IOPC Lawyer Frances Gwilliam’s absurd comments

A Lancashire police informant (Paul Turner from Skelmersdale) , lied on oath in a UK Court and so far Lancashire police, the IOPC and even the Judiciary are reluctant to prosecute him even though the Court say a crime has been committed!

Lets look at the facts.

Paul Turner, is (or was) a police informant for Lancashire police.  This is evidenced by his own Industrial Tribunal, and by an audio recording of a Lancashire police constable, Danny Gardner.

Turner committed Perjury, an offence against the state, contrary to Section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911.  He said he was not a police informant and that he had never written anywher ethat he was a police informant or told anyone that he was a police informant.

Turner was a witness for the police brought prosecution against me, no CPS involvement in the prosecution decision.

I was acquitted of all charged and subsequently sued Lancashire police for the Malicious Prosecution.

Summary of Facts.

Turner is a Lancashire police informant. Lancashire police brought a prosecution (without CPS advice) that was later accepted by Lancashire police as malicious. Turner worked for Lancashire police (as a snitch), and was a witness for them.  All of this is fact.

Now, in a recent comment by Frances Gwilliam, who is an inhouse lawyer for the IOPC (so biased), she says there is NO conflict of interest for Lancashire police to consider if a crime was committed by Paul Turner, the Police Informant who LAncashire police has a duty of care to protect.

IOPC Comments by Frances Gwilliam

The grounds upon which your previous judicial review was conceded are irrelevant in the context of this judicial review application. The IOPC refutes that either decision in any way sought to protect Lancashire Constabulary and also rejects your assertion that there was or is a bias towards Lancashire Constabulary.

So, the fact that I had to take the IOPC to Judicial Review to have their decision quashed, where they refused to direct Lancashire police to investigate one of their police officers who had lied on oath and another who withheld crucial evidence crucial to a court case does not give any indication of ‘bias’ to the police is ludicrous!


You also comment Lancashire Constabulary should not have investigated this complaint due to the fact you perceive they have a conflict of interest. It is reasonable and proper, as well as being a legal requirement, for police forces to have processes in place to handle complaints and, if certain tests are met, to refer these to the IOPC. It would be inappropriate for a police force to have to instruct a different force to investigate a complaint every time a complainant made an allegation that there was a conflict of interest.

This one is the icing on the cake. Frances Gwilliam says that Lancashire police investigating their own Police Informant, who was a Lancashire police witness, who lied on oath in the knowledge of Lancashire police does not raise a conflict of interest.

In reference to the comments by District Judge McGarva, she says;

The comments that you describe simply suggest that it was the view of DJ McGarva that some of the elements of the offence of perjury were “prima facie” made out, based on the information provided to him.

For the purpose of clarity, the specific comment by District Judge McGarva was

Some of elements of the offence are clearly prima-facie present; there is evidence, albeit which may be subject to challenge, that statements were made at the trial in Chorley Magistrates’ Court which were false and which were made wilfully.

Frances Gwilliam is, in my opinion, intentionally abusing her position as a lawyer and an employee of the IOPC from ensuring that the police are held to account for not doing what they are paid to do, that is, investigate crimes and prosecute those committing them, instead, hiding behind excuses.

The Judge says “THERE IS EVIDENCE (of perjury)”


Frances Gwilliam also suggests that the number of times that I have had to complain to Lancashire police about their protection of a Police Informant is in some way evidence of an abuse of the complaints system.






About Paul Ponting 55 Articles
Active campaigner and part-time journalist targetting Police Corruption and Misconduct


  1. Paul in response to your comment on the 16 August, I gave you the name of a Scam Company this is one of 4 Scam Companies. The one I gave you have not returned their accounts on time this is a criminal offence, most of the filing including the False Accounts that were used to Obtain a Bounce Back loan and other false information were submitted knowing the information was False. This is also a very serious crime with a penalty of up to 2 years in Prison. I first informed the Crime Commissioner at the time Clive Grimshaw and the Chief Constable at the time CC Andy Rhodes who I am told was recruited into the Police by a friend of mine. I have a long list of senior Police Officers Including Professional Standards and 4 Staff at the Crime Commissioner’s office who don’t want the long list of Victims which include a crash for cash Victim.
    you asked me for proof it is on the Companies House Web Site for all the Public to view within 30 seconds. I have a list is victims if you want it Paul you are welcome to it it includes a Retired JP. When I recently told Sergeant 3833 Amy Ward about the crimes she had no choice to say that all these crimes were covered by Civil Law and should be reported to Citizens Advice!!!!! and refuse to talk to my I told her to report the to the Chief Constable Chris Rowley who I have copied in throughout his time in the job ????? Paul I would like to work with you to expose these Officers.

  2. My comments are awaiting moderation how will that assist victims of serious Crime
    It is me saying these true statements no one else surly this is my write under freedom of speech Sergeant Amy Ward contacted me I told her all the serious crimes she hag no choice but to direct me to citizens Advice are expose a list of currupt officers she refuses to communicate with I was told by Professional Standards to report a crash for cash to citizens advice?! When I spoke to Ian Dickenson and asked him if he would like a list of victims since I had a meeting ith Ian Snowden he panicked and they say they will NOT respond to my communications I have spoken to Paul Ponting as I want to help him and the victims to expose how bad the corruption is at Lancashire Police some proof is on display on Companies house that is why I don’t mind speaking the truth I have not told the victim of the crash for cash yet I am trying to give it to the Police who don’t want it! One of the victims is taking antidepressants through their actions! Please help me to expose them? I have all the proof I have no doubt I am one of many!

    • Everyone has a right to free speech, no one has an automatic right to post on this website. I do recall speaking to you, I saw no offence in relation to the link you sent regarding Companies house. I am all up for holding police to account but I saw no proof.

  3. Had a good result I have just found out one of many victims of serious crime,it is the victim of the crash for cash. It will upset the Crime Commissioner Ian Snowden, Ian Dickenson and the Chief Constable Chris Rowley and there currupt officers. Please don’t have nightmares there are a lot of honest police officers out there, I was just unlucky, most can be seen in 30 seconds by anyone!!!


  4. IOPC are a waste of tax payers money and time, I have been trying to complain through them about the way I have been trying to inform them about very serious crimes past and current sadly for the current victims who will find out when it is to late it also includes a crash for cash crime and they keep telling me. including Professional Standards at Hutton Headquarters to report it to Citizens Advice. Why does the Chief Constable and the previous Chief Constable and the Police Commissioner allow this to

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.