NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Humberside Police
Professional Standards Department
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull HU55SF

Tel: 01482 578133

Serving our communities to Switchboard: 101
make them safer and stronger
This matter is being dealt with by:

Caseworker - Mr T Walmsley
psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk
www.humberside.police.uk

CO/00498/17 18 December 2018

Mr Gt" - ..•..,.
- ~ •••
{)S~ ;er
Grims-by ~_
North East Lincolnshire
DN32 (v..

Dear Mr G " ~.," I

With regard to the above complaint which you made on 14 July 2017 by way of email
which had attached to it a completed Complaint form dated similarly. Following a review
of this form three allegations were formally recorded under the Police Reform Act 2002
as amended by the Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act 2012.

I have included a copy of how your complaint was recorded. This is a brief summary of
your complaint and will not necessarily cover all the details that you have provided us
with.

As you are aware this matter has been subject of various communications between
yourself and Humberside Police Professional Standards Department and also the
Humberside Police Appeal Body. There has obviously been some confusion caused by
administrative errors within letters sent to you for which I can only apologise.

The Humberside Police Professional Standards Department are considering

disapplying the three allegations recorded under this complaint reference which would
mean that the complaint would no longer be dealt with in accordance with the Police
Reform Act 2002 and in this instance would mean that the matters would not be
investigated.

I will deal with the grounds upon which any decision to disapply your complaint would
be based.

In relation to allegation 1

The complainant believes a crime has been committed against him by an officer for
failing to record his report as a Crime, and instead referring the matter as a Complaint
against Police.
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
This allegation is considered to be a vexatious complaint and also an abuse of the
complaints system. The reasons for this are as follows:-

On 26/02/17 you contacted Humberside Police and recounted your dealings with two
members of Humberside Police staff on the morning of 22 December 2015. You
expressed your concerns about the legality of their actions. An explanation was given
to yourself by PC 5'7 Slake with regard to the powers of the Warrant Officers who were
members of the Humberside Police. As a consequence you were fully aware that the
actions of the two Warrants officers did not amount to a crime. You indicated that you
did not accept this view and still wished to complain.

This complaint is considered to be without foundation as you have been given an

explanation by PC 57 Slake as to the lawfulness of the Warrant Officers actions.

Additionally it is considered that it is an abuse of the complaints system in that you quite
clearly indicate during your call to the Police that the reason for making your call at that
time was that it was linked to a miscarriage of justice that you were pursuing on a full
time basis with various public bodies and organisations. It is considered that this is
therefore a manipulation of the complaints system to try to influence another process
and therefore the complaint should not be allowed to progress.

In relation to allegation 2

The complainant believes that the officer investigating his complaint was not expeditious
and intentionally delayed his investigation so denying him lawful redress in the courts
due to the effect of Statute Barring.

This allegation is considered to be a vexatious complaint in that it is made without

foundation, is oppressive and additionally an abuse of the complaints process.

Within your complaint you state that you believed that an offence of perjury has been
committed though you do not offer any evidence to support this assertion. This matter
has previously been dealt with within complaint 432/15 the outcome of which you
recently appealed. This appeal was not upheld by the IOPC. It is considered that this
aspect of your allegation is without foundation.

You go on to say that the delay in dealing with your complaint has denied your right to
legal remedy. The fact that you had an ongoing complaint against Police did not in any
way prevent you from launching any legal proceedings you so wished. Again therefore
this aspect of this allegation is considered to be without foundation.

In relation to allegation 3

The complainant states the Investigating Officer was complicit with the appropriate
authority in delaying the investigation, so denying him the opportunity for lawful redress
in the courts due to the effect of Statute Barring.

Again you allege that Inspector Parsons in delaying dealing with your complaint was
complicit with the Appropriate Authority in abusing their positions for the purpose of
achieving a detriment to you. As outlined above this aspect is considered as vexatious
and oppressive The head of the Department is not responsible for every decision that
is taken within the Department or by investigating officers when dealing with complaints
allocated to them and therefore it is considered that this allegation, being without
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
foundation, has only been made in order to cause harsh or wrongful treatment of those
subject of it.

However, prior to making a final decision whether or not to disapply your complaint I
invite you to make any representations as to why you believe that your complaint should
be investigated and not disapplied.

Please make any representations within 29 days from the date of this letter. The 29th
day is 16 January 2019. If representations are made these will be considered and you
will be updated as to whether your complaint will be disapplied or dealt with.

If you do not make any representations within 29 days from the date of this letter a
disapplication will be applied for and a decision made as to whether any action will be
taken with regards to your complaint. Again you will be updated with this decision.

:t~e~
MrWalmsley
Caseworker
 Prof~R9nal

Complainant Report

Case Reference CO/00498/17 Case Recorded 26/07/17

COMPLAINANT

Title Mr Address --~

Surname r
-....-~-_.- ~--------

North East Lincolnshire

Forenames
DN3~ _

ALLEGATION(S)

No 1
Recorded 26/07/17
IYQg Other neglect or failure in duty
Location Hessle, Hull
Allegation The complainant believes a crime has been committed against him by an officer
Allegation Result for failing to record his report as a Crime, and instead referring the matter as a
Complaint against Police.

No 2
Recorded 26/07/17
IYQg Other neglect or failure in duty
Location Grimsby
Allegation The complainant believes that the officer investigating his complaint was not
Allegation Result expeditious and intentionally delayed his investigation so denying him lawful
redress in the courts due to the effect of Statute Barring.

No 3
Recorded 26/07/17
IYQg Corrupt practice
Location Priory, Hull
Allegation The complainant states the Investigating Officer was complicit with the
Allegation Result appropriate authority in delaying the investigation, so denying him the opportunity
for lawful redress in the courts due to the effect of Statute Barring.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Page 1 of 1