|
We
consider that David Tye would have known from the wealth
of information being provided to the Sussex police since the 1997
Petition, that what he was looking at came under the heading of a hate
crimes, or corruption in public office concerning Wealden District
Council, and had he dug deeper and investigated Donald Wales, he would
have been sure to find documents provided to him by this Council. But Dave
was not prepared to
The
problem for Dave is that as a serving police office in the Sussex region, was that
the CPS had gone along with the non-investigation of the 1997 Petition as
part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. This links to Don
Wales as part of that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - and
demonstrated bias in extremis on the part of Sussex police as they worked
with Derek Holness and subsequent chief executives and planning officers
to cover-up their past misdeeds.
We
feel sure that Dave Tye would have known that to control activists who are potentially a
threat to Sussex police that one of the best ways of discrediting any dissident
would be to secure a sex conviction, no matter how that was obtained.
You
can see from the increase in correspondence by Nelson Kruschandl to Sussex
police officers - and how close he was getting to the truth, that they
would have known that this informant would eventually discover the
archaeological facts about the generating buildings at Herstmonceux - and
that when that happened the cover-up by Sussex police with the help of the
Crown Prosecution Service, would eventually find its way to the Home
Secretary and other justice ministers - to blow the lid off any
pretence that the British
justice system is fit for purpose.
Clearly,
from what followed, not only is the justice in Britain faulty, but rotten
to the core where the Criminal
Cases Review Commission and several judges in the mix - appear also to
be implicated. Simply put, these factions of so-called British justice
managed to get a man convicted of rape, when
the so-called victim was still a virgin.
Whoops! They slipped up on that one, unless they are claiming that she was
the Virgin Mary?
We
bet that our readers will not know that there is no Right Of Appeal in the
British Justice System as it stands. Nor does Britain have a Written Constitution.
TEN
YEARS AND COUNTING -
Dr Melanie Liebenberg failed to mention to the jury that none of the expected
lacerations, transections and/or healed scars to the fossa or posterior
fourchette - or angular clefts or tears, or labial adhesions of the hymen
were present. She might have mentioned that the absence of any and all of
these signs, given the claimed regularity of abuse, was not consistent
with the allegations. Dr Liebenberg could have mentioned that had any of
these signs been in evidence, that would have been either definitive proof
of sexual abuse or at best highly suspicious circumstances. But, as we
stress - none
of these were present and the jury had a right to know that before
sending a man to prison
for a crime that had not been committed.
This
evidence does not stand alone. There is a diary that casts doubt as to
opportunity which the girl's mother hid in her loft so that the police
would not find it. On the stand under duress the girl's mother revealed
its existence, but then she knew that the defence would not have time to cross reference the
dates in it with the girl's testimony. Judge Cedric Joseph
then wrongly told the
jury that this diary was the defendants - and
still the CCRC
turn a blind eye to the glaring inconsistencies in this case.
Gordon
Staker, Jo Pinyoun, James
Hookway and Joe Edwards may well have
received pats on the back for helping Wealden bury their long term
adversary, but fabricating a case built on slight of hand and a failure to
secure the relevant evidence at a crime scene is fraud. No person should
serve in any police position of trust when involved in what amounts to a
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. This was a political case if,
as the evidence suggests, Sussex police were in any way involved in a
cover up in 1997 regarding the Petition.
It seems to us that Sussex police and the Courts need more Potty
Training.
Recorded Fax
N J Kruschandl
C/o The Old Steam House,
Lime Park, Herstmonceux,
East Sussex, BN27 1RF
FAO: Detective Sergeant Dave Tye (AT851)
Eastbourne Police Station
Hammonds Drive Patrol Centre
Home Office Ref: T16378/12
East Sussex, BN23 6PW
12 February 2013
Dear Mr Tye,
Crime No: EE3/086674/12
Further Evidence Re: Donald Wales and UK Trademarks 2331929 & 2331931
I think I may have found that further evidence that you need to prosecute this matter and what with the seriousness the Sussex Police accords counterfeit goods and the like, by which I refer to the IP Crime Annual Report 2011/12 by your Deputy Chief Constable Giles York, the ACPO Lead for IP Crime and Chair of the IP Crime Group.
