I think it was in March, 2017 a police officer who knew of some of the events surrounding my investigation spoke to me. They asked if I had heard about the incident on 28th December 2016 at Castlemorton. I remembered seeing something about it on the National or local TV news.
The Ledbury Hunt had been out in the Castlemorton area, near Malvern. Hunt Monitors had discovered the Hunt terriermen, attempting to dig out a fox that had gone to ground in a sett. Angry at being disturbed they threatened the Hunt Monitors and following a short stand-off they filled in the hole they’d started to dig and then left.
The incident was captured on video and shown on the news. A Ledbury Hunt Terrier man was later charged with affray. However, the police officer told me that after the incident appeared on the news, Crown Prosecutor, (you guessed it), Stephen Davies contacted West Mercia Police once again in an attempt to become involved! Why would that be? This was not a ‘Wildlife’ crime! Why was he so interested in getting involved in offences that were connected to hunts? Mmmmm.
Fortunately, on this occasion he was told that his services would not be required.
So, where were we? I’d had a half hearted apology from my Chief Inspector who said there was no evidence of my having any affairs. I’d also been informed that the Misconduct case against me was being dropped but my grievance had not been upheld. On 27th March 2017 I sent this email to DS Nicholas Husbands in PSD..
Following the visit from CI Jones to our home address, I then sent this on 3rd April 2017…
DS Husbands’s very non-committal response!! Have a look and consider his first paragraph. West Mercia Police had questioned me about a suspected affair, thus bringing my marriage of nearly 30 years and my family life into my work life. West Mercia Police were then expecting me to exclude my wife from any further communications regarding this!! Well DS Husbands, if you have a partner, I want you to go home and ask them if the tables were turned, whether or not they would be OK with that?
What DS Husbands, who was working in the Professional Standards Department had apparently forgot to do before writing the above letter, was to read this 109 page Document!! (And lets not forget that DI TAYLOR previously worked in PSD too)!!
So… what is unsatisfactory performance? It is defined in Regulation 4 of the Police (Performance) Regulations as,
“ an inability or failure of a police officer to perform the duties of the role or rank he (or she) is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level”.
So… what did the list of 10 questions on Document 7 have to do with unsatisfactory performance? This was a nonsense. And even if it did, (which it didn’t)……………
Page 8 – Police Friend, Police officers have the right to consult with, and be accompanied by, a police friend at any interview during an investigation into misconduct and at all stages of the misconduct or performance proceedings.
Let’s go to page 59……
Let’s be clear, this was not a performance meeting, it was an unlawful interview. Everyone knew it, my sergeant, senior officers and Professional Standards. Not one of them had the integrity to deal with it as such. Shame on them all.
I would have to keep fighting, both the injustices of the senior officers who thought I would just roll over under the pressure, (or perhaps they thought I had Stockholm’s Syndrome), and also the battle with the haunting mental health condition being made progressively worse by the actions and inactions of the ‘institution’.
On 24th March 2017 Superintendent Susan Thomas replied to Jane’s email.
On 3rd April 2017 Chief Inspector Dean Jones attended my home address to meet with Jane and I. My ‘Fed rep1’ was also present. DS Husbands was supposed to also attend but didn’t turn up!
CI Jones started by saying that the absolute shame of all this is that it’s got you feeling the way you are. He said, what he really wanted to talk about is actually to try to give us some reassurance around, ‘you may have some concerns around how you perceived you’ve been dealt with’
He said he didn’t want to talk too much about the grievance or PSD side of it.
‘The trust that our job puts on all of our staff, You’ve been feeling a bit let down’. (Understatement of the year)!!!
I said that I was hoping DS Nick Husbands was going to be here. I wanted answers to my questions. I explained the events up to the interview on 05/12/16. I said it was an ambush. CI Jones said that he didn’t see it as an ambush but he could see how I might perceive it as such. He did say, in respect of the interview, ‘In my mind, that’s not the right way to go about it, and how you’ve been left feeling is the awful tragedy of this’.
CI Jones said that he thought some of this came down to personalities! He said that the questions that needed to be asked of me, he thought they could have been asked in a less formal and more sensitive way, but they did need to be asked.
