(51) The Warrant Application

Assumptions, stereotypes and prejudice

‘We all carry assumptions, stereotypes and prejudices; they are part of our natural make up and relate to attitudes and the way we make sense of things. It is not unlawful to be prejudiced or to make assumptions or to carry stereotypes It is impossible not to!

The danger of applying these stereotypes, however, is that we use the minimum amount of information to make a number of assumptions.

The important point about our assumptions, stereotypes and prejudices is that they are related to our values. They are not unlawful. We are allowed to think what we like about anyone.

However, once we start taking action on our prejudices, we may be behaving in a discriminatory way and we might be breaking the law or working against our organisation’s policies’.

Gamier Yafai

——————————————————————————————————

.

On Thursday 11th January 2018 I received this letter.

And……within the bundle of papers accompanying this letter was a copy of the application to obtain the search warrants. I will refer you back to blog 39 as you read through this application!

Ok, so let’s go through this to see if you think the court was deliberately mislead into issuing these warrants. Because, if the court was deliberately mislead then surely the officers concerned would have to be dealt with for perverting the course of justice……..wouldn’t they?

So the application was made by Detective Inspector Justin TAYLOR, who, (possibly unlawfully) interviewed me on 20th September 2017. (Not to be confused with DI Martin Taylor who definitely unlawfully interviewed me in December 2016.

At the bottom of page 1, the criminal offences under investigation were (1) Malfeasance in a Public Office and (2) Breach of the Data Protection Act.

So my first question is, what evidence did they have for me breaching the Data Protection Act? Let’s look again at the history to date.

——————————————————————————————————

28/10/16 senior CPS Prosecutor Stephen Davies made a complaint to DI Martin Taylor about my conduct. (Disclosing confidential information). This was following information DI Martin Taylor claims he was given on 11th August 2016

08/11/16 DI Martin Taylor submits a report to Professional Standards Department asking them to review issues about me, including that I had disclosed ‘sensitive’ information to ‘Andy’

14/12/16 Wendy Elliott, (PSD), served me a notice for misconduct which stated, ‘If proven this would be a breach of the Data Protection Act’. (And so at this point PSD deemed that it was not criminal, but a misconduct issue. If they were looking at it criminally, I would have been served a notice for Gross Misconduct and not just Misconduct).

29/12/16 Having been cautioned, I sent my response to the allegation of misconduct to Wendy Elliott.

Late December Wendy Elliott phoned ‘Andy’ to ‘question’ her about this as well as whether or not I had met ‘Andy’ prior to her attending Ross Police Station on 28/05/16. When ‘Andy’ said that we had not met before this day, apparently Wendy Elliott made it obvious that she didn’t believe this!!

19/01/17 Civilian PSD Investigator, Wendy Elliott completed her report regarding this.

09/03/17 PSD Detective Chief Inspector Dave Goosen made an Appropriate Authority Determination that there was no case to answer for misconduct.

Stephen Davies appeals DCI Goosen’s decision to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

12/07/17 Christine Power from the IPCC recommends that under paragraph 27(3) of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 that I have a case to answer for misconduct in relation to a breach of the standard of professional behaviour regarding confidentiality, the case to answer to be determined at a misconduct meeting. (So again, not determined to be criminal).

——————————————————————————————————

Why on earth is there NO mention of the above in the warrant application and why was it being treated as a criminal offence when neither the DCI on PSD or the IPCC thought that it should be?

Now, let’s go to page 2. The Investigation. Again, interesting use of the ‘Anti-Hunt Investigation a Team’ from officers that had thoroughly reviewed the whole case! Having reviewed the case they should have known it was the Hunt Investigation Team!

And, again, nowhere does it mention that I had already been interviewed and given responses to the questions posed, including in a written statement. It makes it sound as though neither ‘Andy’ or I had been spoken to about the investigation before this time. This was crazy. I couldn’t believe it.