After consideration of that Report and the fact that this crime is on your doorstep, so to speak, I am hoping that with the new evidence, you might now be able to act to prevent the crime of fraud, and to bring the counterfeit deception to an end and least insofar as trademark misuse.
I was looking on the Internet yesterday at the IPO website and noticed their section on IP crime as to fraud. I then came across the above Report. The reason for my interest is that I discovered the day before that that Mr Wales, in cahoots with his partner in crime, Martin Rees are once again using a mark that does not belong to them to promote a circuit-racing car for the new GTL Formula-E. You can see this on a number of websites:
http://www.thechargingpoint.com/news/Bluebird-going-back-to-its-roots
http://www.rushlane.com/bluebird-gtl-formula-e-racer
If you take the trouble to look at the car in the pictures on those sites, you will see that they are sporting a “blue bird” logo on the nose cone. Yet, I am the only one that I know of who is licensed to use such a logo on his cars, with the protection of trademark registration number 2331929, for which the colour blue is a claimed feature of the bird mark.
Somehow the constructor of that car has been fooled by Don Wales and /orothers, that he has the power to grant use of that mark to another person, where clearly for him to be able to do that he would have to have a license to use mark 2331929, or be the owner of a mark where blue is claimed for a bird in flight logo. The alternative is that all three parties have conspired in the matter?
This is a clear case of fraud and the motive is plain, it is using the mark to raise money for electric car circuit racing. Mr Wales is quoted as saying so.
You already have quite a bundle of evidence to show propensity and now you have this new evidence that Mr Wales in partnership with others is conspiring to defraud me, by using the mark that I have state protection for my vehicles.
Could I therefore ask you to either investigate this matter yourself (Sussex Police) or refer the matter to Surrey, or perhaps the Metropolitan Police.
On the last occasion I brought similar matters to your attention, this was not passed to other forces and no investigation took place. Here you have the chap bang to rights. The evidence is the picture of the (black car attached) Bluebird GTL formula-e car sporting the mark that only I am licensed to use for cars.
The fraud is all the more serious because I also have the only license for car parts (my battery cartridge refuelling system, motors, etc) under trademark registration number 2331931, where the inference is clear with the blue bird on the nose cone, that my patent technology is under the bonnet.
I am assuming that the original crime number is applicable, but if that is not the case please advise.
I will be happy to provide a Witness Statement and attend court to give evidence in the matter.
Yours sincerely,
Nelson Kruschandl (Victim and Informant)
c.c Rt Hon Chris Grayling
Recorded Fax
N J Kruschandl
C/o
The Old Steam House,
Lime Park, Herstmonceux,
East Sussex, BN27 1RF
FAO: Detective Sergeant Dave Tye (AT851)
Eastbourne Police Station
Hammonds Drive Patrol Centre
Home Office Ref: T16378/12
East Sussex, BN23 6PW
6 March 2013
Dear Mr Tye,
Crime No: EE3/086674/12 – URGENT - CONFIDENTIAL
Further Evidence Re: Donald Wales and UK Trademarks 2331929 & 2331931
I have not yet heard from you in reply to my letter dated the 20th of February 2013, but write with reference to my correspondence in connection with the above crime number – to stress the urgency of the matter.
I am extremely concerned that a bird emblem is being used to seek to obtain funding for Formula E and in connection with Milk Floats, where that bird emblem is using the colour “blue” which is reserved to Licensees of the above registered trademarks.
The objective of Don Wales and his team is to raise finance in the form of partners and sponsors for the forthcoming Formula E series in 2014. There can be little doubt from the wording on various websites (saved as evidence) that Mr Wales and the Malcolm Campbell Heritage Trust (milk floats), is working with others using a mark in a manner that is likely to confuse the public and potential sponsors as to the orgination of the goods in question. The goods being: a) battery cartridge refuelling system b) an electric racing car and/or chassis c) electric motors and transmission, and other vehicle parts and fittings.
