SENT TO MARK LYNCH SUPT HEAD OF INTELLIGENCE SOUTH WALES POLICE----I JUST KEEP CHIPPING AWAY-THEY FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE CORRUPTION OF DYFED POWYS POLICE FORCE AND HERE IS THEIR REASONING FOLLOWED MY MY REPLY(NEVER DID RING)
I have liaised as stated with the SWP Professional Standards Department and forwarded them your complaints in respect of Dyfed Powys Police Force. Your complaints have in turn been forwarded to the DPPF Professional Standards Department.
I have received further advice to the effect that :
SWP cannot be appointed to investigate another force unless directed by the IPCC, and this is only done in extreme cases. The process to be followed is as below :
1. Complaints will be subject of recording decision by Dyfed Powys
2. If you are unhappy with the recording decision then you can appeal to the IPCC (You will be told this when contacted by DPP who should forward details explaining the process)
3. If you are subsequently unhappy with the IPCC then you have recourse to seek legal advice from a solicitor and seek a Judicial Review into their role/decisions.
Including SWP in the loop is contrary to procedures.
Contact details for the IPCC are below
Telephone 08453 002 002
E mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Eastern Business Park
Wern Fawr Lane
I will ring to discuss this evening.
Director of Intelligence.
Internal - 20 402
DDI - 01656 303471
Mobile - 07790 630332
E Mail - email@example.com
From: David Grothier <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: Follow up
Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008, 4:09 PM
Hello Mark I trust you are well.
I guess it was inevitable that we would eventual clash, you being part of a hopelessly corrupt system which is regrettable, from my point of view.
I am current studying the most effective way to bring South Wales Police to justice for a failure of duty under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which specifically cover the indictable offences that ARE REGARDED AS COMMITTED through an or an omission.
I have found that the same rules apply to the prosecution of Police Officers as with any other person. I believe that I have provided sufficient admissible evidence to justify commencing proceedings. On the question of sufficiency this includes the normal requirement which is that there must be "corroboration", that is evidence from at least two separate sources to establish the essential facts of the case which are the commission of a crime and the identity of the perpetrator. In addition such evidence as there is must be admissible and reliable and prosecution must be in the public interest which I believe it to be.
Furthermore there is an Appeal Court decision of which I am sure you must be aware in which the appellant who was on duty took no steps to etc etc ..... HE WAS CHARGED in an indictment with misconduct whilst acting as an officer of justice in that he deliberately failed to carry out his duty...... by wilfully omitting to take any steps to........ bring to justice....... At the trial he objected to the indictment on the grounds that it did not disclose an offence known to the law. The trial judge ruled against the objection and the trial proceeded. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and the appellant was convicted. He appealed against the conviction on the ground that the trial judge erred in ruling that the indictment disclosed an offence known to law. The appellant conceded that at common law there existed an offence of misconduct in public office, but contended that mere nonfeasance by a person in the discharge of his duty as the holder of a public office was insufficient to constitute the offence and there had to be a malfeasance or, at least, a misfeasance involving corruption or fraud."
The Court of Appeal HELD:
"A public officer who wilfully and without reasonable excuse or justification neglected to perform any duty he was bound to perform by common law or statute was indictable for the common law offence of misconduct in public office. The element of culpability required was not restricted to corruption or dishonesty, although it had to be such that the conduct impugned was calculated to injure the public interest and called for punishment. Whether there was such conduct was a matter for the jury on the evidence. Since the indictment alleged deliberate and wilful neglect by the appellant to perform his duty...... it disclosed an offence of misconduct in public office. It followed that the judge's ruling had been correct and that the appeal would be dismissed".
On another occasion, Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the Rolls, said the duty of the police to protect was "not an onerous one"; and nor was he persuaded that the court's ruling would "threaten police resources" or "open the floodgates to baseless claims against the police".
"They should have done everything that could reasonably have been expected of them," added the judge.
The above is just a rough outline and to give you notice of my intention. It would be inconceivable in the name of justice and all children that coroners such as Morgan are allowed to escape justice, as it would be for perjuring doctors, also corrupt police such as DPPF who find protection from an equally corrupt IPPC.
It can never be said that each and all we given a fair and equitable opportunity to behave as decent citizens each doing their legal and natural duties,
Sincerely with best wishes David.