The IOPC have today, UPHELD two parts of a review which confirmed that the PCC, Clive Grunshaw, was wrong to take No further Action into an investigation of corruption made against the Chief Constable.
After making a promise on Live BBC radio, Clive Grunshaw, the Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), promised to investigate allegations of corruption against the Chief Constable.
After making this promise on live radio, a substantive complaint was made to the PCC against the Chief Constable, however, the PCC quickly brushed it under the carpet saying he will take, No Further Action (NFA)
This refusal to investigate a serious allegation of corruption, that the Chief Constable Perverted the Course of Justice, was appealed to the IOPC.
The IOPC stated;
“In relation to allegation 2 and 3, your review is upheld and the Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner is directed to conduct an investigation into your complaint”
Allegation 2
In March 2020, the Chief Constable, brought a claim against you for your criticisms of some Lancashire police officers. You allege that the Chief Constable knowingly allowed perjured evidence to be used as ‘statements of truth’ by numerous officers, namely DC Hxxx, Sgt Oxxx, and Inspector Jxxx and has therefore conspired to pervert the course of justice.
Allegation 3
You allege that the civil claim brought against you by the Chief Constable, was unlawful and therefore an abuse or fraudulent use of public money.
The Chief Constable of Lancashire police is under investigation for allegations of corruption.
Supporting evidence in the matter is that the ‘recorder’ (the part time judge) in the civil hearing, QC David Knifton, is a full time barrister one who acts for the police in his private paying capacity.
His Chambers is notorious as the go to chambers for ‘police legal defence‘.
QC David Knifton has brought shame on Exchange Chambers where he works, the majority of barristers there would be enraged to know he acted unethically bringing their Chambers into disrepute. (assuming they are ethical)
This raises suspicions that the Chief Constable / Judge knew, or ought to have known that this was a serious conflict of interest and the civil hearing was flawed.
Be the first to comment