I (we) note that the deception/fraud/counterfeit, is widespread, apparently including (1) Chris Ward, (2) Unipart and (3) Agrekko. But as we mentioned previously, we have no idea at this stage if those companies sign-written on the GTL Bluebird, are victims of, or party to the fraud/deception/counterfeit?
We also have a picture of Lord Drayson standing with Don Wales at an electric vehicle event. It appears from this photograph that Don Wales has handed a brochure to Lord Drayson, obviously promoting his GTL Bluebird mock-up car as though he is entitled to use the colour blue. You will know that Lord Drayson fields his own Formula E team and is therefore a potential customer for my very fast Formula E refuelling system (30 seconds).
You can see that I/we are advertising my EV refuelling system for Formula E on a number of websites. Please note that the “blue” colour of the bird symbol I/we are using is an essential element of the promotion and identity of the design. It is the distinguishing feature, where both Mr Wales and myself are competing in the EV arena – as well Mr Wales knows. And that makes the fraud all the more serious.
I am concerned that the good name of other people involved in Formula E may become embroiled, where the sport is in a state of gestation. I would therefore request your most urgent referral to the appropriate force – and could you (or whichever force is dealing with the investigation) please keep me up to speed as a damage limitation exercise. I am hoping the investigation will quickly identify the culprit(s) and separate them from the innocent victims of this/these intellectual property crimes.
Please see the website addresses below for information of how the Trademark Registry categorise these types of counterfeit offences under Section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (unauthorised use of a trade mark) and Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (fraud by false representation). In particular, I note that the goods bearing the mark of another registered user are the subjects of confiscation, presumably, to prevent further offences being committed.
The new level of proof in this matter, may assist a jury to decide on the general conduct of Mr Wales concerning financial dealings with myself, where his company transferred goods with the intention to avoid having to pay me agreed consultancy fees. You may decide that the above impacts upon other dealings/applications that may now not be viewed as being in good faith. I.e. there was an intention to defraud from the outset.
I attach copy of the pictures of Mr Wales with Lord Drayson and Mr Wales with the car bearing a bird logo coloured “blue”. I appreciate that these pictures will appear in monochrome in this communication, but they are freely available on various websites.
Yours sincerely,
Nelson Kruschandl (Victim and Informant)
c.c Rt Hon Chris Grayling
Reference links:
http://www.bluebird-electric.net/formula_e.htm
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipenforce/ipenforce-resources/ipenforce-offenceguide/ipenforce-offenceguide-fraud.htm
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipenforce/ipenforce-resources/ipenforce-offenceguide/ipenforce-offenceguide-tmact.htm
DEMONSTRABLE
BIAS
Whereas
David Tye would not lift a finger to investigate Don Wales, he was
prepared to smash down four doors with a whole team of officers, crack
open a high-security padlock and ransack Mr Kruschandl's home and
workshops. Here is the proof in the form of the pictures taken after the
police had left the scene of the crime. These pictures were to be used in
any court case if the police had managed to plant or otherwise skew
evidence such as to be able to bring yet another malicious prosecution.
Fortunately
for Mr Kruschandl, enough of the evidence he would have needed to prove
his innocence was not at the raided premises. If you are the subject of
continuous and ongoing harassment by a council or police force, you are
advised to have copies of your files in another location that the
authorities do not know about.
BACK
DOOR - During a raid on premises
in Sussex in 2014 police thugs smashed down four doors and cracked open a
padlock on a fifth door. The pictures above show the level of force used
to gain entry. They also urinated in toilets and did not flush them and
left the premises virtually unsecured. They came in via a back door,
smashing wire reinforced glass and a concrete ledge in the process, also
tearing the frame liner and destroying the lock. They really must have
gone for it with crowbars and the like. Why did the police not call when
someone was in, or make an appointment? This door will have to be replaced
as will the liner and lock and the sill will have to be repaired.