He said that he knew that he would have done it differently, that we were all different and make mistakes along the way. He said that he thought Martin Taylor formalised it in a written response which was unfortunate. CI Jones said that in terms of formalising it in that way he thought DI TAYLOR probably ‘takes it from his previous role in professional standards’. He said that as far as he was aware Superintendent Sue Thomas was not made aware of how he was going to go about it and he didn’t think My Sergeant or DS Beth Wells was aware either. He said it was DI Taylor’s decision to conduct it in that way. He said that he could see how that very formalised way would make me feel bruised. He said that the questions needed to be answered but in a much more sensible, ‘humane’ way.
CI Jones said, ‘There is a way to deal with things. I just think that that’s the real unfortunate thing of this is that you feel as if you’ve been ambushed, because in terms of there being any agenda to ‘set upon you’ or deal with it in that way, absolutely not, it’s just what Martin Taylor had decided on that particular day. Could that have been done more sensibly, yes I think it could’.
Jane pointed out that in the grievance, Martin Taylor had written that in the same circumstances, He would do the same thing again.!!
CI Jones was asked why I was the only officer made to write in an email confirming I had not had an affair with ‘Andy’. He said, ‘In terms of Martin Taylor and Beth Wells and Nigel Cleeton, clearly they’ve been involved in the investigation to a point. However, in terms of, if we were to line up four people there, in terms of who was involved in that investigation, as I understand it, you’ve been involved in this area for many years. You have got an appropriate relationship with many people within the Hunt community and the anti-hunt community, so in terms of……there probably was an assumption here in terms of who would be……cause the ‘intelligence’ was unspecified, it was to say a police officer is having an affair with ‘Andy’.
I pointed out that the information didn’t even say it was a West Mercia Police Officer.
CI Jones continued, ‘ I know. It says a police officer. But in terms of, the fact that ‘Andy’ came to report it to yourself initially at Ross Police Station, I think that there was ………..an assessment of all of the information that was known, if it was anybody, it was most likely to be you’.
Jane said, ‘Oh, I don’t accept that whatsoever. I’m not happy with that’.
I pointed out that the only place I had met ‘Andy’ was at Ross Police Station. Martin Taylor had been for a coffee with her in Abergavenny.
CI Jones said that he did not think there was a need to ask Martin Taylor, Beth Wells or Nigel Cleeton the same question.
Fed rep 1 then spoke. He said, ‘If Richard had answered yes to some of those questions, we’d have potentially been looking at a criminal offence, irrespective of the way it’s been put’. ‘Some of that probably should have been dealt with formally, as in, he should have been served forms to answer certain questions’.
CI Jones said that in advance of me being question by DI TAYLOR, PSD had an advanced conversation with Martin Taylor, ‘what’s the appropriate way to deal with it’? He said that PSD didn’t actually think that it was something unduly, massively concerning but it needed to be dealt with and it was almost a case of, ‘have a word with Richard just to address these concerns’, and then that would deal with the disclosure issues. ‘The fact that then Martin went on to formalise it in that way is unfortunate’.
CI Jones went on to say……… ‘The key reason I want to speak to you is more around the impact that this has had upon you and your wife and your family. Clearly, there is no evidence at all in terms of you having an affair with anybody, and I’d just like to stand here and say that because, I’m sure, if that was in my home……in terms of giving you the reassurance from the police in terms of that investigation, there is absolutely no information around it whatsoever, other than it’s very spurious. ‘A police Officer is having and affair with Andy’.
I asked CI Jones where the information had come from.
He said, ‘The information that was forthcoming came from a police officer that had heard a community rumour basically. Now I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to disclose to you, who that police officer is’.
I said that we had never asked for that.
CI Jones continued, ‘ So that information came from a police officer who had heard from a member of the community out there, who was unwilling to cooperate further, engage further with the police’.
I said, ‘ when we investigate anything, you’ve got to be able to justify decisions that you’ve made, and I just can’t see any justification in making myself and Jane wait three months to say, actually, do you know what? It was an unnamed officer’. I said that we had to go through Christmas living with this. I said I could have been given the information about it being an unnamed officer at the end of the interview on 5th December!
