Clara Harriott may have made a very poor career decision, by signing off an IOPC outcome letter declining to direct an investigation into the former Chief Constable of Lancashire police, Andy Rhodes.
The background to this is previously posted here, but a short summary is as follows;
- Andy Rhodes, when acting as the Chief Constable of Lancashire police brought a civil application against me. His evidence bundle contained falsified evidence.
- Prior to the trial, the police were notified by a formal report that this ‘evidence‘ was falsified and amounted to Perjury, a serious criminal offence that police must investigate..
- The police refused to investigate the criminal offence, favouring the civil (non-criminal) action by Andy Rhodes.
- The falsified evidence was presented to the (already biased) judge, QC David Knifton… (who is not a judge but a barrister who represents police in his daily job).
- KC Knifton, after reviewing the (falsified) evidence, found in favour of the police.
The above are FACTS.
The evidence was reported to police as perjury before the trial, the police refused to investigate. After the trial, and via Subject Access Request, the evidence was proven to be false, the police also confirmed that they wrongly submitted a victim persona statement in place of a witness statement in an attempt to mitigate Perjury.
This ‘conduct’ was raised as a complaint to the Police and Crime Commissioner of Lancashire (Clive Grunshaw but now Andrew Snowden).
The Commissioner refused to record it as a complaint, I appealed to the IOPC who upheld the appeal and DIRECTED an investigation into the former Chief Constable, Andy Rhodes.
Now, that is where the coverup levelled up!
The crime commissioner then point-blank refused the direction of the IOPC and then asked them to make an ‘indication test‘.
What that is, is an almost rule in the IOPC Focus Guidelines that says the Appropriate Authority must review the complaint to see if there is any ‘indication’ of criminality or misconduct. Note this is only an indication, i.e., ‘any sign‘ there ‘may‘ be something unlawful… just a sign is all they need to find to make the investigation mandatory.
Given that the falsified statement by DC Harrison was reported as perjury (prior to the trial) as a criminal offence contrary to the Perjury Act, and the police REFUSED to investigate (in favour of their civil application) surely is a ‘sign’ of misconduct
Given the evidence of DC Karen Harrison submitted by Andy Rhodes was proven to be false IN COURT is surely a ‘sign’ of criminality
Given that further evidence was proven to be falsified after the trial by use of making Subject Access Requests is surely a sign of criminality and misconduct.
And given that this same now proven falsified evidence was the same as reported to the police as a criminal offence before the trial, is surely a further sign of misconduct and criminality?
Given that the former Chief Constable Andy Rhodes used upward of £40,000 of public money to pursue the civil action in the knowledge that evidence was falsified, surely that is a sign of misconduct?
Anyone with half a brain cell would see there is, at the very minimum an ‘indication‘ that there ‘may‘ be some criminality or misconduct in play. We assume Clara Harriott has more than half a brain so therefore her action is now alleged to be an attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice.
Clara Harriott of the IOPC has shown the levels they will go to protect the police.
Rather than look at any of the supporting evidence I presented (none of which was even considered by Clara Harriott while the rules clearly dictate should), the decision to investigate must be considered based on the allegation alone, no evidence is even required.
Clara Harriott confirmed in her letter that, the allegation alone would (if proven) justify criminal or misconduct proceedings, however…
The rules say that the allegation alone can be overruled if, any “contemporaneous real objective evidence” is found to the contrary.
Clara Harriott has (attempted) to use the part-time judge’s decision as contemporaneous real objective evidence.
The fact is that a judges ‘view’, that is based on falsified evidence, in any way be seen as contemporaneous real objective evidence.,
In fact, such a judgement would be deemed an unsafe verdict!
The bottom line is that Clara Harriott has stated that the IOPC will not investigate.
Well, I have news for Clara Harriott.
The High Court of London, will (in my opinion), take a very different view, in fact, I imagine the High Court will be enraged that Lancashire police knowingly submitted falsified and perjured evidence to a UK Court. The evidence did, on balance, mislead the Judicial system making the falsified evidence material to the proceedings and therefore meeting the ingredients of the Perjury Act 1911.
An appeal of the decision is in progress and a Judicial Review will follow if not upheld.
All material will be made public in due course.