The IOPC upholds a complaint againt Bedfordshire police for allegations of Misconduct in Public Office

Two complaints were made against Bedfordshire police that Bedfordshire police refused to investigate and failed to uphold have now been upheld by the IOPC on appeal.

1. The complainant is alleging that Bedfordshire Police failed to investigate a criminal offence that was reported, which the complainant considers to be misconduct in public office.
   .
   
2. The complainant is alleging that Bedfordshire Police are using (abusing) taxpayers’ money to fund an irrational and illegal defence to a Judicial Review that was conceded after costs were accrued (on notice), showing an intent to call the complainants’ bluff.

An appeal to the IOPC over teh decision made bt Chris Tatum-Horsfield has been upheld.

Bedfordshire police now have to investigate themselves over the complaint, including the criminal allegations.   This investigation will be published in full on this website.

Summary of complaints

Complaint 1 relates to a website that was created labelling the complainant and his wife as paedophiles.

The website was regularly updated with horrific and malicious false comments.  The website remained public for 12 months. Bedfordshire police took no action to have it removed and took no action (including not interviewing) the suspect, George Vella, of Churchfield Road, Dunstable.

Bedfordshire police received an admission from the suspect the day after the crime was reported. The suspect confirmed (to the police) that he was aware that the criminal allegation against him had been made and the suspect went on to admit owning the domain and website.

Considering the grossly offensive material on the website, it was crimed as Malicious Communications by the police. The offence was 100% made out. However, Bedfordshire police failed refused to investigate, making excuses for the suspect.

Even though they had an admission from the suspect, they still didn’t interview him, they just allowed the website to remain in public and allowed the victims to be targeted for 12 months. During this time, the victim received death threats from others, one man was imprisoned.

The complaint is further supported in that Bedfordshire police’s failure to investigate and bring charges was followed by a successful Judicial Review, leading to complaint 2.

The Bedfordshire Chief Constable (Garry Forsythe) was put on notice that unless the unlawful decision not to investigate & prosecute the suspect was not reviewed, a Judicial Review application would be made.  A Judicial Review costs upwards of £10,000 just for the application stage.

Bedfordshire police were aware of these significant costs, and, in what is alleged to be a ‘gamble’ using taxpayers’ money, they ignored the victim.

The application was made, and all evidence and submissions were drafted by Counsel and submitted to the High Court.

On review of the application for permission to seek a Judicial Review, the High Court made the comments that the evidence was sufficient and that a prosecution was justified. the application for permission to seek Judicial Review was granted.

At this point, Bedfordshire police conceded, they chucked in the towel as they were not expecting the victim to go this far.  They knew legally they had no chance of success, so they agreed to concede and pay the victim’s costs.  These costs were paid from taxpayers’ money, not the police.  Basically, it was YOU that paid for this, out of your taxes

It is alleged that Bedfordshire police intentionally used taxpayers’ money to try to call the bluff of the victim, thinking they would not go to the significant costs of the High Court action.

The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire police at the time was Garry Forsythe.  He was responsible for all decisions that he delegated to others.  He was named on the High Court papers and was legally responsible for the waste of taxpayers’ money.

Due to the above background, the above two complaints were made.

Chris Tatum-Horsfield

 

Chris Tatum-Horsfield was the assigned Complaint handler assigned to ‘handle’ the complaint.

It is alleged that Chris Tatum-Horsfield intentionally hindered the complaint in an effort to protect the police, and if proven, this could amount to Misconduct in Public Office.

Chris Tatum-Horsfield is an ex-police officer of over 30 years (as stated on his now deleted  LinkedIn page) and arguably would be biased in favour of the police force he spent his life working for.  Why would he delete his LinkedIn profile, he obviously has something to hide!

Chris Tatum-Horsfield says on his LinkedIn profile:  “I have been a Police Officer for nearly 30 years. The majority of my service and current is as a Detective within investigations including approximately nine years of experience within Child Protection. I retired in January 2017 and since February 2017 I am now a civilian investigator within the Beds, Cambs and Herts Professional Standards Department.”

 

On Linked In, Chris Tatum-Horsfield is rubbing shoulders with the Deputy Chief Constable, this was at a time he was reviewing a complaint against the Chief Constable.

 

The IOPC has concluded that Chris Tattum-Horsfield has not acted reasonably or proportionately in his investigation into the complaint.

 

They say;

In consideration of the available evidence, I have concluded that the outcome of the complaint was not reasonable and proportionate and therefore the review is upheld.

The IOPC has gone on to say

I have concluded it is necessary for allegations one and two to be investigated. The scope of the investigation is for the police investigator to determine. Bedfordshire Police will contact you in relation to the investigation they are required to undertake. Please contact the force directly if you do not hear from them within 28 days.

The full IOPC outcome is below. All further police communication will be made public.