CI Jones said, ‘I agree with you that you could have done, but in terms of them having a reason, I think there was a reason. I don’t think that actually sitting here in the cold light of day it actually stands out specific scrutiny, but we all make decisions along the way but sometimes we say, well actually we could have gone the other way with that’. ‘I’m almost second guessing but I think they can justify it in terms of their, this desire to do everything right by the investigation as it were and I think that was unwise now in terms of what we…but actually in terms of them making that, it wasn’t made maliciously because they wanted to cause you issues. It may have been the wrong decision now, some months down the line, because actually, what impact has that had upon your life, what impact has it had on other people thinking about an affair existing out there and all of that? I get that, and I’m saying now in the cold light of day, do I think we could, we should, I told you, as a service, told you that information sooner? Yes I do, but the decision they made at the time, I can understand why they made it, but I don’t agree with the decision’.
Later in the conversation, CI Jones said, ‘I can say I’m sorry now. I am sorry how you two have been left feeling. 100%, and I can also say, I’m sorry that Martin’s gone for that formalised approach because what that has done is then had this impact upon you. But I can’t apologise on behalf of Martin. But as a force, in terms of how you are feeling, then I can tell you on behalf of Dean Jones and the force, we are sorry’.
(Note he’s very good at saying that he’s sorry for the way this has left us feeling. That’s completely different from saying that he is sorry for what happened. Someone once said, ‘never ruin an apology with an excuse’, and that’s exactly what he was doing. How patronising can you get)?
I said, ‘It shouldn’t just leave me feeling like this, It should leave all of us feeling like this, to know that any one of us could be in this position, when there are procedures that should be followed and they’re not, that we need to say if this happens within the force, how do we help people out there’? (The public).
I said that I thought this was part of a bigger picture. At the initial point where I challenged what I considered to be an inappropriate comment made by the Crown Prosecutor, it seemed to me that it was at that point, well, the next day I was taken off the case and I feel it was because I had challenged what I considered to be inappropriate behaviour by the prosecutor. If you now follow that up with the information that I’ve found out about him being very close to some of those investigating officers, having Christmas dinner with Beth Wells, I think that we’ve got a real problem. If the public out there knew! From my point of view, from that moment when the Crown Prosecutor said that and no one else challenged him apart from me, there’s an issue that ‘these people’ are perceived to be the enemy and they’re not. They’re not. I hadn’t even considered it to be honest with you. I just thought, You’ve come to me with this evidence, you’ve used some pretty unorthodoxed methods of getting that evidence but that’s not for me, it’s for a court to decide whether or not……….
CI Jones interrupted, ‘In terms of the CPS‘s impartial decision making, I don’t particularly think that’s in dispute here. You’ve put a little bit of an inference on that. The fact that it will go to the special case unit means it is what it is. Stephen Davies, I’ve known for a number of years. I’ve got no reason to question his integrity. I think he took the hump with what you said. You took the hump with what he said. I think it was a delicate fall out from that, but in terms…the only advice I would say is in terms of when we’re having a conversation with whoever it is, ‘Andy’, police officers, whoever it is, is that we’re very careful. Because clearly he’s taken your side the wrong way, you’ve perhaps taken what he said, the wrong way. But actually, in terms of your integrity, I’ve sat and listened to you and heard your background and believe it’s absolutely fine. So’s his. It’s understanding where we are in the middle there a bit. I think it’s unfortunate that he’s gone and formalised that in terms of a PSD referral’.
I also said that it was frustrating, because of the letter that had gone to The Ross Gazette about the accusation of the affair with the local hunt monitor. I told CI Jones, ‘I did say at the time, as far as I’m concerned, she is as much a victim as me and Jane, have we not got a duty in the job to go and say to her, look, we need to inform you that this letter has gone to the Ross Gazette. It names you, and it’s got your address in there! And we never did that as an organisation. Subsequently someone has smashed her window. (She was never given the opportunity to defend her property). It just seems that the issues that are being addressed are being addressed unfairly and I think if you were an outsider, looking in, you could quite easily get this perception that the people reporting this are treated differently’!
His response to this was not to let this experience define me as who I am!
And so to summarise,
1. He didn’t think Martin Taylor should have interviewed me in the way that he did and although he knew this breached various regulations, West Mercia Police were not going to do anything about that.
