Mishandling of a case by Police

Master_Blaster

Edwardia wrote: »

The IPCC is a misnomer bc it investigates nothing itself and relies on the Professional Standards Department (or similar name) of the police force concerned.

You can find how to make complaint details abt the force on their website and what you want to make is a Organisational Complaint ie about the way the police force handled things.

Police Force A may use XYZ Act for a specific crime of say Harassment and Police Force B in another county may choose, as a matter of policy, not to use XYZ Act for that crime. That can lead to the offender getting away with it.

In that instance, you should write to Chief Constable and say you have policy of not using XYZ Act, the person who did <whatever> therefore got away with it. The result is that <daughter upset etc> will you review that policy ? If they then unvestigated and reviewed policy and decided to make changes it may be (if you're lucky) that the time frame wouldn't be up. \but you'd have to be lucky.

If the police are telling you that the case is cold and nothing more wil happen, then you could choose to complain and also go to the media. It's Anti-Bullying Week this week so local paper might leap on the chance to do something.

You cannot make a complaint against policy, but you can against proceedure. The OP who therefore need to see a copy of the forces policy and proceedure manual for the crime in question. Some however gave split that into two documents and will only release the policy document.

bujin

TBagpuss wrote: »

What does your daughter want to achieve? I think it helps to have a clear picture of what outcome she is looking for.

Does she want an explanation from the police/CPS as to why the facebook offence was not submitted to the CPS / not mentioned in the letter?
Yes
Does she want an apology and/or explanation for the delays?
Possibly
Does she still need protection against the perpetrator?
Possibly
If she was injured as a result of the offences, is she seeking compensation?
No

Is she worried that the perpetrator will carry out similar offences against her or others in the future?
Definitely. The main reason for coming forward wasn't just about seeking justice for herself but to protect others who he may have a relationship with in the future,particularly as he's committed identical offences before in two previous relationships.

there may be different steps she can take depending on what her aims are.

Her aims were to get justice for the treatment she suffered as a result of this male and because he would not be likely to stop his nehaviours without intervention.

bujin

Master_Blaster wrote: »

OP, can you tell us what the missing allegation is? Not the circumstances just the alleged offence. You cannot do anything about the summary offences if the six month time limit had expired.
You maybe able to have the other two matters re investigated, the problem will lie with getting CPS to change their mind unless you can introduce fresh evidence it is unlikely they would change their mind.
I would certainly ask questions about the forth offence. There is no need to go straight to the IPCC. You can make a formal complaint straight to the force in question.

The missing allegation was the hacking offence, which the perpetrator used to seek information to harrass and intimidate the victim. He also used info he would only have known about by reading her private messages to keep her unsettled mentally as she obviously couldn't understand how he knew certain things. The perpetrator also sent messages to other males whilst logged onto her Facebook pretending to be her, to gain information about her from them. This was over a long period of time so certainly wasn't a singular event. As said we put a code on her facebook, but he overrode it and talked about this to her via text messages.

The officer in question didn't seek any witness statements to add to the case, his atttitude from the beginning was I'm afraid exactly what we're told the Police's attitude isn't, ie "you will be believed and you will be listened to", his attitude towards her was appalling given she was a vulnerable and intimidated victim, the DS did at least agree she had not been treated as a victim in these sorts of circumstances should have been.
I think we will approach both the Police Force and CPS and see if anything can be done. If nothing can be done, then this Police Officer needs to at least review his behaviour during this investigation.

We'll seek Policies on the crimes too. Even if we can't see procedures we can possibly see if the policies were adhered to hopefully. Thanks for this.

Just to add was the strange comment that the CPS made in the letter to my daughter saying, "as you are aware" there is a six month limitation. I wonder why they would think she knew this. Just makes me more suspicious that the Officer told them she knew, I don't know, but it is very frustrating when she was in plenty of time when she reported the allegations, someone should have been looking to forward those allegations onto the CPS with a follow up on the other allegations. At the end of the day, I suspect nothing will come of this, but it certainly makes you feel that the victim needs to be on their toes to ensure the Police are doing what they should be doing and when they should be doing it, it's a poor show all in all though and very disappointing to know that he's free to do it all over again.

Errata

Why don't you employ a good solicitor - it sounds like you need someone who knows their way around the law.

Master_Blaster

bujin wrote: »

The missing allegation was the hacking offence, which the perpetrator used to seek information to harrass and intimidate the victim. He also used info he would only have known about by reading her private messages to keep her unsettled mentally as she obviously couldn't understand how he knew certain things. The perpetrator also sent messages to other males whilst logged onto her Facebook pretending to be her, to gain information about her from them. This was over a long period of time so certainly wasn't a singular event. As said we put a code on her facebook, but he overrode it and talked about this to her via text messages.

