The Police and Crime Commissioner for

Humberside
Pacific Exchange
40 High Street
Hull
HU1 1PS

Xxxx Yyyyy
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
XX00 0XX

11/05/16

Dear Mr Hunter

Re: Negligence in Humberside Polices handling of crime allegations

I wrote to Mr Grove with optimism in January 2013 believing that with Humberside Police being
held to account by an elected Commissioner, the public would have a more effective means of
seeking redress than when the Police Authority was responsible.
It was apparent soon enough that the elected Commissioner didnt have the powers to do what
the public perhaps believe he could. Either that, or the route of least resistance was taken, which
in my case was to suggest considering civil redress as a remedy for concerns raised about the
Chief Constable failing to address the corruption in handling fraud allegations i.e., refusing to
investigate and subsequently mishandling complaints and appeals.
It is illogical when you consider the forces limited resources that at the same time an unpaid
taxpayer has supplied concrete evidence to prove a crime for that person to be fobbed-off and
lied to with appeals prolonging over several years with no substance to back up negative
outcomes when a decision has eventually been made. The fact that this is happening raises the
question of whether the force has its hands tied, to the point where an investigation into local
government is a no go area, i.e., the force operates on a discriminatory basis.
None of these issues have been resolved; rather further more serious matters have arisen since
where similarly there appears no end in sight, being again embroiled in continual dispute with
the force. The force is again failing to resolve the concerns with paperwork being diverted
through the same sham process where it is predicted that in a year or two the force will have
done nothing except cover for the authorities and to have added to the years of my time that the
police have already wasted.

The most serious matter concerns Humberside police stitching me up with fabricated evidence
(now having a criminal record and a 600+ fine to pay) for an offence I am innocent of. The
suspected motivation being that I had got on the wrong side of the police by highlighting matters
in which the force is complicit concerning substantial fraud. In relation to this there has been no
outcome and probably not even any steps taken to investigate the police officer complained
about for incitement of perjury over the 6 month period since the matter was formally reported.
Humberside police also refuses to record as a crime the reported incident, i.e., that submitted
about two witnesses lying in their witness statements.
Another matter arising relates to the force responding to a reported crime (perjury to defraud) by
stating that such a crime, one punishable as an offence whether occurring in criminal or civil
proceedings, was a civil matter. North East Lincolnshire Council obtained a liability order for
non-payment of council tax and evidence is held that it lied to the court in a witness statement to
do so and consequently costs awarded to the council were obtained fraudulently.
A request was made for the matter to be escalated for the attention of the Chief Constable in
order that the anticipated dissatisfaction of a subsequent decision would be subject to external
scrutiny rather than the force investigating itself. The force proceeded regardless and the matter
dealt with under the Local Resolution process with the outcome (13 January 2016) stating that
the issues may be appeal points that could be raised at any subsequent appeal hearings and that
the force did not investigate allegations of perjury unless a request to do so comes from the
court.
These were spurious statements because the matter is criminal and not something you can appeal
to another judge in civil proceedings. In any event, the Crown Prosecution Service's website
states that the police do not have to be instructed by the court to investigate perjury.
Cases Involving Allegations of Perjury
Where a judge or magistrate believes that some evidence adduced at trial is perjured s/he
can recommend that there should be a police investigation.
The absence of such recommendation does not mean that there is no justification for an
investigation.

The outcome of Local Resolution process has been appealed with the paperwork submitted 25
January 2016 but six months from the original complaint being made on 12 November 2015
there is still no outcome or any update.
When a member of the public is deemed to have committed an offence (even without or with
fabricated evidence) a criminal prosecution is it instituted. However, when it's a council officer
committing perjury to defraud a member of the public even when there is concrete evidence, the
force falls over itself to protect the council officer from the justice system.
My evidence goes far beyond what would be required to prove the perjury case against the
council, yet a blind eye is turned to that crime. On the other hand, the CPS gets away with
having successfully secured a prosecution against me on fabricated evidence that even an
untrained person would have spotted inconsistencies.
It is no revelation to declare that police officers having to investigate their colleagues fuels the
problem, but there is a systematic abuse of the complaints and appeal process that needs to be
escalated for the attention at the highest level. There must be some action which can be taken
which can make an impact on reforming the dysfunctional process. Though the process is
governed by statutory procedures and for that reason outside interference is restricted, the
existence of the statutory complaints process should not be seen by the force as an excuse for
unaccountability, even though that is in effect what the process enables.
It can not have been parliament's intention when legislating the relevant Act, that all the concerns
of the public should be opposed as a matter of course merely on account of there being a
complaint and series of appeal processes. There comes a point when an outside body should
consider it appropriate to intervene, if not the appeal process, at least the abuse of it.
It appears you have been elected on what could be interpreted to be an undertaking, in part, to
root out the corruption within Humberside Police. I would like therefore to see evidence of that
with an investigation into the (invisible) Chief Constable's failings who has apparently in order
to make life easy for herself, adopted the Ostrich approach rather than confronting failings and
providing the public who pay her salary the service theyve paid for.

Yours sincerely