‘Evidence would suggest that the officer was in contact with the Anti- Hunt Investigation Team prior to the date of reporting to the Police, (Yes, it’s in my bloody pocket note book, which you had a copy of. I phoned ‘Andy’ on 26/05/16).…and may have been involved in the tasking and organising of the covert video recordings’. Where is there any evidence whatsoever of this? This is a lie.

‘The Officer has stated that the first time he met the Anti-Hunt Team was on the day of reporting the incident to the police however statements obtained from parties involved would suggest that he was in contact before this date bringing his honesty and integrity into question’. The clue is in this sentence. Just because you’ve contacted someone, that doesn’t mean you’ve met them!!! Again, I refer to my pocket note book entry, which these officers would have had.

‘In particular evidence of contact between the officer and Anti-Hunt Member ‘Andy’ is most concerning’. This would be the ‘evidence’ from Malcolm Watkins of Ross NFU, who sponsored the South Hereford Hunt and friends with one of the suspects at the time, Hunt Master Alex Price. He didn’t, in fact, have any evidence to support this accusation at the time, didn’t even name me and didn’t want to get involved any further. Is this the ‘reliable’ information that Code B of PACE requires?

‘The Officer has also shown members of the SHH the video recordings and given them details of the post mortem results’. I had already explained all of this and put it into a statement for court.

And DI Justin Taylor used the above information to obtain a warrant! Really!!

And they were looking for Telecom and electronic equipment capable of communicating with members of the Anti-Hunt Team or Hunt Masters. Well you’ve seen how many emails so far had gone back and forth to sergeants, Inspectors, Chief Inspectors, Superintendents, Professional Standards etc………..and every one of them from me or Jane had a message at the bottom………..’sent from my iPad’.

Guess which was the only device they let us keep, having seized my phone and all of our other computers? That’s right….the iPad!!!!

Now look at the bottom of page 3. ‘At least one of the following four access conditions must apply’ (to get the warrant).

So DI Justin TAYLOR has stated to the court that, ‘entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced’ and ‘the purpose of a search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises can secure immediate entry to them’ He goes on to explain in the last sentence at the top of page 4, ‘Communications with persons in control of these items may result in the destruction of these items’.

So, what he is telling the court is that he believes I would be obstructive, refuse police entry to my house and destroy my phone and computers. Well, again DI TAYLOR, where the hell is your evidence for this. Anyone who has read this blog and seen all of the emails and meetings documented, will, I hope agree that I have cooperated fully throughout the process, remained professional despite everything that happened, have let officers into our home and more crucially I have ASKED for investigations to take place which were refused!!

Furthermore, did DI TAYLOR not think that, had I in fact done anything wrong and had I been the devious, bent copper he was portraying, that I might have got rid of any incriminating evidence following the unlawful interview in December 2016. Again I will unfortunately remind you good people that he and his colleagues are trusted with investigating incredibly serious crimes!! Does it give you ANY faith?

And remember Code B of PACE. The information to obtain the warrant has to be recent. 12 months old is not recent DI TAYLOR and you had a duty to tell the court this. You deliberately chose not to.

On page 5, section 8 you will see that the duty of disclosure section has simply been answered with, ‘No’. Underneath in section 9, DI TAYLOR has signed the declaration, ‘To the best of my knowledge and belief, a) this application discloses all the information that is material to what the court must decide, including anything that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining any of the grounds of the application, and b), the content of this application is true.

The last paragraph is fairly self explanatory.

Do you think the court would have granted the warrant, had DI Justin TAYLOR told the truth in this section and listed all of the disclosure issues?

Do you think DI Justin TAYLOR deliberately mislead the court in order to get the warrant, no matter what?

Do you think DI Justin TAYLOR perverted the course of justice?

We’re West Mercia Police just going to protect him, as a senior officer?

