And so the battle would continue!!!
On 14th December 2017 Jane sent the following to DS Nicholas Husbands in respect of her email sent to the Chief Constable on 29th November. She had not received a response.
And DS Husbands’s response…..
And then this…..
And Jane received this letter from Detective Chief Inspector Paley.
So, DCI Mel Paley considered that reasonable grounds existed to complete a criminal investigation. But she doesn’t say why. Perhaps she felt that she had reached a rank at which point she didn’t need to justify her decision.
She said that the investigation strategy was set to use the most effective and least intrusive investigation activity to prove or disprove the officer’s involvement in any criminal matters. What planet is this officer on? They served warrants on the victim’s house for Gods sake! How much more intrusive could it have got? And what did she mean by, ‘involvement in any criminal matters’. Sounds like they were trying to find something criminal to pin onto the Hunt Investigation Team. Why would that be then?
And isn’t it reassuring to hear her say, ‘ A court will hear an application and review the information within to assure themselves that reasonable grounds to believe the issuing of a warrant is necessary under the provisions of Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). Because no doubt as the senior investigating officer, before writing this letter she would be completely satisfied that the application for the warrant was completed correctly and in no way could have mislead the court……wouldn’t she?
Because, of course, a court could only assure themselves that reasonable grounds to believe the issuing of a warrant is necessary, if and only if the court were not mislead in any way in the application!!
But, what’s this, ‘Unfortunately I cannot share material within the information of the warrant application on Public Interest Grounds’
So, I guess we’d never know just what the court were or were not told!! Well, we will see about that!!
DCI Paley, it seems to me that you’ve been taking the same corporate bullshit pills as Superintendent Susan THOMAS. If no one has told you to date, I am telling you that, having never met you before, on reading this letter it is clear that you believe your rank, training and accreditation is enough to put you above having to justify the actions of you and that of your officers. You are a disgrace to the uniform that you probably believe you are above having to wear.
We will see if there is information within the warrant application that cannot be shared on ‘public interest grounds’. And after that, I challenge you to justify why you have written this dismissive and unapologetic letter to my wife.
Yes folks, unfortunately you are seeing for yourselves how high ranking officers, who will make decisions on the most serious of offences, behave and think. Does it instil you with confidence in the police service?
Anyway, my Appeal against the finding of misconduct.
What would happen?
4 thoughts on “(48) Appeal against finding of misconduct”
Is it not incredible that so many high ranking police officers have had some input into what had begun ad a relatively straightforward and simple offence, the likes of which is dealt with every day by a single uniformed constable. If the animal was a cat, dog, horse, cow or any other you could think of it would raise very little attention, especially from theCrown Prosecutions Service who after all, are only there to mediate,moderate and ensure that justice is applied fairly. But when foxes and huntsmen are involved it becomes an entirely different matter. This is now highly emotive and a real thorn in the foot of the establishment, the people who run this Country. How dare these sorts of people try to upset our traditions, our sport, our heritage. So these sorts of people must be stopped at all costs. Bring out the heavies, Special Branch, MI6, and pur these sorts of people back in their place.
I wonder how much of the establishment is now lined up against one single police constable just doing his job?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder why Mr Bangham did not reply to Jane, maybe he was busy. Wonder if his boss , PCC, would have replied if he had been sent the letter. Poor Louise & Mel, they start off as most of their colleagues do by saying, “apologies for the delay in getting back to you”
Must be the number one line in the “book of excuses”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard, I truly commend your fortitude in such a protracted assault on your character, professional and personal life. It would’ve been so much easier to just sit back and let the bastards win.
Occasional snippets over the years made it apparent that hunts have an unhealthy relationship with our justice system, but I was always shy of ‘drinking the coolaid’ of conspiracy theories that it was that deeply rooted and commonplace. Your account however leaves no doubt the corruption and inequality of the application of law.
I wish you and your family continued strength, and hope you find some solace in sharing your story with a wider population as disgusted with your treatment as you must be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian Smith is correct. If PC Barradale Smith was investigating the multiple deaths of cockapoo puppies, thrown live into pens with packs of rottweilers, this would have been an open and shut case of dispicable animal cruelty with the perpetrators named, shamed and demonised by the tabloids, their readers branding the guilty as ‘scum’ and ‘filth,’ as is often the case with crimes against children and animals.
But because the ‘puppies’ fed live to much larger dogs were baby foxes (which incidentally are part of the canid/dog family), and the supects were hunters (who claim they have ceased ‘deliberately’ hunting live animals with dogs since the 2005 ban), all hell and many of its agents it seems, broke loose to protect – what every decent person in the country would consider – evil or depravity. They were going to stop, by any means possible it is clear, the perpetrators of this otherwise open and shut animal cruelty case being prosecuted and kill off the potentially explosive press attention the film footage would attract and the subsequent scrutiny into the lies surrounding ‘trail’ hunting.
I’d like to think racists, religious extremists and misogynists are weeded out during the training/recruitment stage for police personnel. Exactly the same should apply to applicants with links to or sympathies for bloodsports while hunting with dogs remains illegal in the UK. That West Mercia Police are happy to appoint officers who hunt to investigate hunters, and the CPS is happy to appoint hunters as their ‘wildlife crime leads,’ is, quite frankly, beyond satire.
LikeLiked by 1 person