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!
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!
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!