It is no secret that the ex-chief constable of Lancashire police brought a civil claim against an editor of this website, Paul Ponting, claiming articles written here were ‘harassing’ to police officers.
What may not be known is that the Chief Constable allowed the submission of perjured evidence by his constables. Even after the Lancashire constabulary were notified (put on notice) that the evidence was false before the trial.
Even so, the Chief Constable pursued what can only be described as a vendetta against the editor. This civil action was a forgone conclusion as the recorder (part-time judge), QC David Knifton is a full-time barrister and surprise surprise, his chambers is notorious as the police go-to chambers for police defence. Knifton himself published that his client base includes… ‘police‘.
Nevertheless, in a civil trial, the burden of proof is 50/50 (on the balance of probabilities) and only one person was involved in the decision, QC David Knifton. Seriously, an absolute appearance of corruption in the judiciary.
The chief constable submitted perjured evidence and David Knifton seemingly turned a blind eye, even rejecting critical evidence that was conclusive of lies. This evidence is available to the PCC in his investigation and will show the police evidence was perjured, proven by the words of an ex Lancashire police superintendent who was secretly recorded.
A complaint was made to the PCC (Crime Commissioner, Clive Grunshaw) over the conduct of the Chief Constable.
Ian Dickinson, acting under the PCC made the decision to reject the complaint without even reviewing any of the substantial evidence.
This was appealed to the IOPC who, overturned Ian Dickinson’s decision and now directed an investigation. Since then, it appears Ian Dickinson of the OPCC is still attempting to hinder the investigation. Ian Dickinson has sent this letter to the IOPC.
Seems he doesn’t understand how to do his job and hold the chief constable to account. This may become yet another judicial review depending on how they try to brush it under the carpet.
Dear Mr Ponting
Further to my e-mail of the 11 May 2021, please find attached a copy of a self-explanatory letter which has been sent to the IOPC seeking guidance on who should undertake the indication test prior to determining whether the investigation should be independent or directed.
Further information in relation to the ‘indication test’ can be found at paragraphs 10.7 to 10.9 of the IOPC Statutory Guidance.
When I have received the guidance from the IOPC I shall of course advise you accordingly.
Please wait while flipbook is loading. For more related info, FAQs and issues please refer to DearFlip WordPress Flipbook Plugin Help documentation.