today rss

Complaint of criminal conduct by Police Constables Kelly and Arthurs

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

Return to the top of this page