The officer in question didn't seek any witness statements to add to the case, his atttitude from the beginning was I'm afraid exactly what we're told the Police's attitude isn't, ie "you will be believed and you will be listened to", his attitude towards her was appalling given she was a vulnerable and intimidated victim, the DS did at least agree she had not been treated as a victim in these sorts of circumstances should have been.
I think we will approach both the Police Force and CPS and see if anything can be done. If nothing can be done, then this Police Officer needs to at least review his behaviour during this onvestigation.

We'll seek Policies on the crimes too. Even if we can't see procedures we can possibly see if the policies were adhered to hopefully. Thans for this.

Is it not the case the hacking may have been part of an ongoing matter such as harassment?

Do you know the officer did not get additional evidence? What additional statements do you feel he should have obtained? Do you know if he neglected to obtain the evidence by other means? I am talking about hi-tech crime investigations.

It is unlikely you have a complaint with CPS, your best course of action would be to make a complaint to the force in question. You maybe able to do so online.

bujin

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Is it not the case the hacking may have been part of an ongoing matter such as harassment?

Do you know the officer did not get additional evidence? What additional statements do you feel he should have obtained? Do you know if he neglected to obtain the evidence by other means? I am talking about hi-tech crime investigations.

It is unlikely you have a complaint with CPS, your best course of action would be to make a complaint to the force in question. You maybe able to do so online.

Yes the hacking could well have been part of the ongoing harrassment but the harrassment/stalking can be an either way crime, particularly in view of the fact that the "Protection from Harassment Act 1997; Stalking - involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A) could have been applied, but I get the impression that that fear or alarm would not have been conveyed.
As said it's actually very difficult for the victim to find out very much at all prior to the case being given to the CPS about what's in the file, so we don't know what he did or didn't include we can only surmise becasue of certain things not being mentioned in the CPS letter. I'll give you an example of how poor this Officer was. My daughter gave details of some pretty awful stalking both online and physically along with Harrassment. The Officer initially told my daughter she couldn't bring a case of stalking because she was going out with this person when the stalking/harassment happened. (Is that even correct? Surely people have had partners who have stalked and harrassed them whilst they are still in a relationship) anyway the Officer by this time had had the case for 4 months. He didn't even know that my daughter hadn't been going out with this person when these things happened and several other comments that he made gave us the distinct impression he knew or didn't acquaint himself with the details of the case enough to decide for himself what crimes had been committed here. He even told my daughter that she shouldn't worry because this person wouldn't harm her, at that point he had interviewed the defendant once and had made this assumption about someone who he knew very little about.He also told her on the same day as the arrest that this case wouldn't go to Court, at which time he hadn't even started the investigation.

I agree I think the CPS have done their best and have applied the Tests. The CPS after all,can only go with the Case File they are given. In answer to the questions about further investigation, we seemed to have to urge him to do a lot of the investigating that he did do, for example he told us that the phone had been forensically checked, I was then told by another Police Officer that this couldn't have been possible because to send it to the High Tech Unit would take weeks, his comment was made 24hrs after the arrest and seizing of the phone. I asked him about this and he didn't answer my query just sent an email saying he'd sent the phone to the HC Unit. He didn't interview any family members or friends who did witness things and despite us asking why he hadn't he still didn't feel the need to because he said we hadn't actually witnessed anything!! He had never asked us what we'd witnessed, by the time we got to this point he was handing the file over and said the CPS would ask for statements if they needed them, but how would the CPS know there was addditional information/evidence if they weren't told?

Master_Blaster

bujin wrote: »

Yes the hacking could well have been part of the ongoing harrassment but the harrassment/stalking can be an either way crime, particularly in view of the fact that the "Protection from Harassment Act 1997; Stalking - involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A) could have been applied, but I get the impression that that fear or alarm would not have been conveyed.
As said it's actually very difficult for the victim to find out very much at all prior to the case being given to the CPS about what's in the file, so we don't know what he did or didn't include we can only surmise becasue of certain things not being mentioned in the CPS letter. I'll give you an example of how poor this Officer was. My daughter gave details of some pretty awful stalking both online and physically along with Harrassment. The Officer initially told my daughter she couldn't bring a case of stalking because she was going out with this person when the stalking/harassment happened. (Is that even correct? Surely people have had partners who have stalked and harrassed them whilst they are still in a relationship) anyway the Officer by this time had had the case for 4 months. He didn't even know that my daughter hadn't been going out with this person when these things happened and several other comments that he made gave us the distinct impression he knew or didn't acquaint himself with the details of the case enough to decide for himself what crimes had been committed here. He even told my daughter that she shouldn't worry because this person wouldn't harm her, at that point he had interviewed the defendant once and had made this assumption about someone who he knew very little about.He also told her on the same day as the arrest that this case wouldn't go to Court, at which time he hadn't even started the investigation.

I agree I think the CPS have done their best and have applied the Tests. The CPS after all,can only go with the Case File they are given. In answer to the questions about further investigation, we seemed to have to urge him to do a lot of the investigating that he did do, for example he told us that the phone had been forensically checked, I was then told by another Police Officer that this couldn't have been possible because to send it to the High Tech Unit would take weeks, his comment was made 24hrs after the arrest and seizing of the phone. I asked him about this and he didn't answer my query just sent an email saying he'd sent the phone to the HC Unit. He didn't interview any family members or friends who did witness things and despite us asking why he hadn't he still didn't feel the need to because he said we hadn't actually witnessed anything!! He had never asked us what we'd witnessed, by the time we got to this point he was handing the file over and said the CPS would ask for statements if they needed them, but how would the CPS know there was addditional information/evidence if they weren't told?

I think you are misunderstanding one or two things. If he arrested and interviewed the suspect he must have started the investigation or else what has he interviewed him about? Hypothetically it would be difficult to stalk someone you are in a relationship with.

What have friends and family actually witnessed, him physically committing the offence or have they read stuff online? If there is physical evidence of the online abuse then there may not have been a need to speak to people who have read the Facebook pages.

You can speculate all you like but until you speak to the police you will never know what has gone wrong, why not ask if you can see the file they sent to CPS.

It is unlikely CPS have got an either way offence mixed up with summary only, it could well be down to the actual actions of the offender rather than how you perceive them to be. Another factor could be your daughter is not telling you everything. Simple thugs such as responding to messages could jeopardise a case.

Master_Blaster

Just checked unless there was a fear of violence harassment/stalking is a summary only offence.

Harassment (section 2): a summary only offence, carrying a maximum of six months' imprisonment and/or a level 5 fine;
Stalking (section 2A): a summary only offence, carrying a maximum of six months' imprisonment and /or a level 5 fine;
Fear of violence (section 4): an either way offence, carrying a maximum of five years' imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment;
Stalking - involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A): an either way offence, carrying a maximum of five years' imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment;
Breach of a civil injunction (section 3(6)): an either way offence, carrying the same penalty as for the section 4 offence;
Breach of a restraining order (section 5(5)); an either way offence, carrying the same penalty as for the section 4 offence;
a civil tort of harassment, created by section 3.

bujin

Hi Masterblaster. Sorry obviously I've not explained myself well above. I agree he definitely did start the investigation, but seemed always very reluctant to actually do much in the way of investigating. Yes he interviewed the defendant twice, first time the defendant was happy to talk, then the second interview when presented with physical evidence that he'd lied in the previous interview, he held a "no comment" interview. What I mean is the Officer didn't seem to add as much to the investigation as we felt he could have done.
Yes people did witness his hacking and he admitted hacking (and he had a history of hacking and whilst that wasn't part of the current offence at least showed he was more than capable).

The reason why I added the Harassment Act in my previous thread was for the reason you have described as being relevant and is going to be an area we will approach the CPS for a reconsideration.The following most definitely applies to my daughter's situation;
Fear of violence (section 4): an either way offence, carrying a maximum of five years' imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment;
Stalking - involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A): an either way offence, carrying a maximum of five years' imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment;

We were told by the Police that my daughter was not allowed to see what was in the file, so you're right it's very difficult to know whether certain things were included to the CPS and unless we ask them direct questions we shall never know, so that's our course of action now. As said I think a reconsideration of the Harassment and Stalking which mayor should have been applied, as she was no longer in a relationship with this person, when these things occurred.
In regard to her not telling us everything, it may well be the case of course although given what we know I can imagine some of those would have been things she'd rather we hadn't known.As regards responding to messages, when you think someone's going to kill themselves if you don't respond, most good hearted people will respond, but there's no doubt it caused alarm and distress, in fact that caused us all serious alarm and distress.
You're right it does depend if we can apply the law rather than our simple interprtation of it, we can but see. Thanks for your input nand giving food for thought.

Errata

Why are you reluctant to employ a solicitor who will understand the law as opposed to your 'simple interpretation of it'?