2. He was really sorry for the way this left us feeling.
3. Clearly, there was no evidence at all about me having an affair with anybody.
4. He didn’t want this to define me! (Well, do you know what, this is exactly how I wanted to be defined. Someone who stands up for people with no voices. Someone who actually cared).
Thank you for your continued support. The blog has now had over 42000 views which is fantastic. Please keep sharing and commenting as I don’t want all this to have been for nothing. I want real change to happen within these organisations so that the public can have some trust in them again. Clearly, the only way this will happen is when they are publicly exposed for what they have done.
I know the police are monitoring this blog. I challenge them to publicly announce changes they have made or are making as a result of their criminal failures to the HIT Team, My Family and I, and to Justice. I challenge you to demonstrate you can and have learned from your institutional corruption, before I finish the blog.
Do I think they will do this? No, unfortunately not. They cannot even bring themselves to apologise for their failings, (All I ever asked for), other than on one occasion, which became meaningless after the apology was then treated with complete contempt by none other than Professional Standards. (I will come to this later).
On 19th February 2017, my wife, Jane received an update from the Local Police Sergeant dealing with our complaint of harassment……….
Jane responded to him….
Jane was fed up of being messed around by the police and not being given answers to her questions. She found out contact details for both women I had allegedly had affairs with, ‘Andy’ and the local hunt monitor and she made contact with them. I couldn’t stop her from doing this and, quite frankly, why would I want to? Jane didn’t suddenly decide to become involved in a police matter, the police involved her as soon as they questioned me about it!!
Having asked for clarification over some answers given in my grievance outcome, in a meeting on 2nd March 2017 CI Francis provided a document which stated the following….
‘Enquires have revealed that DI TAYLOR received information that ‘Andy’ (HIT), was having an affair with an unnamed Police Officer. There was no opportunity to further this with the source. The information was assessed alongside the “contact in the police” aspect in Q4 and in order to confirm there were no disclosure/ compromise issues, a decision was made to ask if you were this un-named Police Officer’
So, I hadn’t even been named and yet Jane and I had been made to wait 3 months before anyone decided to tell us this!!! I was already off work because of the effect this was having on my mental health. Did WMP have absolutely no compassion or care? We were both extremely angry.
Jane emailed Supt Thomas, DCI Roberts and the Chief Constable, Anthony Bangham……
On around 20th March 2017 my sergeant informed me that the misconduct investigation against me had been dropped. This was obviously a huge relief but I wanted to know why I had been investigated.
On 21st March I sent my sergeant the following email……
I also emailed DS Nicholas Husbands at PSD……….
Finally, on 23rd March, Jane had this rather curt response from Superintendent Susan THOMAS!
Jane, rather more politely emailed back…….
You see, while the CID officers and PSD were obsessing in their witch hunt, further serious crimes against genuine victims had been taking place. On 24th March 2017 the local hunt monitor emailed a copy of this note to Jane. Apparently, a few weeks earlier, she had a brick thrown through a window at her house! The offender, obviously not content at leaving it at that, returned in an attempt to intimidate her further by posting this through her door. What lengths were these grubby little people prepared to go to in an attempt at getting the case dropped? Would the police now concentrate their efforts in finding the culprits who were clearly attempting to pervert the course of justice. No, no they wouldn’t!! I wonder why?
It was now clear that West Mercia Police were not going to address the issues I had raised in respect of senior Crown Prosecutor, Stephen Davies. This was a ‘public interest’ concern that surely could not just be ignored.
I had been signed off work by my GP due to the effects the stress was having on me. I decided to raise the concerns myself directly to the CPS………..
And let’s be honest, the CPS look like they take complaints and concerns very seriously!!
On 21st February 2017 I had a response confirming that the Parliamentary and Complaints Unit had received my email. A month later on 21st March 2017 I wrote the the CPS again.
Sir/ Madam, It has now been over 20 working days since I made this complaint about Mr Stephen Davies. I would be grateful for a response/ update in line with your complaints procedure. Regards, Richard Barradale-Smith
On 24th March 2017 I received the following email……..
Sounded like it was going to be brushed under the carpet to me!!! On 27th March I responded to Ms Llewelyn.
