Private Prosecution application against former Chief Constable of Lancashire police

Update: 15/2/2022.  The private prosecution application is on hold awaiting the outcome on other avenues investigating the same matter.  Once exhausted, the private prosecution application will continue.

Today, 14/1/2022, an application for a private prosecution against the former Chief Constable of Lancashire police and one current serving police officer has been prepared for delivery to the Magistrates Court, seeking a summons for criminal prosecution.

Private prosecutions by individuals are preserved by section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act (POA) 1985 where it says;

6 Prosecutions instituted and conducted otherwise than by the Service.

(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, nothing in this Part shall preclude any person from instituting any criminal proceedings or conducting any criminal proceedings to which the Director’s duty to take over the conduct of proceedings does not apply.

(2) Where criminal proceedings are instituted in circumstances in which the Director is not under a duty to take over their conduct, he may nevertheless do so at any stage.

The application will not be heard in the Lancashire Courts as advised by Preston Listings Office who kindly sent the following advice in response to an application request;

A criminal allegation has been vehemently pursued against the former Chief Constable under the Common Law Offence of Misconduct in Public Office after he refused to investigate a criminal offence of falsified evidence submitted by one of his police constables in his own civil application he brought.

The offence of Misconduct in Public Office is made out when

a public officer acting as such;

wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;

to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder;

without reasonable excuse or justification.

It is alleged by refusing to undertake his lawful duty to investigate a crime, in favour of his own ‘civil application‘ is Misconduct in Public Office.  The former Chief Constable, who was the Claimant stated that the alleged perjured evidence ‘must be tested in the civil proceedings‘, when in fact, allegations of Perjury are a criminal offence and there is no allowance within the Perjury Act 1911 to allow perjured evidence to be ‘tested’ in Civil proceedings.

Absurdly, the Claimant rejected the criminal allegation, to allow him to test known falsified evidence for his own Civil Application hearing.

The former Chief Constable has been rigorously protected from even a preliminary investigation by Andrew Snowdon, the Police and Crime Commissioner who has refused to even consider any readily available evidence.

Ian Dickinson, on delegated authority of Andrew Snowden, refused to review any evidence and then deemed there was ‘no indication‘ of wrongdoing.

This was initially upheld by the IOPC, but then, in a mysterious turn of events, changed their mind. (now under Judicial Review)

The falsified evidence was submitted by a current serving police constable in support of the former Chief’s civil application as a signed statement of truth. The falsified statement can be proven to a criminal threshold that the constable knew, or ought to have known that it was false.

Even in the knowledge that the statement was reported to the police as false, the constable failed to retract it.  The signed statement of truth was submitted to the Court and the Constable swore on oath that the evidence was factual when giving live evidence.

The constable then openly and intentionally mislead the Court with live evidence, that was ‘Material to the Proceedings‘ (a requirement of The Perjury Act 1911).

The private prosecution application is seeking a summon for a charge against the former Chief Constable for Misconduct in Public Office contrary to Common Law.  The charge being sought against the serving constable is Perjury contrary to the Perjury Act 1911.

This action has been bought out of duress due to a failed police investigation and apparent abuse of the Complaints process by the police and the IOPC.  The IOPC has previously conceded to a Judicial Review relating to Lancashire police for making an illegal decision supporting them.  This relates to another allegation of Perjury for which a private prosecution is also under consideration.

I expect that my application for a private prosecution, although a legal right, will likely result in some retaliation from Lancashire police as they have made it abundantly clear (over the past 8 years) that they will attempt to prosecute me maliciously if they get a chance.


If are able to assist in the funding of this legal action, donations can be made via

1 Comment

  1. I have information and evidence against both Chief Constables of how they have and have been curupt working for the Police Force. I can prove this in 30 seconds phone me on 07734776840 and I will show you on the Internet in 30 seconds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.