English French (Google translation) German (Google translation) Spanish (Google translation) Chinese (Google translation) Start  |   Why TinyUpload.com?  |   How it works?  |   Advantages  |   Safety  |   Contact  

Four simple TinyUpload.com's rules:
  • no download, upload limits
  • 50 MB per file
  • downloaded files hosted for ever
  • 100% free

... more

Download file

To download file click the link below:
IOPC response - letter before action 24 Oct 19.pdf
Filesize: 0.336 MB
File upload date: 2019-10-29 11:58:25
Number of downloads: 6

File description:
IOPC’s 24 October response to Letter Before Action (26 September 2019) in the matter of a proposed application for judicial review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct decisions (refs: 2017/082079 and 2019/115969) in relation to appeals against Humberside Police complaint investigation outcome letters of 12 September 2018 and 7 March 2019 (refs: CO/432/15 and CO/632/18) which were dealt with unlawfully in just about every way imaginable. The initial matter (CO/432/15) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted 8 November 2015 which was initially dealt with by way of Local Resolution. The outcome (which was appealed and referred to the IOPC) was provided on 3 April 2017. On completing the review, the IOPC deemed the statutory conditions were not met for the matter to be suitable for local resolution and directed the force to fully investigate the complaint, taking into consideration further information such as evidence in support of alleged collusion between the police, CPS and Courts. Humberside Police ignored the IOPC and dealt with the complaint omitting to consider the further information and evidence and the IOPC was satisfied with how the complaint was investigated. The following matter (CO/632/18) concerns a police conduct complaint submitted inadvertently on 10 October 2018 which was deemed appropriate to be proportionately investigated. The force had – so it claimed – sent the complaint investigation outcome letter concerning CO/432/15 to the wrong address thereby failing to provide sufficient safeguard against unauthorised access, loss or damage to someone’s personal data. The letter contained details of the criminal record of the person whose data protection rights were infringed upon and the reason for his arrest. The data breach (if the letter had in fact been sent) was more severe/unfair due to the disclosed details of the criminal record relating to a wrongful conviction contributed by witnesses committing perjury (the arresting officer is suspected to have incited them). The correspondence to the police on 10 October was not intended as a formal complaint but was handled as one by the force in accordance with the complaint’s procedure under the police reform Act. The communication was predominantly to alert the force of its obligations to refer the personal data breach to the Information Commissioner and to obtain some preliminary information in anticipation of submitting a complaint (to the force) in case it was a prerequisite to raising the issue with the Commissioner. The queries were never answered and the Investigating Officer just ploughed on with the process regardless ignoring the complainant. Consequently the complainant was unable to feed into the process in respect of the information he was denied throughout the course of the investigation because it was not until it was too late when the investigation had completed that the questions he had asked were answered. The Investigation outcome revealed that ‘the matter was referred to the Information Commissioners Office as a data security breach’ and the believed recipient of the letter stated that she did not receive it. The complainant's case was severely prejudiced in respect of both the police conduct complaint and that of the Information Commissioner. The force's unlawful and deliberate mishandling of the complaint ensured that the Commissioner’s conclusions were based on hopelessly inadequate information as well as its own investigation failing to reach a conclusive outcome. The Investigating Officer clearly failed to carry out her investigation in line with the vast majority of the rules and standards for how the police should investigate complaints. All the anomalies were identified in the appeal to the IOPC and appropriately cited (the rules and standards) for every occurrence, yet the Casework Manager deliberately handled the appeal unlawfully knowing that if the complainant was misguided enough to take the matter to the high court he would simply be asking to be fleeced in the casino justice system which always falls on the side of the crooked public body.
Report abuse or copyright infringement
About us  |   Advertisement  |   Rules  |   Privacy