Again, having no response from Ms Llewelyn I sent follow up emails on 4th April, 24th April and 25th April. Why was she being so rude? On 26th April I received the following which I responded to on the following day…….
No response………so on 7th May I sent this to the ‘Independent’ Assessor of Complaints for the CPS……..
And their response on 9th May….
I was going around in circles. I had informed 2 senior officers. This was bonkers. So….what do you think happened next? Find out in a couple of blogs time when we would have caught up with the other events.
On a meeting of 16th Feb 2017 T/CI Francis gave me the outcome to my grievance. I was accompanied by Fed Rep 1 at the meeting. She concluded…….. ‘My conclusion in this investigation is that there has been no conspiracy theory against PC Barradale-Smith and in relation to the events of 05.12.16 in particular this grievance is not upheld’.
In answer to the questions I had raised, here are the answers from T/CI Francis……….. 1. Who completed/ compiled Doc 7? (The list of 10 questions). Ascertained in meeting with DI Taylor on 21.01.17 and DS Wells on 31.01.17 – They had completed the document. (They must then take responsibility for it).
2. Why could the information on Doc 7 not have been given to me when requested on 02/12/16? I was not being investigated for any disciplinary matters. Ascertained in meeting with DI Taylor 21.01.17 – In the professional judgement of DI Taylor it was not appropriate to do so. (A very poor answer)
3. Why have I not received a reply to my email dated 04/12/16? Ascertained in email from Supt Thomas 02.02.17 – “I received an email from Richard as he states. I visited Ross on Friday 9th December and whilst there I met with Richard and acknowledged to him in person that I had received his email and confirmed to him that Martin Taylor is leading on the investigation and the reasons for CID leading. This is something that I had explained to him previously. I did not see the need to then also email him further to clarify what I had said in person”. (The questions to my email were never answered).
4, What information/ evidence did/ does West Mercia Police hold about me to suggest that I was somehow involved in the ‘hunt investigation team’ and their investigation? When did this evidence/ information come to light? To what extent and how intrusive has the evidence gathering about me been? Could I have been spoken to about this at an earlier stage? Ascertained in email from Professional Standards Department 08.02.17 – No evidence is held. (Why was I asked the question then)?
5. Why was I not required to attend the CIM meeting in November having originally been invited? Ascertained in email from Supt Thomas 02.02.17. As a CIMM moves forwards, this is a small group of people directly linked to the issues ongoing and therefore Richard was not requested to attend. (Mmmmm, It was DI Taylor who told me not to attend).
6 Was the information/ intelligence about me possibly being involved in the ‘hunt investigation team’ the reason for me not being given the PLO role on Operation Themis? Ascertained in email from Supt Thomas 02.02.17 – ‘This was not part of the decision making for the PLO for Op Themis. There was a requirement to maintain business as usual in the Safer Neighbourhoods Team work and Richard is the SNT officer locally. ‘Named other officer’ had been involved last year and there was a joint decision with the Op Themis chain of command that ‘other officer’ would undertake this role again’. (This made no sense as this was the first year the badger cull was taking place in Herefordshire. The other officer had never done a PLO role before as she wasn’t trained for it. Lastly, I had been given the role of Community Liaison Officer and so I wouldn’t have been doing my SNT work in any case)!
7. What was the reason for me being taken off the Operation Childer investigation when I had the greatest knowledge of the crime? Ascertained in email from Supt Thomas 02.02.17…… ‘I have been involved in hunt/ animal protest type work for some years. In recognition of the type of issues which are raised, the various angles the groups take, the link to national issues and the reputation to the Force then, on balance I took the decision to have CID leading this work. I instigated a local CIMM which was supported by Chief Officers and it is common in such cases that the expectation would be for a Senior Investigating Officer to have the lead and for trained detectives to progress the investigation. The decision was made on this basis and nothing to do with the capability of Richard or his knowledge. Infact, his knowledge at the early stages was important and I asked that this was transferred to the investigation team. I also acknowledged at the early stages that due to the knowledge Richard had that he could still assist the investigation team i.e. who is who? What links there may be? Intelligence on the ground – I had no concerns about the involvement of Richard – I just wished to ensure that CID were leading due to the complexity of issues. Ialso wish to raise that this matter was occurring at the same time the Force were planning the work around Op Themis and the impact that any action taken by Police could have on that operation. I do not believe that Richard at any stage has fully understood the wider issues which were considered as part of my role as local commander e.g. press enquiries, interest from the Home Office, Chief Officers. It is common that officers hand over cases. It is my decision to decide on the lead/ OIC and I did so balancing resources, time, key risks locally and nationally’. (If this was really the case, why did Supt Thomas let me investigate this, alone, from 28th May until 26th July. It was obvious from the start the media attention this was likely to attract. This was just not a credible answer)!!
