet? 2) If she did, was it done with 'intent' or 'guilty mind' because this is an essential requisite to any criminal act? 3) are all the requirements of the Act met as to the definition and its application? 4) is there reliable proof that harassment was actually caused and S. was responsible for it? and finally if all the previous fail in their efficacy, 5) were the actions that constituted 'harassment' under the Act reasonable, proportional and necessary given the over-riding obligation to protect children from harm as a common law and statutory duty?

      This is where most of your document comes into play, but I suggest it should be based on English law rather than Community Directives that have little or no applicability until and unless enacted domestically as previously explained.

      As I have said many times previously, I hope S. is well represented by someone who is well versed in these legal niceties, sufficient to get the case thrown out. Any other decision would I believe be a travesty of justice given the enormity of the uninvestigated allegations.

      With best wishes, Tim.

      Delete
  4. A couple of further observations:

    Small correction might be helpful here: RD is NOT being investigated by the IPCC. That would only fall to the police or to a member of the public adopting that role (as I understand it in Common Law anyone can be a 'policeman' in the sense they can investigate and prosecute a crime although of course this seldom happens) No the IPCC's role as I understand it is to ensure that a substantial complaint against the police is properly investigated. In other words the focus of their activity is the Met. in this case NOT RD. What they appear to have found is that the 'Investigating Officer' appointed by the Met Police hasn't properly investigated the specific complaints made about it.

    I would say the action (or inaction ) by the police has virtually guaranteed that any solid corroborative evidence that might have existed has disappeared, with perhaps the one exception of tattoos. That I think was the intention although that also is virtually impossible to prove because if the worst comes to the worst the policemen involved can always fall back on misjudgement or even incompetence. The basic problem is that the only real evidence, as far as I am aware, comes from two small children who have not been believed (intentionally I think) by the authorities, have been 'encouraged' or persuaded to retract in whole or in part, and are now fully under the control of those who might have a vested interest in ensuring they do not repeat their allegations. That as far as I can see is the sad reality this moment in time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ann, that is a good question and one we should, I think, keep focused on, specifically how they can be reunited with a caring mother and grandparents from whom they have been cruelly and unjustifiably separated and how can they be protected from further adverse psychological or physical harm? This is effectively now in the total control of the courts and social services, both of which should be in doubt that they will remain the focus of attention as regards to what they do. The police is another line of attack clearly, to make them justify their appalling behaviour and hopefully agree to reopen the case, which looks as if they will continue to resist. There certainly appears to be no top level intention to make them do so, in fact if Lawson's recent comments are anything to go by, there is pressure to cover up and close down police investigations elsewhere that cannot be a good omen for Hampstead. All we can do is to attempt to keep the matter in the public eye and counter those who wish to suggest it was all a big hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tim, this is a superb article. I can't tell you how relieved I am that we have someone as articulate, grounded and astute as you on the side of the children. Surely, if we keep on taking this level-headed approach to expose what has happened, and is still happening, we will win the support of the mainstream majority and this whole thing will finally be accepted as a reality. I sincerely hope so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for this Juliet and glad you liked it. Police and family court action in this case has been appalling. Unfortunately the press has uncritically replicated the official position, partly because its less problematic but other darker forces may have been at work. Certainly it suits these people to portray the children's supporters as mentally unstable or otherwise eccentrically unsuitable. Sadly some of this might have been justified. 'Jacqui Farmer' has done a great job at some personal cost but unfortunately despite world wide interest, the split between family and advocates did not help. Any campaign needs to stay focused, rational and unified to be effective. It's is just a pity, despite some excellent work by a number of people, the coordinated approach and strategy was never quite achieved as it might have been. The children of course remain separated from their mother and accessed by their father, which could not be a greater condemnation of the system. Kind regards, Tim.

      Delete
  7. Dear Tim and Francis,

    As I'm working with Debdah on my defence re Highbury Magistrates Court hearing [Monday Feb 8th, 2pm], I am MOST glad to see this list of questions!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. PS. If really you want to know why the Met didn't want to re-open, read their 'Grounds of Resistance'...

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Byzy22cCtwpdSXY4WEtkQnF4YVU

    ReplyDelete