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.
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.