Remember, a warrant was also served on one of the victims in this case, a victim who had exposed serious criminal activity at the South Hereford Hunt kennels by hunt staff. A victim, who was hoping that on THIS occasion, she and her colleagues would not be stereotyped and discriminated against by the police and CPS!


Post Navigation:

4 thoughts on “(51) The Warrant Application

  1. The inaccuracies,vagaries, assertions, untruths and downright lies contained in the warrant application show an astounding degree of incompetence in the officers involved – Or a malicious ploy by their masters to find some dirt on Richard by hook or by crook, and of course it all eventually ended in dismal failure. The Chief Constable, Mr Anthony Bangham,was obviously fully aware, and probably issuing the instructions, and he should be held to account.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’d like to share with you all some information about my family. I’ve been doing family research for many years and have burnt the midnight oil researching everything and anything that I could find. I’ve done all the usual stuff, talked to parents, relations, friends, churches, schools etc attempting to glean every scrap of information and evidence. One key person in the family is my maternal Grandmother. Apparently she held all the knowledge within the family. I’ve got photos of her so I know what she looks like, I have some of her personable possessions, in actual fact I know EVERYTHING about her BUT I never met her…. she died before I was born….this is what Richard ( had never met Andy until the meeting at Ross Police Station) has been trying to tell PSD, CID and every senior officer BUT they continually choose to ignore his pocket book entries and his 100% openness to hand over every scrap of evidence that he has accrued.

    Let’s get back to my hero, my Granny. All of the information I had on my Granny was old news, i’ve known all of it for years. BUT a few months ago I found out that there was a hidden skeleton, she had an illegitimate child 😳😳😳😳. That news, which is NEW NEWS has changed quite a bit of my previous evidence.

    So why the hell were West Mercia using “old information” and NOT complying with the conditions of a Warrant.

    Once again, as so called professional officers, hang your heads in shame.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. DI Justin Taylor, DI Martin Taylor and PC Christine Watkins are looking like they have questions to answer about their conduct and ability to remain professional, impartial and trustworthy in cases which may challenge their private prejudices and undeclared allegiances to various social groups or individuals. Given that hunting foxes, hares and deer with dogs has been illegal for 15 years, serving police officers – of whatever rank – should not be riding with so called ‘trail hunts,’ which have no relation to drag hunts and, as a mounting body of evidence shows, are routinely breaking the law by chasing and killing live animals with dogs, calling it an ‘accident’ whenever captured on camera.
    Neither should police officers be giving hunters accused of animal cruelty special dispensation by defining them in opposition to so called ‘antis,’ which appears to be a deliberate attempt to portray those who actively campaign against the (illegal) chasing and killing of animals for sport as pantomime villains. The majority of people in the country, including those in rural areas, do not agree with and are in fact appalled by the practice of hunting and killing animals, especially fox cubs, with packs of dogs.
    Protecting certain individuals or groups from prosecution or turning a blind eye to their crimes simply because of their links to those in positions of power or influence in the local or political community, is the very essence of corruption. When it happens, it undermines trust in our law enforcement agencies, institutions and the very rule of law, without which society wouldn’t be able to function.
    It remains to be seen whether WM chief constable was simply being a chief constable, overwhelmed by paperwork and lack of detail, and instilling more trust in his staff than he perhaps should, or whether something else was influencing West Mercia Police’s approach to this case.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. sadly this is not a surprise. Richard – I have already in comments explained to you why your blog rings such bells with me as I was well and truly stitched up by North Yorkshire Police. This particular blog entry – also rings many bells. NYP also froze all our assets, those of me and of my wife. When we saw the application to the court to freeze our assets I hit the roof – it was all lies, assumptions, generalisations and, in essence, a total load of bollocks. I complained to the solicitor whose comment was: ‘The thing is, in these applications they can say just what they like – and they do. By the time you find out, it is simply too late to do anything as they have got what they want.’ Your experience with this search warrant is a perfect parallel

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to briansmith41 Cancel 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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: