Search This Blog

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

"How The States of Jersey Police Cover Up Machine Really Works" PART 3

"When Cases & Conflicts Overlap"


Below is a quick recap from my last postings which are linked below.

So....To sum matters up.

I have lodged a complaint against Mike Bowron, to Mike Bowron. He in turn has allocated the investigation of this complaint against himself to his deputy Barry Taylor, whom Mike Bowron himself is investigating for perverting the course of justice & dereliction of duty, and who has recently found himself not guilty of any wrongdoing in the case that VFC has reported at the link above. This complaint will then be sent to Ian Le Marquand who was the judge in the first case of the four cops, and who was then the Home Affairs Minister in that same case who dismissed my complaints against himself as the judge in the case, my complaints against David Warcup, and my complaints against Barry Taylor. This nonsense is further compounded by the fact that these complaints will eventually fall at the foot of the Jersey Police Complaints Authority who have brazenly dismissed all my complaints against all concerned in all my previous complaints. The very same government 'rubber stamp' outfit that, along with the Attorney General Tim Le Cocq and the Jersey Police, have conspired to cover up the perjury in Cyril's case, and the grave and criminal assault by policemen in Maria's case....

PART 1

PART 2

D.C.O Barry Taylor

"The Conflict Of Interest Continues,
And So Does The Nonsense"

So....still dealing with the request for information in regard to the events last year that led to my arrest, my home being ransacked, my property being stolen, and my subsequent heart attack induced by the actions of the police and the judiciary, I have now received a letter from Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand.

Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand

This letter informs me that I am about to receive a letter from D.C.O Barry Taylor which will answer all of my 23 questions posed in the letter to Inspector Mary Le Hegerat.

It also brings up another case which is yet unresolved, or so I thought, but Mr Le Marquand and his merry men appear to have resolved some of it without even informing me?

This was the case in June of 2006 where four brave Jersey policemen Grave & Criminally assaulted me, lied in their statements, committed perjury at my trial, and have so far evaded justice thanks to the Maleficent Seven's intervention. The letter is below.




My response to this letter is below.







Following this, is the letter that I received from Deputy Chief Officer, Barry Taylor, purporting to answer my 23 questions. Unfortunately, this letter has taken exactly 8 months to be compiled and does not answer many of the questions posed in my original letter.

However, I shall be dealing with that aspect in tomorrow's posting.














13 comments:

  1. What is Article 20 (i) of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure, can't find any of their laws on their website! How odd?

      Delete
  2. 20 Entry and search after arrest
    (1) Subject to this Article, a police officer may enter and search any premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for a serious offence or for any other offence the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of one year or more, if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on the premises evidence, other than items subject to legal privilege, that relates –
    (a) to that offence; or
    (b) to some other offence which is connected with or similar to that offence.
    (2) A police officer may seize and retain anything for which he may search under paragraph (1).
    (3) The power to search conferred by paragraph (1) is only a power to search to the extent that it is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering that evidence.
    (4) Subject to paragraph (5), the powers conferred by this Article may not be exercised unless, in the case of the Force, an officer of at least the rank of inspector, or in the case of an honorary police officer, a Connétable or Centenier in respect of premises in his parish, has authorized them in writing.
    (5) A police officer may conduct a search under paragraph (1) before taking the person to a police station and without obtaining an authorization under paragraph (4), if the presence of that person at a place other than a police station is necessary for the effective investigation of the offence.
    (6) If a police officer conducts a search by virtue of paragraph (5), he shall inform, in the case of the Force, an officer of at least the rank of inspector or, in the case of an honorary police officer, a Connétable or Centenier in respect of premises in his parish, that he has made the search as soon as practicable after he has made it.
    (7) An officer of the Force, Connétable or Centenier who authorizes a search or is informed of a search under paragraph (6), shall make a record in writing of the grounds for the search and of the nature of the evidence that was sought.
    (8) A Connétable or Centenier who authorizes or is informed of a search shall notify the Chief Officer for record keeping and recording purposes.
    (9) If the person who was in occupation or control of the premises at the time of the search is in police detention at the time the record is to be made, the officer shall make the record as part of his custody record.
    Seizure

    ReplyDelete
  3. "20 Entry and search after arrest
    (1) Subject to this Article, a police officer may enter and search any premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for a serious offence or for any other offence the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of one year or more, if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on the premises evidence, other than items subject to legal privilege, that relates –"


    Well, there's the first cock up, contempt of court is not a serious charge and is not imprisonable for more than one year as it is not unlawful to audio record in Court....Especially when you have already informed the Court of your intention to record what is going to be said!

    If the Court had any objection to my recording events, they should have made that objection known to me there and then.

    Ian can feel a civil case coming on :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To add to the above, I am neither an OCCUPIER, a CONTROLLER, and definitely not a PERSON.

      Delete
  4. You told them you were going to record?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, why not? I am an honest man.


      Listen for yourself....RIGHT HERE

      Delete
  5. Who found your complaint to be without foundation? after reading ILM letter I don't believe it even got as far as an investigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is what I am hoping to find out shortly, no doubt ILM and Taylor have found themselves not guilty of any wrongdoing but it would be good to have them confirm that fact.

      Delete
  6. If the complaints are not investigated they will, be, ''without foundation''

    You need to consider yourself told. ILM explained, ''it''

    If someone does something they ought not to of done or failed to do something they ought to of done. (who decides without an investigation?)

    Good for you in chasing the names of those responsible for the way you have been treated.

    ReplyDelete
  7. THE GUARDIAN

    Justice is impossible if we cannot trust police forces to tell the truth

    Could a private prosecution be your answer?

    Having failed to interest the crown prosecutors, Michael Doherty is about to launch a private prosecution for alleged perjury. It's the last hope he has of holding anyone to account.

    Justice is impossible if we cannot trust police forces to tell the truth. The remedy I'm about to propose should not be difficult for any government to adopt. It offers, I think, the only chance we have of addressing what seems to be an endemic problem: anyone who works for the police and is found to have made false statements – to the prosecution, the defence, the courts, parliament, public inquiries or the media – should be sacked. No excuses, no mitigation, no delays. It sounds harsh; it's not nearly as harsh as a system in which the police malign both the living and the dead, and use the law against innocent people in order to protect themselves.

    • A fully referenced version of this article can be found at George Monbiot's website

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Private Prosecution....

      Hmmm?

      Nope!!!

      Private Prosecutions are outlawed in Jersey, all prosecutions must be brought through the Attorney General (or so they tell us) so that is why you will never see anyone from the Establishment side of the fence being prosecuted for any crime.

      You see, they have these wonderful template letters that they like to dish out to victims of the police, lawyers, courts, and the government. These letters tell us that those in the case adjudication role really are blind deaf and dumb :)

      Don't believe me? Take a GOOD LOOK, these pigs do it all the time. And if they have to have a trial, they will simply throw a few ringers on the jury to guarantee their 100% home record.

      Here, have a look at my OTHER BLOG.

      Delete