HALL
DOOR - During a raid on premises
in Sussex police thugs smashed down four doors and cracked open a padlock
on another door. The pictures above shows the level of force used to get
through a hall door that they totally ruined, including the lock that was
smashed. They really seem to have enjoyed the vandalism. That is another
frame, door and lock to repair.
ARCHIVE
DOOR - During a raid on premises
in Sussex police thugs smashed down four doors and cracked open a padlock
on another door. The pictures above shows the level of force used to get
through an archive door. They really seem to have brutalized each door in
turn. It is a miracle that some of the doors in this building had the keys
in the locks. That is another frame, door and lock to repair, with the
door split lengthways as was the frame. The lock was jammed solid.
TOILET
DOOR - During a raid on premises
in Sussex police thugs, including Detective Sergeant Dave
Tye, smashed down four doors and cracked open a padlock on another
door. The pictures above shows the level of force used to get through a
toilet door. Why did they need to get into the toilet so badly. That is
another frame, door and lock to repair. They used the toilet but did not
flush it. These were pictures taken just after the incident in 2014.
ANNEX
DOOR - During a raid on premises
in Sussex police thugs smashed down four doors and cracked open a padlock
on another door. The pictures above shows the padlock hasp cracked in two
places. That is another lock to replace and the toilet in this unit was
used and not flushed. Teenage hooligans might have at least flushed the
toilet. It was the police who did this not a gang of burglars. The Sussex
police offered no apology and no compensation for their error. Of course
this damage was not occasioned in error. It is alleged that this violence
was all part of a calculated campaign of terror to bully the occupant.
Given this kind of behaviour it is hardly surprising that in television
series the villains call the police: pigs or filth. How would you describe
anyone who did this to your home for no good reason other than to
intimidate you?
N J Kruschandl
The Old Steam House,
Lime Park, Herstmonceux,
East Sussex, BN27 1RF
Det. Sgt. Colin Dowle
Investigating Officer
Police Station,
South Road
Newhaven
East Sussex, BN9 9QJ
20 April 2001
Dear Sgt. Dowle
Formal Complaint – Misfeasance in public office
Wealden District Council
Thank you for your letter dated 9th April 2001, advising of your recent move, etc.
Please accept my apologies for not supplying a replacement contact number during these stressful times. The landline and previous mobile were discontinued in favour of the above number, which I hope will be more reliable.
A number of issues have arisen this year, leading me to conclude that this matter may not receive investigation at all despite your good intention to uphold the law. I should stress that this state of affairs is to do with the way the Police are funded and the apparent reluctance to investigate the goings on of the local authority, where it is often the case that the Police Authority and the Local Authority co-operate on other issues.
Please find enclosed copy of a letter I received from Mark Powell in November 2000. Please also find enclosed copy of a newspaper article concerning Inspector Piloni dated 2nd February 2001. The newspaper article appears to confirm the subject matter of the letter, in that if I provide any information to you of a crime not falling to be considered as a priority, the chances are it will not receive the attention it deserves.
Additionally, you will appreciate that my complaint encompasses evidence spanning many years. Some of this evidence is privileged and will be required in connection with other matters involving this Council. For this reason I would wish to limit my complaint to just one issue at this time. Although, a fresh matter has come to light – that of culpable overcharging, of which more later. Could you say if this kind of fraud is a criminal matter? As I understand it “Discrimination” under the
Human Rights Act is not a criminal offence. Could you say whether this is the correct position?
I remember when we first met to discuss this matter, I was told that there is no statute of limitation on crime. I would be grateful for confirmation on this point. I will also be grateful if you can confirm that the information I pass to you for your investigation to begin, will be treated in the strictest confidence and not be passed to the Council or even hinted at. I ask this because, the
Sussex Police receive their funding via the local authority and for this reason and others mentioned herein, there is an apparent conflict of interest. I would also ask if you or any of your fellow officers have been contacted by this Council concerning my case in the past few months?
