(44) Misconduct Papers. Exposing the missing link. (4th Conduct Notice)

On Monday 13th November 2017, DS Nicholas Husbands and PSD Officer, Wendy Elliot attended my home address. DS Husbands served me with the following Misconduct notice.

So, let’s look at the wording used, ‘you spoke to ‘Andy’, a witness in the case and discussed elements of that meeting with her’. Does this make it clear, what it was I was supposed to have done? Let’s see what the Home Office guidance states……….

2.144. The notice should clearly describe in unambiguous language the particulars of the conduct that it is alleged fell below the standards expected of a police officer.

What other papers were in the bundle?

Surely, the only thing that would have undermined the prosecution case is the prejudicial language used by Stephen Davies. That was the whole point of my attempting to raise the protected disclosure!! What ‘confidential’ information were they talking about? It made no sense!

‘Disclosure to the complainants’. (Plural)! Who else had I supposedly disclosed information to?

And they again sent me a copy of the complaint from Stephen Davies.

But wait. Look at the top paragraph on the second page of the complaint above. This had been removed when Wendy Elliot sent me this complaint previously. (Blog 18). Why was that do you think? Perhaps this is why!

Acting Inspector Emma Whitworth discussed the case with Public Prosecutor, Stephen Davies At his request on the day after the press release to the media on 23rd June 2016. I was the officer in the case at this time and no one else knew the full details of it. She could therefore only have discussed with Stephen Davies what had been on the news. How could Stephen Davies have made a fair and impartial ‘initial assessment’ of the case, based only on what he had seen on TV? Why did he ‘raise concerns at this stage’, not having seen ANY of the evidence? And HOW DARE he write , ‘and my concern over the officer’s professionalism based upon previous experience’. He did not back this up with any evidence and I had certainly never been spoken to about my ‘professionalism’ in respect of Stephen Davies previously. He clearly had only ONE agenda and I think that was to make this case go away.

And so where was Professional Standards integrity when they removed this paragraph previously? Why didn’t they question Mr Davies about his remarks? The Emperor’s New Clothes is a story for children, not guidelines on how staff in PSD should behave!

DI Taylor’s pocket note book

So, the above is a copy of DI Martin Taylor’s statement, made after Stephen Davies’s ‘complaint’ on 28th October 2016 and before he sent a report about it to Professional Standards on 8th November. Let’s have a look at it. Near to the top of the second page he writes, ‘As part of this introduction he made the comment along the lines that it was apparent that we had never investigated Hunt saboteurs before’. At the bottom of the same page he writes, ‘This was significant statement as it was virtually word for word what Stephen Davies had said’.

My question for you DI TAYLOR is, if you can’t remember exactly what Stephen Davies said in the first place, how could ‘Andy’ have repeated it virtually word for word?

In any case, I have always remained clear about what he said, ‘“Have you had any experience in dealing with these sort of people before”? I replied, “What sort of people”? Mr Davies said, ” Animal rights people”.

That is what Stephen Davies said. It seems that, having had the opportunity to discuss this issue, DI Martin Taylor, DS Wells and Stephen Davies have a ‘preferred’ account of what was said! I wonder why?

In paragraph 2 on page 2 of his statement, DI Martin Taylor states that it was in the meeting of 25th July that CID would be taking over the case. This is clearly not the case. It was in his email to me on 26th July that he informed me of this. It’s in print!

Lastly, you will see that DI Martin Taylor writes in his pocket note book that he was going to Abergavenny Police Station to see ‘Andy’. So……he obviously has his pocket note book on him. And yet, when he went to his car after the meeting with ‘Andy’, he says he records what he regards as evidential information in his ‘loose leaf A4 note book’.

Why wouldn’t he have written this in his pocket note book, as per West Mercia’s pocket note book policy? Perhaps because, he possibly didn’t actually document this at the time? I try to deal with this point later and get a very interesting but extremely worrying response from Professional Standards!

And the paper bundle contained part of a statement taken from ‘Andy’, after I was criminally interviewed in September.

So…….why was I going to a misconduct meeting? Did someone want to have a conduct issue against me on record so that the case would collapse. I think so.

