For the attention of Detective Superintendent Xxxxxxc Xxxxxxxx
Dear Detective Superintendent Xxxxxxxx,
I am contacting you to express my concerns relating to an allegation of crime I
submitted to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, in a report
dated 3rd July 2014, made against the two officers named above.
My concerns relate to two telephone conversations I have had with officers from
your department, the first with Detective Sergeant Xxx Xxxxxxxx on Thursday 17th
July 2014 and the second with Acting Chief Inspector Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx on Tuesday
22nd July 2014.
I contacted your office on 17th July 2014, in an attempt to obtain the name of
the officer who would be investigating allegations I had made in two reports
dated 3rd July 2014, which had been received in the Commissioner's Office on 8th
July 2014.
Sergeant Xxxxxxxx informed me that she couldn't trace the reports but made
mention of a letter, dated 8th July 2014, that had been sent to me, relating to
my complaint against the two police constables, received in your office on 20th
June 2014.
I informed Sergeant Xxxxxxxx that not only had I never received any letter from
the Department of Professional Standards, but that I had never made a complaint
against police on 20th June 2014.
Sergeant Xxxxxxxx then informed me that she would contact the Commissioner’s
Office in order to trace the reports, but they would be of little value because,
the complaint of 20th June 2014, having already been assessed by Detective
Inspector Ann Bewley as only Misconduct, and on that basis returned to Bexley
Borough to be dealt with by a line manager, her decision to downgrade the
allegation from one of "Gross Misconduct" to one of "Misconduct" could only be
altered on appeal to the IPCC, if I was not satisfied with any decision made by
a senior officer on Bexley Borough.
I telephoned your office again on Monday 21st July 2014 and spoke to a Detective
Sergeant Xxxxxx, who confirmed that the two reports had been received in your
office and would be assessed in due course.
However, having spoken to Acting Chief Inspector Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx on Tuesday 22nd
July 2014, as a result of my email sent to you personally on 21st July 2014, I
am no longer confident that my allegation of crime against the two constables,
submitted on 3rd July 2014 and containing an allegation of a serious criminal
offence, will be assessed by your office, but returned to Bexley Borough to be
dealt with as a breach of the code of conduct, based on the incorrect
information supplied to you in a complaint made on my behalf, without my
consent, by Chief Inspector Broadbridge, Bexleyheath Police on 20th June 2014.
The facts are as follows:
On 16th June 2014, I received an email from Chief Inspector Ian Broadbridge,
Bexleyheath Police, inviting me to make a formal criminal allegation, a public
complaint, or both, at the earliest opportunity, against the two police constables.
I responded to that email on 17th June 2014, informing Chief Inspector
Broadbridge that I would be submitting two reports to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe,
Metropolitan Police Commissioner and that I would be submitting them to him
because of the corrupt relationship between Bexleyheath Police and Bexley
Council, due to the history of the failure or refusal of Bexleyheath police to
properly investigate allegations of crime made against employees of Bexley
Council, of which I have ample evidence.
The first of my reports made allegations of perverting the course of justice and
misconduct in public office against Police Constables Kelly and Arthurs,
together with a Mrs Lynn Tyler, Bexley Council Legal Services Manager and Mr. Mal
Chivers, both employees of Bexley Council.
The allegations were based on statements made on form MG11 and signed under the
Magistrates Rules by the two constables and Mr. Chivers, supporting the contents
of a previously unsigned, undated report, allegedly made by Mr. Chivers to Mrs. Tyler,
who was investigating several complaints from members of the public
against Councillor Cheryl Bacon, a Bexley Councillor.
The statements made by the two constables and Mr Chivers, all contained
fabricated evidence, which they knew to be so.
The original statement taken by Mrs. Tyler from Mr. Chivers, undated and unsigned
and which Mr Chivers was unaware that he had made, contained fabricated evidence
which altered the outcome of the investigation against Councillor Bacon, thereby
tending to pervert the course of justice.
My second report made allegations of Gross Misconduct against Chief
Superintendent Peter Ayling, Bexley Borough Commander, relating to his failure
to respond to correspondence, prevarication and compromising a possible criminal
investigation.
On 20th June 2014, I received an email from Chief Inspector Broadbridge,
informing me that he had recorded and submitted a public complaint on my behalf
to the Directorate of Professional Standards regarding my dissatisfaction with
PC Arthurs and Kelly.
It appears that in his report to you, Chief Inspector Broadbridge forgot to
mention the criminal allegations he had invited me to make in his email to me,
or my complaints against Chief Superintendent Ayling.
He also forgot to mention that the false reports had been made under the
Magistrates Courts Rules.
If that is correct and the statement made by Detective Sergeant Xxxxxxxx to me
is true, that the assessment made by Detective Inspector Xxxxx, based on
incomplete information supplied by Chief Inspector Broadbridge, can only be
overturned on appeal to the IPCC, that would be clear evidence that Chief
Inspector Broadbridge, under the Supervision of Chief Superintendent Ayling,
interfered with and caused the investigation into a criminal investigation to
head in the wrong direction, thereby tending to pervert the course of justice.
On that basis, I wish to register a formal complaint against Chief
Superintendent Peter Ayling and Chief Inspector Ian Broadbridge, both based on
Bexleyheath Borough, for Gross Misconduct, in order that a full investigation
can be carried out to ascertain whether there was a deliberate intention to
attempt to pervert the course of justice by either, or both of them
As a former Metropolitan Police Inspector, retiring after 30 years service with
a certificate for exemplary conduct and having spent two years investigating
complaints whilst based at New Scotland Yard, I was not at all impressed by the
manner in which Acting Chief Inspector Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx dealt with me on the
telephone yesterday.
I found his telephone persona to be both aggressive and intimidating and his
conduct unprofessional.
Having been made aware in my email that my two reports had been received in your
office, I would have expected him to have at least looked at them before he
contacted me, which I know he hadn't, due to a facetious comment he made to me
during our conversation.
When the question of the 96 page report was brought up and the importance of
reading it in conjunction with the two reports submitted on 3rd July 2014, as it
would give him a proper overview of the allegations being made. he responded
"There is no way I am going to read a 96 page report", followed by the question
"How long are the other reports?" as if that was relevant.
His comments gave me no confidence that my concerns will be properly addressed.
He then told me that Chief Inspector Broadbridge did not need my consent to
register a complaint on my behalf. The mere fact that we had communicated
together gave him the right to do that, even though I had informed Chief
Inspector Broadbridge that I would be making the allegations myself.
He then made the comment that "based on my allegations being made against the
Chief Superintendent, he would appoint an officer to investigate them." He made
no direct reference about my alleagations against the two constables, leading me
to believe that a decision may have already been made to return that report to
Bexley Borough to be dealt with by a line manager.
Neither did Inspector Xxxxxxxx give me any information about who would be
investigating my allegations against Mrs. Tyler and Mr. Chivers.
I am fearful that if the report making criminal allegations against the
two police constables and the two Bexley Council employees is returned to Bexley
Borough for the two constables to be dealt with for a lesser offence, a decision
would then be made by Bexley Police not to investigate my allegations against
the two Bexley Council Employees, as it would not be in the public interest to
do so.
Any such decision would also be detrimental to the proper investigation of
allegations of Misconduct in Public Office and Perverting the Course of Justice
made by me and three other complainants against Mr. Will Tuckley, Chief Executive
of Bexley Council and Mrs. Cheryl Bacon, a Bexley Councillor, who are involved in
the same incident as Mrs. Tyler, Mr. Chivers and the two police constables and are
the subject of the 96 page report.
Based on my comments on page 8 of the 96 page report, that is a probable outcome.
The reason I sent the report to the Commissioner, was to make him aware of the
criminal relationship between Bexley Council and Bexleyheath Police, a most
recent example of which is sitting in your office.
Two of the four complainants in these allegations are a Mr. Malcolm Knight and a
Mr. Elwyn Bryant.
Both made allegations of a corrupt investigation by Bexleyheath Police into an
allegation of a homophobic hate crime reported by them to Bexleyheath Police in 2011.
Three years after making the allegation to police about the crime and two years
after making a complaint to police about the corrupt investigation into their
allegations, which resulted in a Bexley Councillor being arrested but not
charged, two former Bexley Borough Commanders, Chief Superintendents Stringer
and Olisa, are still being investigated for the criminal offence of Misconduct
in Public Office.
Allegations, that if proven, have the sanction of a term of imprisonment, must
be dealt with by the Directorate of Professional Standards and cannot be dealt
with on Borough and any attempt to return it to Borough to be dealt with locally
will, in my opinion, be overwhelming evidence to support my allegations against
Chief Superintendent Ayling and Chief Inspector Broadbridge.
The emails I have referred to are already in your possession, having been
attached to the report making allegations against police constables Kelly and Arthurs.
I look forward to your response in accordance with Metropolitan Police protocol.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Barnbrook, Inspector, Metropolitan Police (Retired)
23rd July 2014