8. What is the evidence of me having an affair with ‘HIT member Andy’? Ascertained in email from Professional Standards Department 08.02.17 No evidence isheld. (Why was I asked this question then)??
9. Why did I have to confirm in an email that I was not having an affair with ‘Andy’? Ascertained in meeting with DI Taylor 20.01.17 – for inclusion in file of evidence and tominimise the disclosure issues it would create. (what about the previous answer from PSD. There was no evidence held about an affair with ‘Andy’)!!
10. Is Stephen Davies best placed at making a decision on prosecuting this case in light of what he said on 25/07/16? Ascertained in meeting with DS Wells 31.01.17 – Prosecuting Lawyer now is a member of the Complex Case Unit. (The Complex Case Unit is a section of the CPS. Was Stephen Davies now a member of this ‘Unit’? We will find out later).
11. In respect of the interview on 05/12/16 surrounding Doc 7…. Relationship with ‘Andy’ – I had already answered points 3, 3 and 4 in my meeting of the 06/10/16 with DS Wells. Why were they asked again? Ascertained in meeting with DI Taylor 20.01.17 – for clarification. (Really)?
Email update 09.02.17 from DI Taylor –
RBS did not see the relevance of ‘Andy’ ringing him to make an appointment to see himon 28th. His statement made it out that she just came in by chance to see him, which was not the case. (CID had a copy of my pocket note book detailing the previous contact I had with ‘Andy’. This makes no sense. It was not evidential and therefore no need to be put into my statement)
So the result of the grievance was just what I expected really…….but I wasn’t going to leave it at that!
Over 28 years, mainly in front line policing, I very much enjoyed my job, where no day was like any other. You, (usually) had no idea what you would be expected to respond to from one day to another and I was fortunate to have worked with many talented, caring and professional officers and staff. (I also worked with/ for, a lot of officers and staff who quite frankly should never have been in the job). But, I suppose that is the same in all jobs!
Along with all the good times and positive outcomes, I also attended a fair share of incidents and scenes that were obviously very distressing to witness and be part of. (It comes with the territory )!! Most of these were dealt with and filed away at the appropriate time, allowing me to battle on to fight another day.
My Nemesis proved to be suicides by hanging, where I was the person who found the bodies. Most officers, at times in their careers will attend suicides found by others and then reported to police. You can prepare yourself somewhat, if you know what you are going to see. Finding the body yourself when you are looking for a missing person or attending a suspicious incident is not so common. Fortunately, in 28 years there was only 3 times when this happened to me. The first was fairly early on in my career when searching for a young man reported missing by his girlfriend the middle of the night. He had indicated to her that he was going to his place of work. We contacted his boss who took us to the industrial estate and unlocked the workshop. We had to walk through the workshop in the dark to get to the light switch. The motors of the industrial florescent lights clanged into action and as the lights flickered on over two or three seconds I saw the young male directly in front of me hanging from an electric winch.
Following this incident I was unable to, completely file it away, as whenever florescent lights came on, the noise of the motor and the flicker of the lights brought back that memory in an instant.
However, this was something that I just found myself being able to manage. It wasn’t that much of a problem that it affected my day to day living. I just got on with it, as probably did/ do many people in all walks of life.
However, in 2014 and 2015, I went to two further fairly traumatic incidents of suicide by hanging, where I found the bodies. I won’t go into the details of these, suffice to say they affected me sufficiently that I had some counselling provided by both the police and my GP. I carried on working throughout this.
I do not want or need sympathy for the above as I was able to manage the situation, firstly on my own and then with the help of excellent professional help.
