#MetPolice Crime Recording fiddling I write in appeal of decision PC 3371/13 Points of appeal The pattern of conduct exhibited in the repeated refusal to record a crime of child abduction contrary to the Child Abduction Act 1984 is clearly evidenced in this complaint outcome. - initial attempt to report the matter in July 2008 was met with NO investigation and a refusal to record a crime. Not even the most basic of checks were carried out by Hillingdon Police to determine the lawful basis upon which my daughter was held. - By 2010, the documented basis upon which the school claimed they detained the child was proven to be untrue. The local authority admitted that they never had any power to detain the child nor instructed the school to do so. The matter was again reported to the police, yet again despite the evidence, the police refused to conduct even the most basic of investigations. In this instance they claimed that unless the child reported herself as a victim they were not required to take any action. - By 2012, the Parliamentary Ombudsman upheld that the local authority had acted with maladministration in their actions (they had acted unlawfully). In the course of these investigations it was again detailed by the Local Authority that no authority either existed or was given to the school to detain the child. The local MP wrote a letter stating in his view an INDEPENDENT investigation ought to be commenced. An attempt to report this at the front desk in Hillingdon was met with hostility and threats. The officers involved REFUSED to take the evidence from me, in willful denial of their duty. - In 2013, I once again attempted to report this matter via the MPS call center and was met with the usual hostility and obstruction. Pattern of conduct - the above exhibits the clear and persistent obstruction of the MPS (with IPCC assistance) to record a crime. The crime reported: Sec 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984; Offence of abduction of child by other persons. (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen— (a) so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or (b) so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child. Points to prove (a) Date and location: 23rd April 2008 at The Douay Martyrs RC School, Ickenham, my daughter was detained. (b) Without lawful Authority/Reasonable excuse: - The School claimed in writing that they had the authority of Social Services to detain the child. This has subsequently been PROVEN to be untrue. No such authority existed (c) Detained or took: The letter from the school clearly confirms the child was detain from being released to the father on the day in question Home office Counting Rules SECTION A require: AN INCIDENT WILL BE RECORDED AS A CRIME (NOTIFIABLE OFFENCE) 1. FOR OFFENCES AGAINST AN IDENTIFIED VICTIM IF, ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY: (A) THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS REPORTED AMOUNT TO A CRIME DEFINED BY LAW (THE POLICE WILL DETERMINE THIS, BASED ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND COUNTING RULES), AND (B) THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY The circumstances, as reported clearly evidence a notifiable crime has occurred. The Metropolitan Police have not produced any evidence to the contrary to establish either a lawful authority to detain my child or a reasonable excuse to do so. As such on ALL the occasions that they have refused to either record or investigate this notifiable crime they have misconducted themselves. In the outcome letter, the MPS claim that I have not provided them with any evidence of a notifiable crime. At the time of the calls in 2013, this would have been true, purely on the basis that officers REFUSED to accept the evidence at the front desk in Hillingdon. (in terms of their knowledge of the law, a copy of the Child Abduction Act 1984 was exhibited in evidence to the officers at the front desk of Hillingdon) Since this time the Metropolitan Police are in receipt of the evidence and still refuse, contrary to Home Office Counting Rules to record a crime. This is indicative of a lengthy pattern of conduct, directed against myself to record evidenced crimes which I have properly reported to the police. On each occasion it is officers from Hillingdon who figure in the interference and obstruction to investigations. (notable examples include the UPHELD complaint against now retired staff sergeant Mandy Gould who directly interfered with the criminal investigation of Ms Jordan for the offence of perverting the course of justice with false claims that it had already been investigated) youtu.be/Y0-plG7JPNI
Posted on: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:40:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015