Search This Blog

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

"How The States of Jersey Police Cover Up Machine Really Works" PART 4

"Questions Without Answers
Jersey Police Style"


Below is the letter I sent to D.C.O Barry Taylor in response to yesterday's
questions without answers!


Ian-Leslie:Evans
c/o 


26/06/2013
DCO Barry Taylor
Police Headquarters
Rouge Bouillon, St Helier

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter dated 16th May 2013 to which I now respond. I must first state my abhorrence at the timescale for this response which has been exactly eight months, and which you put down to an administrative misunderstanding. Am I to deduce by this that the Jersey Police do not, in fact, realise that they are all public servants with a duty to the people? Are they not also aware that letters from the public are to be responded to in a swift and comprehensive manner?

I confess, I find this a very poor excuse which is further compounded by the fact that the unknown officer actually rang me back to tell me I would not receive a response to my letter, clearly someone had told him to relay this message to me, and in my view, we need to find out who that someone is?

Turning now to your response to my questions, I find many of your answers incomplete, and in some cases, evasive. These are very simple questions that require very simple answers which have not been forthcoming, I did ask for comprehensive answers Sir. I list the questions below for your ease of reference.

Questions in black.
Answers in blue.
Problem with answers in red.

1. I was arrested for suspicion of contempt of court, I would like to know who it was who initially made the complaint to the police in this regard?
1. The initial referral to Police was made by staff at the Magistrate’s Court.
1. With respect Sir, “staff at the Magistrates Court” does not cut the mustard? This is not an answer, I need a name so I can ascertain why this particular individual felt compelled to make a criminal complaint when no crime had been committed? Then to decide by any answer they may give, whether or not a civil action is called for against them.

2. I would like to know the exact date that this complaint came to the attention of the police?
2. The complaint was made to the Police on 10 February 2012.
2. Answer is fine.

3. I would like to know who took this complaint?
3. On receipt, the complaint was recorded as an incident log by a Civilian Support Officer.
3. Again Sir, your answer does not answer my question, I need a name please.

4. I would like to know who they passed it to for further action?
4. The file was then created and enquiries made by two uniformed officers before being referred to the Response Investigation Unit for attention.
4. Again Sir, who were the two officers? And who was/were the officer/s of the Response Investigation Unit? I need names Sir.

5. I would like to know who authorised the alleged warrant for my arrest and the consequent ransacking of the above address?
5. Following your arrest on 9 March 2012, your home was searched under the provisions of Article 20 (i) of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 which was authorised by the Duty Officer. There was no requirement to apply for a warrant to search as this statutory power was utilised.
5. Yet again Sir, you have refused to give me the name of the Officer involved, why is this? Furthermore, must I not be a criminal for the Police Procedure and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 to be utilised against me? Also, this being a statute, are the police not obliged to ask my consent for this law to be used against me given that a statute “CAN” only be given the force of law “WITH” my consent? If your officers had taken the time and spoken with me before running off to ransack my home, they would have been able to establish that I had not, in fact, committed any crime as was later established as being the case, and therefore my heart attack could have been avoided entirely.

6. I would like to know why this alleged warrant was not signed by a judge (operating under their Oath of Office at the time of signing) and why there was no court stamp on the alleged warrant?
6. As above – there is no requirement for a warrant as an Article 20 (i) power was used.
6. As above, my same questions apply.

7. I would like to know why I was not read my rights when allegedly arrested?
7. At the time of your arrest by the arresting officer you were cautioned and gave a reply – “I don’t understand” at which point the officer explained again the reason for your arrest. You were made aware of your ‘rights’ when you were presented to the Custody Officer which is shown on your custody record number 201200543.
7. Answer is fine as I do not recollect vividly.

8. I would like to know why a simple phone call would not have sufficed, asking me to attend the police station?
8. A voluntary attendance at the Police Station was not considered appropriate in order to save and preserve any evidence relevant to the alleged offence.
8. That is acceptable under the circumstances, yet there is still the fact that your officers marched off to my home without establishing, or even attempting to establish that any crime had actually been committed. This only leaves the strong impression that the ransacking of my home was completely unavoidable through due process of law, and which is totally unacceptable.

