The IOPC today has confirmed that an investigation will take place, although the mode of investigation is still to be decided. They are deciding whether the investigation should be undertaken by the(dodgy) OPCC (Office of Police and Crime Commissioner – The Crime Commissioner), or whether it will be independent.
The Former Lancashire Chief Constable (the Claimant) knowingly brought a civil application against Mr Ponting for blog articles on this website.
On receipt of the Claimants evidence bundle, perjured evidence had been used by a female officer. Perjury is a serious criminal offence, so was reported to the claimant (the former Chief Constable)
Rather than undertake his role as a police officer and investigate the criminal allegation of Perjury, the claimant refused and stated the perjured evidence would instead be ‘tested‘ in the civil courts. Perjury must only be tested in a Crown Court.
The Judge, David Knifton, rejected much of the supporting evidence that would have proven perjury, thus, resulting in the Judge finding in favour of the Chief Constable.
David Knifton has self-declared that in his full-time role as a Barrister, he acts on behalf of the police and works in Chambers, notorious as ‘go to’ chambers used by police. This highlights a serious conflict of interest in the Judiciary.
Submissions have been made to the IOPC that it should be an independent investigation as the OPCC had made it clear they do not want to investigate the Chief Constable, and that they did not believe it (perjury) was a crime.
An investigation by the OPCC would be anything but fair and impartial.
This must be an open, transparent and independent investigation into the former Chief Constable if the UK Justice system is to be taken seriously.
Be the first to comment