My only point in telling you of the above is that over time, the stress of what some officers within West Mercia Police were doing to my family and I, started to take its toll. The pressure and scrutiny we were put under, along with the complete apparent lack of respect for our private and family life started to make my mental health issue, incredibly difficult to manage.
On 13th February 2017 I sent the following email to my sergeant.
My supervisors, occupational health and welfare officers were all aware of my ongoing health issues. Would someone now get to grips with what was going on and sort it out once and for all?
On 23rd January 2017 Wendy Elliot advised me that her enquiries into the misconduct allegation against me were complete and her report was with DS Husbands (PSD) for review. I sent an email to DS Husbands and copied in the email from Superintendent Thomas to my wife, Jane. I wanted to find out if PSD were involved or had knowledge of the unlawful interview!
‘DS Husbands, In relation to the copy of the email attached from Superintendent Thomas to my wife, could you confirm that the interview of myself by DI Taylor was conducted on behalf of Professional Standards as stated? Thank you, Richard B-Smith’
Surely, an easy question to answer??
On 1st February DS Husbands responded……… ‘Hi Richard, Thanks for your email. The Investigating Officer, Wendy Elliot is out of the office at this stage so I cannot discuss with her the specifics of your concern below. What I can say is that prior to a complaint matter being assessed there is an element of fact finding that can take place to establish the circumstances around the complaint and any other matters that may effect it prior to an assessment being done by PSD. Once I have spoken to Wendy I will get back in touch with you. Regards. Nick’
But PSD had already been consulted by DI TAYLOR, who told him it was not a conduct issue but perhaps a performance issue and so the assessment had been carried out prior to the unlawful interview!
Chief Inspector Dean Jones was my new CI, (Who I had not met). I sent him this email…
At 1420 on 01/02/17 I received a phone call from CI Dean Jones as a result of the above email. He explained that he was just settling in to his new role and asked for a potted history of what had happened, which I gave him. He said that he would need to speak to Superintendent THOMAS and DI TAYLOR, then would get back to me. I said I would send him a copy of my grievance, which I then did.
Would CI Jones turn out to be the senior officer with the integrity to sort this out?
I told my wife, Jane, of my conversation with CI Jones and she wasn’t best impressed to say the least. She again wrote to Supt THOMAS……
‘Dear Superintendent Thomas,
It is now over three weeks since I contacted and received a reply from you in respect of the crime of harassment against my husband and I. You have said that Chief Inspector Jones would oversee the investigation by ‘local PS’ and that you would look to resolve the matters as soon as possible. It, quite frankly beggars belief that ‘local PS’ is going onto rest days and has still not been told by DI Taylor the source of evidence from which CID investigated an alleged affair between my husband and ‘HIT member Andy’. He hasn’t even given an explanation as to why this information cannot be divulged. This is totally unacceptable and only serves to compound my feeling harassed. Where does this fit into the ‘victim’s charter’? I have now been waiting since the beginning of December, have been worrying and feeling angry and upset over Christmas and the New Year. The source of the evidence must be credible or I’m sure this would not have been investigated in the first place. Have you any idea of the stress and pressure this has put on our relationship? Please can this matter be addressed immediately in order that we can resume some normality into our lives?
Regards, Mrs J Barradale-Smith’
Jane received an out of office reply!!
However, on the same day, Jane received a response to her email from Temporary Chief Inspector Jonathan Roberts………..
The problem is, the more people that get involved, the more miscommunication happens, and people say things that perhaps they shouldn’t have or, as I’ve said previously, they don’t know the full story. What was clear is that Jane and I were getting more stressed and anxious about the whole situation. Here’s Jane’s response to T/DCI Roberts………
And then a response from Superintendent a Thomas. It seemed like there was not a lot of care coming from these senior officers!! Why was that?
So, given the obvious conflict of interests of both Stephen Davies and DS Beth Wells, was CI FRANCIS going to step up the the plate and have these matters addressed? No, no she wasn’t!
Because surely, a formal investigation would have to take place as a result of the information I had given?
Nicely batted back there Superintendent THOMAS. Seems like no one wanted to pick up this hot potato!!
Things were not looking hopeful for my grievance outcome !!
