KEITH LINDSAY

HOME  |   CASE STUDIES   |   HISTORY  |   LAW   |   POLITICS   |    RIGHTS   |   SITE INDEX

CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

Detective Sergeant Keith Lindsay was the so-called investigating officer in 1997 who was provided with preliminary evidence for him (for Sussex police) to follow up with the complainants by way of interview and to question the officer of Wealden District Council under caution.

Did any of this happen? No. Not a single finger was lifted to interview any one of 12 complainants who had petitioned Wealden, nor any of the many planning officers, solicitors and other administration staff, leading up to Derek Holness, who subsequently retired early with a £250,000 golden handshake, allegedly. Not one officer or member of this Council were contacted officially. But must have been contacted unofficially for them to concoct the course of non-action.

The actions of Sussex police and DS Lindsay should be compared to the shooting of James Ashley, with Paul Whitehouse at the helm during both incidents. It does not bode well for Sussex police.

Inspector Peter Coll subsequently admitted to Councillor Brian West and Richard de Rivaz, that there had been no investigation.

There is no doubt in our mind that DS Lindsay was singled out to be the fall guy, if as it appears the chiefs had decided there should be no investigation of their worshipful brothers. Otherwise, why would this complex matter not been handed to a more senior police officer?

A further complaint was made to Sussex police, but this and subsequent complaints were side-swiped as they were passed around officers within the force and not acted upon.

DID WE GET AWAY WITH IT? - Inspector Peter Coll escaped to St Helena where he could not be asked any awkward questions until he thought it was safe to return to the United Kingdom. That is the allegation. There is no statute of limitations on conspiracy to pervert the course of justice Peter. It is just a matter of time before one of your colleagues or a disgruntled council officer blows the whistle. Our advice would be for you to turn state's evidence. That is the best way of being treated leniently. The other officers might also want to consider plea bargaining. Especially Keith Lindsay.

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.

Paul Whitehouse (1993-2001) Ken Jones (2001-2006) Joe Edwards (2006-2007) Martin Richards (2008-2014) Giles York (2014 >>)

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.