9. I would like to know why I was not informed that * ********* ******** was going to be ransacked?
9. Your home was not ransacked. A detailed search was conducted and property seized for examination. It is not routine to notify individuals when under arrest that their property is to be searched.
9. I was not notified of any search, there was no independent witness to the search, and your officers did not have my consent to enter my home as required under statutory law. All things considered Sir, I would describe this as a ransacking with total disregard for my rights and the law. Again Sir, your officers made no attempt to ascertain whether or not a crime had actually been committed, why not? I would also point out that at the time of my arrest I had the device on me with which I recorded proceedings in the magistrate’s court. That beggars the simple question, why on earth would my computer need to be seized when the alleged evidence was on my phone?

10. I would like to know why there was no independent witness to the ransacking of this property?
10. Your property was searched by two uniformed Police Officers thereby providing corroboration of what was done, searched and seized. There was no requirement to involve an ‘independent’ witness.
10. I take it by this, that you are saying that all your officers are upstanding honest trustworthy public servants? With my experience of your police officers Sir, I can categorically state that this is most definitely not the case, they could have planted anything in my home, including bugs. This search is also the reason why my good (female) friend who was living with me, left, and which caused much hardship to me as a result.

11. I would like to know the names of the officers who arrested me?
11. The arresting officers were DC 310 Du Feu and DS 272 Ryan. You were transported to the Police Station by PC 252 O’Neill and PC 384 Gibson.
11. Thank you Sir, at last we have some names, and a couple of interesting names at that. PC 252 O’Neill, the man who committed perjury against Cyril Vibert!  DC 310 Du Feu, is this not the same chap who beat me in 2006 along with three of his colleagues? Who then went on to lie in his statement of the incident, and rounded his corrupt actions off with a prolonged bout of perjury in the Magistrate’s Court? This same individual having been protected by certain members of the establishment? Why is he still in the force? He should be in prison Sir, as you are well aware.

12. I would like to know the names of the officers who entered the premises addressed above?
12. The officers who searched your property were PC 710 Pouillequen and PC 386 Richardson.
12. Thank you Sir.

13. I would like to know under what authority items were removed from this address?
13. Items were seized under the authority of Article 21 of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003.
13. Again Sir, as this is statutory, does it not require my consent to be used against me? This Law also states the following….
"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.”

“21      General power of seizure etc.
(1)     The powers conferred by paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) are exercisable by a police officer who is lawfully on any premises.”

Judging by what is written above, does anyone believe for the slightest moment that this alleged offence was serious, or that it carried a sentence of more than one year? Or, as in 21, that the officers were lawfully on the premises?

14. I would like to know the names of everyone who came into contact with the (seized) property?
14. Persons who came into contact with the seized property were predominantly the searching officers. The Property Officer would have been involved when moving the items from the temporary property store to the main store room.
14. As two of my pieces of equipment were damaged Sir, I would like to know who the Property Officer was?

15. I would like to know why some of this property was damaged?
15. It is unclear as to what property you are claiming has been damaged. There is no evidence that any damage was caused to any item. However, if you can provide additional details this would be helpful.
15. Sir, at the time my property was handed back to me at the police station, I made complaint there and then to the lady who handled my property, informing her about my camera not working and that my mouse antenna had been bent and broken. She stated she would log the damage on file.

16. I would like to know how long it took to collate the data from the (seized) property?
16. Your property was retained whilst awaiting a decision from Force Legal Advisors (FLA) on the actions to be taken. Evidence of the alleged offence was obtained from two audio recordings which had been posted on a blog site (therighttoreply.blogspot.com).
16. With respect Sir, your answer has nothing to do with the question that I posed at this particular juncture. Indeed, I wish to know how long it took to collate the evidence from my computer?

17. I would like to know who had the final authorisation to return this property?
17. The authority to retain all items of property was given by the Force Legal Advisors and the investigating officer in the Response Investigation Unit.
17. So who exactly were the Force Legal Advisors in this case? And also, who was the investigating officer of the RIU?

18. I would like to know why this property was not returned immediately after the alleged evidence was gathered?
18. The seized property was retained for forensic examination / download if required. Your ‘phone was retained longer than other property as it was the most ‘evidential’. I accept that there should not have been any undue delay in returning your property to you.
18. In actual fact Sir, all my property was retained for longer than my phone was!