One matter that worries me is the incident where the previous Wealden Chief Executive,
Derek Holness, was the author of a letter of vindication on Police headed paper after which it was signed by a Police officer. Mr Holness then read it to the full Council as if it had been received from and written independently by the Police. This appears to have been a deception. Clearly, there is the possibility that such a deception could happen again. If the Council have such influence with the Police as to write their own ticket, then there is no law where the Council is concerned. Unless, a complainant can be assured that in future any matter will be dealt with independently, hence impartially.
In line with the advice received in the letter cited above, I anticipate pursuing non-criminal issues by way of the Civil Courts. I am only asking the
Sussex Police to look at one matter at a time. Unless, of course, it transpires that the Police are investigating other similar cases, as similar fact evidence. I consider that it is very much in the public interest to expose corrupt practices at local level. It has been estimated that several billion pounds of public money are wasted each year by local authorities.
INITIAL COMPLAINT
My complaint in its simplest form is that Wealden were required by law to determine an application I made in April/May of 1998 (WD/98/0996/F) citing the correct history of the property concerned. The local authority were required to either determine this application within eight weeks or face an appeal.
However, it appears from the evidence that the local authority did not want to determine this application, as to do so might cast doubt as to the reliability of their officers information to Committee in years gone by. It is for this or associated reasons that I believe they cited Section 70A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), claiming that the application was similar to one determined within a two year period. For this reason they claimed they could decline to determine the application as being a simple repeat or time wasting and in the absence of any new material considerations.
The Council could decline to determine the application under S.70A, provided there was no new information of a material nature, which should be take into consideration. However, there was new information available to them at that time. In fact it was the new information that prompted me to make the application, when it became clear to me that the Council had been wrong on some very important historical facts.
The Council (the Committee) had previously been told that the building in question was not an early electricity generating building as I had claimed. Back in 1995 and 1996 the Council’s conservationist (Ms Bird) had advised the planning Committee on this, first in her advice on which application(s) WD/95/2284/F & WD/96/1767/F were refused and later in an appeal statement. Whereas, Ms Bird’s statement was shown to be incorrect by the Affidavit of Ronald Saunders dated 16th July 1997.
The appropriate Council departments (Legal, Chief Executive, Planning & Enforcement) had been provided with a copy of Mr Saunders Affidavit, as had prominent Members, including the Leader of the Council. This new information meant that where the Council had previously relied on Ms Bird saying that the building held no historical interest, they now had substantiated proof that Ms Bird had been wrong in her assessment.
However, the Council’s Mr Phillips, when asked of the new evidence, said to me that Mr Saunders Affidavit would make no difference to any application I might make “I could count on it”. Despite Mr Phillips saying this to me, I made the application fully aware that Mr Phillips would do his best to persuade the committee to look the other way concerning the history where I was concerned. Even though as a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute he knew very well what a history meant in planning terms where a redundant building was concerned. It had not occurred to me that Mr Phillips would involve other officers. However, if you listen to the recording using a computer, or read the transcript, it will become clear just how the Council’s officers mislead the Committee.
According to Circular 14/91 supplied to me by the Planning
Inspectorate, the Council were legally obliged to determine the application, provided the Affidavit of Ronald Saunders held information that was material to the application.
A letter from English Heritage dated 11th August 1999 confirms that the interest of the site is “considerable” and that this is a “material consideration”. This letter was based on a report which was based on the Affidavit of Mr Saunders. Another letter from the DETR says that history and archaeology are material considerations.
Clearly, the Council had refused to acknowledge the existence of Mr Saunders Affidavit, preferring their own experts version as to the history – which according to Ms Bird was a pump house built on the site of the original generating building. The evidence of Ms Bird is further confirmed to be wrong by a Survey dated 29th September 1999, wherein Archaeology South East confirm the origins of the building.