On 11th January 2017 I had attended West Mercia Police HQ with ‘Fed Rep 1’ where, Chief Inspector Jane Francis spoke with me about my grievance. Jo Holding was present as HR Officer & note taker. The meeting lasted a considerable time.
Part of my concerns raised were about the ‘meeting’ with Stephen Davies on 25th July 2016. I said that he treated me with absolutely no respect in the meeting. There was no discussion and Stephen Davies was extremely animated as he was talking about, ‘Those people’. I said that i knew straight away that it wasn’t right. I said that I didn’t ‘pigeon-hole’ people. I said we wouldn’t generalise about gay or black people like this and it wasn’t right. I said that I felt there was a mistrust of police by people because of the perception of them not challenging inappropriate behaviour. I said that I did challenge Mr Davies’s behaviour and I believed that this was the reason for me being removed from the case.
In respect of my question 10, ‘Is Stephen Davies best placed at making a decision on prosecuting this case in light of what he has said on 25/07/16’?, CI Francis said that she believed that this may have to be looked at, at a higher level. I said that I felt it was very important as I believed it had the potential to damage the force reputation. I also said, at this time, that I believed Mr Davies may have breached the Ethical Principals for the Public Prosecutor.
I also said that the officers that did not challenge Stephen Davies on the day of this meeting, and then went on to further investigate the offence were complicit in his prejudice. How could they then to be seen to investigate impartially?
The meeting ended with CI Francis agreeing that she would look into the issues raised.
On 24th January I wrote the following email to CI Francis…
I received no response and so on 30/01/17 wrote her another email. I had received some information which astonished me. It did, however, start to make more sense about what had happened!!
So……..Stephen Davies, a person who had admitted that ‘he shoots’, and the Prosecution Solicitor for the CPS, had spent Christmas day with DS Beth Wells, a person who had admitted that she hunted and was an investigating officer in the case!!!!!! You really couldn’t make it up!!!
The more I thought about the report from Senior CPS Prosecutor, Stephen Davies, which Wendy Elliot disclosed to me, the more suspicious I became. She obviously didn’t show me the full report, as, when you read it, there is no complaint!
But the language he uses within his report and his complete apparent generalisation about anyone involved in animals rights issues is quite shocking………and these are the victims he’s talking about, not the suspects!!!
“in similar terms, that those present had not investigated Hunt Saboteurs before”. We weren’t bloody investigating Hunt Saboteurs , we were investigating a case of animal cruelty by members of a hunt!!!
I have been watching on TV, ‘The Trial of Christine Keeler’ and I think parallels can be drawn to the outdated, bigoted attitudes towards victims. The difference being of course that the trial of Christine Keeler was over 50 years ago!!!
How did this fit in with The Ethical Principles for the Public Prosecutor, or for that matter with the Police Code of Ethics? What had been clear is that the support I had earned from the HIT and the remainder of The South Hereford Hunt had been lost by CID.
I am the victim of the above crime. My husband, Richard Barradale-Smith is the victim of a linked crime where false and malicious lies of two alleged affairs were made. One of these was reported to us by a family friend and the other via Hereford CID. Unfortunately it would appear that police believed these lies which your CID department investigated without apparent consideration that Richard may have, in fact, been a victim of these lies! He has told me of an interview conducted by DI Taylor in December where he was apparently not allowed to leave Hereford Police Station until he had answered the questions! Richard was not under arrest at the time. Are your staff allowed to behave in this way? It does not seem possible. Richard has told me that ‘Local Police Sergeant’, who is investigating our crimes, updated him yesterday. ‘Local PS’ has apparently asked DI Taylor for the source of evidence from which they investigated the alleged affair. DI Taylor has refused to tell ‘Local PS’ this information. Can you tell me why this is please? This refusal to reveal the source is obstructing this police investigation into these crimes of harassment in my opinion. I would appreciate an early reply to my questions and concerns as it is now over a month since I first reported this to the police. Kind regards Jane Barradale-Smith
So, Superintendent Thomas is confirming that the ‘interview’ by DI Taylor was conducted on behalf of PSD. Jane wrote to PSD to ask if this was correct. They didn’t respond!!
Jane and I were still quietly confident that this mess would get sorted out, and hopefully quickly!!!!
Fox Cub Cruelty. Exposing corruption by Police and the CPS. 