A complaint has been made against Sergeant 5425 Matthew Carroll of Bedfordshire police. Bedfordshire police have recorded the complaint, and after some ‘persuasion’ has deemed the allegation so serious, the IOPC are the Relevant Appeal Body (RAB).
This change to the RAB was after submissions for a Judicial Review which would have shown that Bedfordshire police had made an unlawful decision.
Bedfordshire PSD response to the submissions was;
Bedfordshire Police’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) have confirmed that the complaint you make reference to in your emails (PSD reference: CO/xxx/20) has been re-assessed. They have advised that the IOPC will now be the Relevant Review Body for this matter once it has been concluded.
The allegation is that Sgt Matthew Carroll, inter alia, conspired to pervert the course of justice.
A criminal offence was reported to Bedfordshire police, it was crimed as it met the test with prima facie evidence of a serious offence.
After Sergeant 5425 Matthew Carroll made ‘contact‘ with Lancashire constabulary, he closed down the case as No Further Action (NFA) without any lawful excuse.
Sgt Matthew Carroll confirmed that he ‘spoke’ with someone in Lancashire police and after this discussion, Sgt Carroll unlawfully closed down a criminal investigation based on an ‘unlawful‘ policy, ‘invented’ by Lancashire police. The policy has absolutely no legal precedent.
The refusal of Sgt Matthew Carroll to investigate a criminal offence was spurred on by a ‘conversation with Lancashire police’ and the lack of action resulted in death threats against a man and a woman.
These death threats have been recorded as a criminal offence by Cleveland police. The offender (named ‘Garry’) was arrested. After his arrest, he admitted to what he did and confirmed that his source of ‘false and malicious information‘ was the material that Sgt Matt Carroll of Bedfordshire police decided was not a criminal offence.
Sgt Matt Carrol put himself above the law which has now proven to have caused further serious offences, leaving members of the public at serious risk of harm.
The information is a grossly offensive website that has incited violence against a family. The offender who created the website is known and it would seem suspicious why Lancashire police would be so determined for no charges to be brought against him.
The grossly offensive and dangerous website is said to be ‘endorsed‘ by a Chief Inspector in Lancashire police.
I am sure Sgt Matt Carroll would not like a similar website created with grossly offensive material made against himself or his wife, his elderly mother, his friend and his friends’ elderly mother?
So, why would he determine this is okay for some?