THE CRIME
It is very often a criminal offence not to do something one is required by law to do. It is my understanding that it is not necessary to prove the state of mind of the person or body committing the offence, it is enough to show that the thing that was required to be done was not done.
In this case the function of the Council was to determine my application. The only exception being in the case where an applicant had not provided the Council with a material change in circumstances to warrant fresh consideration. However, I went to great lengths to ensure that Mr Phillips, Mr Moss,
Mr Scarpa, Mr Holness and the appropriate Councillors each received a copy of Mr Saunders’ Affidavit. Mr Phillips wrote in reply to the letter I sent with the Affidavit and so did
Cllr. Chidson, also confirming that other members had received their copy.
I think I have already provided you with the relevant caselaw where it is an offence for any person acting in an official capacity (holding office) to fail to carry out his or her duty. I sent a package which initiated this inquiry to Maria Wallis, which I think she passed to you with the case file.
EVIDENCE
My evidence in support of the above complaint is:
1) Assessment on Ms Bird 1995 & 1996
2) Affidavit of Ronald Saunders July 1997
3) Application WD/98/0996/F
4) Transcript and recording of APS meeting June 1998
5) Notice of Refusal to Determine 29 June 1998
6) Letter from Inspectorate enclosing Circular 14/91 December 1998
7) Letter from DETR “archaeology and history each material” May 1999
8) Letter from English Heritage August 1999
9) Survey Archaeology South East September 1999
The relevant Planning Law is seen in:-
1. PPG16
2. English Heritage publications
3. Wealden’s Local Plan @ DC10
Obviously, I have much more evidence to support my case. But this evidence is more concerned with the long-term frustration and malice (dirty tricks) which has been and continues to be the cause of unrelenting worry, stress, depression and loss of direction.
I enclose the above documents for your consideration and look forward to hearing from you in respect of the contents of this letter.
Yours sincerely
Nelson J Kruschandl – INFORMANT
HANSARD
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY 11th FEBRUARY 2002
The Wilding report found a complete failure of corporate duty by Sussex police. The Hampshire inquiry concluded that three police officers lied about intelligence in order to persuade Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan to authorise the
raid on James Ashley's flat. The report found that the raid was:
"authorised on intelligence that was not merely exaggerated, it was determinably false ... there was a plan to deceive and the evidence concocted."
The chief constable was castigated. Sir John Hoddinott concluded that Paul
Whitehouse, the then chief constable,
"wilfully failed to tell the truth as he knew it, he did so without reasonable excuse or justification and what he published and said was misleading."
Sir John found evidence against Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan. That included criminal misfeasance and neglect of duty, discreditable conduct and aiding and abetting the chief constable's false statements. There was suggested evidence of collusion between some or all of the chief officers and an arguable case of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
MORE
MALFEASANCE IN SUSSEX
The
well known dissident, Nelson
Kruschandl is just one of a number of local Sussex
residents who are victims of Wealden's various vendettas
that amount to institutionalised
discrimination.
The
frequency of the events alleged is suggestive of an ingrained agenda that
operates to keep planning consents out of the reach of certain
residents,
to the benefit of other better connected concerns. The chief executive of
this council, Charles
Lant is believed to be implicated by virtue of not acting to prevent
crime in his council. The leader of the council, Bob Standley is alleged
to have been put on notice as the some of these matters, but is seems is
also sitting on his hands. The operations of this
council are alleged to amount to a course of malicious
conduct or even fraud,
as defined by the Fraud
Act 2006.
Even
more worrying is whether or not the Sussex Police is party to these
allegations of serious crimes and what part their Chief
Constable, Giles York plays in all of
this. It would be a feather in any police
officer's career if he or she uncovered corrupt practices at a higher
level and was brave enough to expose those cover-ups. It is a criminal
offence to know of a crime and not report or investigate it.
It
is alleged that Sussex police are complicit in the agenda of Wealden
District Council to rubbish their dirtiest darkest secret by framing
the occupier of the historic building that George
White and Thomas
Hoy lied about on oath before Inspector
Raymond Dannruether in 1986-1987.
It
is alleged that as a result of deceiving Mr Dannreuther that they obtained
a fraudulent instrument with which to torment Nelson Kruschandl with
preventing him from developing his talents as a creative engineer and
destroying a marriage and a second long term common law relationship,
driving him into a relationship with an unstable psychiatric nurse who was
also a single mother.
It
is alleged that as Mr Kruschandl became more successful in planning appeals
and in defeating enforcement actions against the protagonist council, that
they sought a way to bury him - and that they did this by grooming the
feelings of the daughter of the psychiatric nurse after an engagement was
called off, leading to an acrimonious split where the young girl was
emotional putty in the hands of social services who coached her,
fabricating a story for her that relied on there being no evidence to contradict
her story.
It
is alleged that the Sussex police conspired with the CPS
and a trial Judge, Cedric Joseph,
to gain a conviction against a charge of multiple rapes, where their
witness was still intact and a virgin
when inspected by Melanie
Liebenberg, a witness who also aided
and abetted the gaining of this conviction by misinforming the jury as
to marks that are naturally occurring, suggesting that they must be from
foul play when she must have known otherwise.
It
is alleged that Gordon Staker and James
Hookway deliberately failed to secure the so-called crime scene,
avoiding collecting any evidence that was inconsistent with the allegation
they had been tasked to prove. That in doing so they knew that the
defendant would be unable to mount any kind of defence where the police
controlled the crime scene - and that they were possibly ordered to act in
a manner in violation of their:
DUTY TO INVESTIGATE REASONABLE LEADS – CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ACT 1996 (CPCIACPO) and CODE OF PRACTICE ORDER APRIL 2005
Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the CPCIACPO require the investigating officers in a case to:-
“ pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect”
It follows that any failure on the part of the investigating team, to reasonably secure evidence which they could obtain, may render the eventual trial unsafe, since such evidence, had it been obtained – had the potential to yield exonerating facts or cast doubt as to the reliability of claims, etc. Such investigations must fall under the duty umbrella imposed by Article 6(1) – the right to a: “fair and public hearing,” which is governed by a Code established by the Attorney Generals Guidelines, seen in Archbold’s Criminal Pleadings, and other common law precedents, in addition to the above Order.
It
is further alleged that the police investigators had
full knowledge that the defendant was Legally
Aided and did not have the resources to challenge the might of the
state where the Sexual
Offences Act 2003, introduced by David
Blunkett, reverses the burden of proof contrary to Articles
10 and 11
of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
SUSSEX
POLICE A
- Z OF OFFICER INVESTIGATIONS
Aran
Boyt
Chris
Sherwood
Colin
Dowle
Dave
Tye
Jane
Rhodes
Jo
Pinyoun
Joe
Edwards
Giles
York
Gordon
Staker
James
Hookway
Kara
Tombling
Keith
Stoneman
Ken
Jones
Maria
Wallis
Mark
Jordan
Martin
Richards
Neil
Honnor
Nigel
Yeo
Olivia
Pinkney
Paul
Whitehouse
Peter
Coll
Robert
Lovell
Sarah
Jane Gallagher
Sir
Ken Macdonald QC
Timothy
Motram
LINKS & REFERENCE
https://twitter.com/janebobbins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=QAVFjTVCx8E
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jane-rhodes
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15153523.Sex_on_duty__Chief_inspector_and_sergeant_investigated_over_allegation/
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/colin-dowle-40544737
https://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/awards-for-officers-in-crime-crackdown-1-1417787
http://www.sussex.police.uk/
http://www.wealden.gov.uk/
Paul
Whitehouse (1993-2001) Ken
Jones (2001-2006) Joe
Edwards (2006-2007) Martin
Richards (2008-2014) Giles York (2014
>>)
|