19. I would like to know why my mobile phone could not be returned to me after the data was extracted from it, as this resulted in my business being restricted which is a very serious matter?
19. Your mobile ‘phone was retained on the advice of the Force Legal Advisors. On 5th April 1013 the FLA confirmed that your ‘phone could be returned to you.
19. Again Sir, you have not answered my question.

20. I would like to know who had the authority, and did in fact order this property to be detained a whole month?
20. The investigation was conducted as expeditiously as possible. As explained above, your property was retained until such time as the Force Legal Advisors had determined whether prosecution action should follow. I understand the inconvenience that this has caused, but your property was returned as soon as was possible.
20. Sir, I asked “who” had the authority, and “did” order this property to be detained a whole month? Again, I need a name Sir.

21. I would like to know why I was given two days of the run around treatment when simply trying to find out who I could ask for my property back?
21. There are records of emails and calls made by you in respect of your property which were referred to the investigating officer for attention.
21. Again, who was the investigating officer to whom you refer to above? I fail to see how the police could have emails from me as you have stated above, as the police had both of my computers! Again Sir, you have failed to answer my question.

22. I would like to know why I have still not been charged with any offence in connection with this arrest and seizure?
22. A file in respect of your case was submitted by the Police to the Force Legal Advisors on 23 March 2012. On 31 October 2012, the Law Officers’ Department confirmed that you would not be prosecuted. You were notified of this decision on 1 November 2012.
22. I was bringing to attention, the amount of time that had passed at the time of writing my letter to Inspector Le Hegerat.

23. I would like to know what reparations the police force intend to make regarding the disgraceful and shabby treatment I received.
23. I note your concerns about your treatment in this case. The case was a legitimate investigation following receipt of a complaint from the Court. I am aware that you have made complaints about Police actions which will be examined accordingly and addressed as part of the complaint enquiry.
23. “The case was a legitimate investigation” Forgive me Sir, but I beg to differ. The complainant (still unnamed) must have been aware of the recording posted on my blog, that recording will have been listened to by any investigating officer before any Police action was taken. Any officer that isn’t tone deaf would have clearly heard me tell the Court that “I am recording this administrative process” and those in Court would have seen me hold my phone at head height when I made this statement, Bridget Shaw was looking directly at me at the time I held my phone aloft. The Court could have, there and then if it chose, dealt with this matter by either asking me to stop recording, or by seizing my phone, the Court did neither!

You finish by stating “I hope these answers provide you with the information you require”. No Sir, they do not, as most of the questions have not been answered. I am fully aware that it is standard police practice in Jersey to give people like myself, who question authority, the long run around, but this is getting rather ridiculous even by Jersey standards. Again Sir, I would like full and complete answers to ‘all’ of my questions, and without waiting another eight months.

I will eventually be bringing a civil case against the States of Jersey Inc with regard to the disgraceful and criminal treatment I have had to endure over the last twenty five years. Anyone wishing to withhold information from me with regard to this pending civil action will be met with a commercial lien in the future.

Again Sir, I look forward to your full cooperation in this matter.

Yours sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity




Ian-Leslie:Evans
All Inherent Inalienable Rights Reserved





3 comments:

  1. Since when can court staff call in the police, when you have said what you are doing. Was what you said recorded by the court ?

    The reply you received did appear to be very very reluctant to give details knowing it would be put in the public domain.

    It appears the police are breaking the law by their sloppy and inconsiderate method, or could it be that they just don't know the law. Either way as an ordinary lay person reading the reply you received, not at all professional.

    Can I just ask how are the alleged public corruption complaints against the Chief Of Police and a senior officer are going, brought up in the States by Deputy Higgins. Sort of explains a lot does it not ,if their boss is able to do what he wants and is unaccountable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi anon, every court hearing should be recorded as there is no avenue of appeal open to anyone without the transcripts of the original hearing.

      I would guess that most officers have no idea of what the law really means as they will have had no training in the use of Legalese.

      I have no idea how Deputy Higgins investigations are going at present, I am sure we will all know as soon as he does :)

      Delete
  2. Law these days is almost solely for profit as every police force is in fact, a private company. It is quite apparent that most police officers are not aware of this fact, if they where then most of them (I would like to think) would act completely differently towards the public when persecuting them for minor and meaningless transgressions such as parking infractions and seat belts etc etc.

    ReplyDelete