DCI Lee Schofield attempts to Cover Up Corruption

Paul Ponting has had an appeal upheld against DCI Lee Schofield of Merseyside Police.  DCI Schofield blocked a complaint that would see officer investigated for corruption.

Paul Ponting who is a repeat victim of Police abuse, happened to witness a road traffic accident where Police Officers conspired to pervert the course of Justice. CLICK HERE FOR THIS STORY

Mr Ponting reported this as a complaint to Merseyside Police PSD (professional Standards Department) as he had witnessed Police corruption first hand and and provided substantial evidence to support this allegation.

A complaint WAS recorded by Police.  It is important to note that it was recorded, as a failure to record a complaint would give the complainant (Mr Ponting) an immediate right to appeal direct to the IPCC.

What Merseyside Police did however, was they did record the complaint and them immediately an application to ‘disallow it‘ was made by one of the officers that the complaint was about (PC 6926 Twidale), DCI Lee Schofield accepted the application to disallow, therefore he shut down the investigation.

To appeal against a ‘disallow’ does not go to the IPCC but is handled ‘in-house‘ i.e. within the Police Force.  The appeal is done, by the Police themselves..

Even after DCI Lee Schofield reviewed the disallow application and reviewed the comments (and legislation) put to him by Mr Ponting, he decided to DISALLOW the complaint anyway, see attached copies of the Police letters.  He was fully aware that he was doing wrong as legislation was provided to him before he made his decision.

So, essentially, a member of the public, provided substantial evidence to PSD of Police Corruption where a young driver was framed by Merseyside Police.  The corrupt officer who framed the young lad then applied to PSD for them to disallow the complaint, and PSD did just that.

This is a DCI Lee Schofield of Merseyside Professional Standards blocking a serious complaint against Police officers.

DCI Lee Schofield
Letter page 1/2
DCI Lee Schofield
Letter page 2/2

DCI Lee Schofield told Mr Ponting that he was not allowed to make a complaint.  Even though Lee Schofield is a DCI in Professional Standards, the very department designed to root out Police corruption,  and DCI Lee Schofield was in receipt of evidence of Police Misconduct and corruption, but he still blocked the complaint… why?

Mr Ponting replied to DCI Lee Schofield that he was qualified to make the complaint and provided the IPCC statutory guidance. https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/statutoryguidance/2015_statutory_guidance_english.pdf

He also told DCI Lee Schofield that he was amazed why a DCI was trying to cover up a complaint rather than investigation it.  DCI Schofield still made the decision to disallow the complaint.

Mr Ponting followed through with the appeal and met with his Local MP and now, the appeal was upheld, in that DCI Lee Schofield’s decision was WRONG and the complaint was valid.

It is important to mention, not many people would go to this much trouble to make, and appeal a complaint, so many complaints to the Police do go unrecorded and this, in this instance, was the result of Professional Standards themselves protecting Police against misconduct.

Below is the letter confirming that DCI Lee Schofield made a wrong decision when have full view of the facts.

co29816-upheld-1
Upheld letter 1/4
co29816-upheld-2
Upheld letter 2/4
co29816-upheld-3
Upheld letter 3/4
co29816-upheld-4
Upheld letter 4/4

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Comments

  1. Wow! In West Mercia, you complain about a bent copper and you will be very lucky to receive a call back from PSD. My experience is that they are every bit as corrupt as the organisation they are supposed to look into. That is what happens when you let a criminal investigate his own crime – nothing. Better off making an “any person arrest” on the bent copper and forcing a criminal investigation.

  2. Hold the boat. They all try this “not adversely affected” twaddle. That’s what 6.4 of the guidance is all about. It allows anyone to bring a conduct matter to the attention of the police “adversely affected” or not. They still have to assess it. Otherwise you could watch a policeman kill someone, report it and be told to bugger off. 6.4 catches that. Write back on that and educate them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


WordPress spam blocked by CleanTalk.