And the missing link which finally started to make sense of what had happened and why it was continuing……………………

As part of the paper bundle given to me for my Misconduct Meeting I was given the following information…

‘In addition to this, during the later part of September 2016 it was brought to the attention of D.Insp Taylor that PC 1402 Christine Watkins had raised a concern with her Inspector, regarding an unidentified Officer. It transpires that her husband Malcolm works for the NFU and told her that ‘Andy’ was having an affair with a Police Officer. She was asked for more information but her husband did not want to get involved’.

I’ll leave that with you and if any explanation is needed as to why this information should have been treated with extreme caution, but wasn’t, that will be explained next!

Post Navigation:

9 thoughts on “(44) Misconduct Papers. Exposing the missing link. (4th Conduct Notice)

  1. I’ve been waiting for the NFU link with fox hunting and this case…it appears to be materialising. You only have to look into the background of our politicians (Simon Hart – Welsh Secretary) to see the NFU effectively have a chair around the cabinet table.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It is quite obvious that the crown prosecutions solicitor had his own agender and was used to getting his own way. In the eyes of all the senior police officers with whom he had contact none of his actions or words could possibly be wrong. A mere PC Plod was attempting to sabotage his grand plans and had to pay the price.
    Truly I find it so sad to see so many senior ranking police officers content to allow one of rheir own to be dealt with like a commodity, to be cast aside like an unwanted toy. Anyway Richard will survive, against all the odds,to prove that truth , honesty and integrity will prevail against bigotry and total contempt of the law. All you erstwhile guardians of the law examine your conciences!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. It is patently obvious that the Crown Prosecutions Solicitor,Mr Steven Davies , has his own agenda. Whether he is acting on his own initiative or under instruction is unclear, but he obviously has the respect and co-operation of many senior officers in West Mercia Police. Maybe there is a conspiracy to manipulate all things connected to fox hunting to demonise all objectors. But all police officers swear an oath on appointment to carry out their duties with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality .Are there really so many serving officers prepared to totally ignore all this and to carry out orders whether lawful or not. The plan here is to discredit Pc Barradale-Smith in order to achieve Mr Davis’s agenda. They will happily allow a good, honest and diligent police officer, one of their own, to be piloried, dicredited and slung out like an unwanted toy. Is that right Mr Bangham?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. As I’ve said previously, certain CPS and police personnel, who shared the same hunt-protection agenda in this case, are a disgrace to our criminal justice system, the idea of equality before the law, and their respective professions.
    There will be many reading this who will want to know whether those individuals who colluded in the smear campaign and career-assination drive against PC Barradale-Smith have been disciplined or struck-off and if not, why not? Their ability to conduct themselves in an honest, impartial and professional manner was clearly compromised by either professional cowardice or an obsessive personal and shared mission to protect the reputation of ‘trail hunting,’ which is simply illegal fox/hare/deer hunting with dogs under a deliberately misleading name.
    It has always been my view, that if you take pleasure in hounding a defenceless animal to its death (in the name of entertainment), then you probably wouldn’t object to hounding a fellow human – in this case an innocent, conscientious police colleague – to their demise or downfall either, if you saw them as a weak target (unfair game) and thought you could get away with it. That remains to be seen. But those who fare badly in this ugly tale of police incompetence/corruption, victimisation and vested interests, know who they are…

    Liked by 1 person

  5. it was also interesting to see in DI Martin Taylor’s statement page 2 of 3 that “within our own colleagues there will be people who support or oppose hunting” it is nice to know (not surprising) that some police are happy to support illegal activity

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, in blog 18 Public Prosecutor, Stephen Davies makes a similar comment which I too found strange. Why are we giving a damn about people who don’t agree with the law? I can’t think of any other crime where this would happen and to me, just shows how hunting was being protected by these so called professionals trying to ‘keep it quiet’.


  6. If Stephen Davies has been working as a lead prosecutor on wildlife crime for 10 years, why has he not asked himself – why hunt monitors & saboteurs have a inherent mistrust of the police (or would the fact that he shoots stop him from questioning such thoughts), are there any other crimes he prosecutes where he has prejudice towards the victim. Then he puts “trust must be earned” (well I think that is the part that answers his mistrust question). he can be proud that he has played his part in losing trust in the CPS, but the real sad thing is people who support illegal activity or try to cover it up only end up exposing it a bit more

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I totally agree and found it shocking that so many ‘professionals’ did not question, (or apparently worry about) his use of language. This is a classic example of how people in ‘power’ are able to get away with wrongdoing, unchallenged!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: