Taking the pee?

It ain't half hot Sarge: Scotland Yard's Sunshine Squad, hard at work in the Caymans ... and helping to run up an £8m bill

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220958/Scotland-Yards-sunshine-squad-hard-work-Caymans---helping-run-18m-bill.html#ixzz0UCUvLjJq

Complaints about Met Police

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8141050.stm

Met police complaints rise by 26%

The number of complaints against the Metropolitan Police has risen by a quarter, Scotland Yard has said.

There were 11,925 complaints in the year up to March, up from 9,464 the previous year - a 26% increase.

Complaints arising out of public protests contributed "significantly" to the rise, said police.

They do not include G20 protest complaints.

Oppressive behaviour allegations against London officers and staff rose by almost 18%.

'Significant increase'

Allegations of incivility rose by 20% and "failure of duty" by 29%, said police.

There were also 885 allegations of discriminatory behaviour - a rise of 40% on the previous year.

There has been an upward trend in complaints since 2004, but the number of allegations per 1,000 officers had always been lower than the average for England and Wales, the Met said.

Clashes between police and protesters at the G20 summit in London in April led to a further 145 complaints, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has said.

They include 70 claims of excessive force by alleged victims or witnesses to brutality, the organisation added.

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said: "The previous year complaints went up slightly, but even though there is an upward trend, this is a significant increase.

"It may be partly attributable to new methods of reporting and recording complaints, but nevertheless it will be something that will be a worry for the Metropolitan Police."

Complaints on the Increase

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090923/tuk-complaints-against-police-up-by8-6323e80.html

Complaints against police up by 8%

Complaints against the police shot up by 8% last year, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has said.

The police watchdog said members of the public made 31,259 complaints against forces in England and Wales in 2008/09.

That is an increase of 2,296 on the 2007/08 total of 28,963 and it means more than 600 complaints are made every week.

One in every four was for "neglect of duty" - officers being slow or ineffective when responding to calls, the IPCC said, and one in five was for officers being rude.

Around one complaint in 10 is upheld, the IPCC said. The figures exclude complaints against the police over the G20 protests on April 1 this year, which fell just outside the reporting period.

They are likely to be worrying for both the Home Office and senior officers, coming despite efforts to make officers more accountable to the public.

Newly released data from the 2006/7 British Crime Survey revealed more than one in four of those asked said their contact with the police had left them "really annoyed".

A Home Office spokesman said: "We welcome the publication of the IPCC's statistical report on police complaints.

"We note the numbers of complaints and allegations have risen, which is likely to reflect in part greater public awareness about the role of the IPCC.

"We also note only 10% of allegations were found to be substantiated, a proportion that has remained steady since the IPCC was established."

-----------------------

Independent Police Complaints Commission

Police Complaints Statistics for England and Wales

2005/6 26, 268 complaints were recorded. An increase of 15% on the previous year.
2006/7 28, 998 complaints and increase of 10% on previous year.
2007/8 28, 963 zero increase on previous year

Since 2005 complaints about the police have increased by 33%

Police Pledge

Policing Pledge

THE POLICE SERVICE IN ENGLAND AND WALES WILL SUPPORT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AND PURSUE CRIMINALS RELENTLESSLY TO KEEP YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBOURHOODS SAFE FROM HARM. WE WILL:

1. Always treat you fairly with dignity and respect ensuring you have fair access to our services at a time that is reasonable and suitable for you.

2. Provide you with information so you know who your dedicated Neighbourhood Policing Team is, where they are based, how to contact them and how to work with them.

3. Ensure your Neighbourhood Policing Team and other police patrols are visible and on your patch at times when they will be most effective and when you tell us you most need them. We will ensure your team are not taken away from neighbourhood business more than is absolutely necessary. They will spend at least 80% of their time visibly working in your neighbourhood, tackling your priorities. Staff turnover will be minimised.

4. Respond to every message directed to your Neighbourhood Policing Team within 24 hours and, where necessary, provide a more detailed response as soon as we can.

5. Aim to answer 999 calls within 10 seconds, deploying to emergencies immediately giving an estimated time of arrival, getting to you safely, and as quickly as possible. In urban areas, we will aim to get to you within 15 minutes and in rural areas within 20 minutes.

6. Answer all non-emergency calls promptly. If attendance is needed, send a patrol giving you an estimated time of arrival, and:

• If you are vulnerable or upset aim to be with you within 60 minutes.

• If you are calling about an issue that we have agreed with your community will be a neighbourhood priority and attendance is required, we will aim to be with you within 60 minutes.

• Alternatively, if appropriate, we will make an appointment to see you at a time that fits in with your life and within 48 hours.
• If agreed that attendance is not necessary we will give you advice, answer your questions and/or put you in touch with someone who can help.

7. Arrange regular public meetings to agree your priorities, at least once a month, giving you a chance to meet your local team with other members of your community. These will include opportunities such as surgeries, street briefings and mobile police station visits which will be arranged to meet local needs and requirements.

8. Provide monthly updates on progress, and on local crime and policing issues. This will include the provision of crime maps, information on specific crimes and what happened to those brought to justice, details of what action we and our partners are taking to make your neighbourhood safer and information on how your force is performing.

9. If you have been a victim of crime agree with you how often you would like to be kept informed of progress in your case and for how long. You have the right to be kept informed at least every month if you wish and for as long as is reasonable.

10. Acknowledge any dissatisfaction with the service you have received within 24 hours of reporting it to us. To help us fully resolve the matter, discuss with you how it will be handled, give you an opportunity to talk in person to someone about your concerns and agree with you what will be done about them and how quickly.

WE WANT TO DO OUR BEST FOR YOU BUT IF WE FAIL TO MEET OUR PLEDGE WE WILL ALWAYS EXPLAIN WHY IT HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE ON THAT OCCASION TO DELIVER THE HIGH STANDARDS TO WHICH WE ASPIRE AND YOU DESERVE.

Targeted

Woman living alone is targeted by police from Holborn who come to her home, threaten to kick her door in if she doesn't open it, arrest her for no good reason, take her property without a warrant and then hold her in custody at the police station for 24 hours.

This is the second time holborn police have done this.

Woman is very distressed and believes the police are intentionally harassing her and lives in fear of what they will do next.

Right to a Jury Trial

Magistrates Courts Act 1980

Section 20
The court shall explain to the accused in ordinary language—

(a) that it appears to the court more suitable for him to be tried summarily for the offence, and that he can either consent to be so tried or, if he wishes, be tried by a jury; and

(b) that if he is tried summarily and is convicted by the court, he may be committed for sentence to the Crown Court under [F10 section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000] if the convicting court, [F11 is of such opinion as is mentioned in subsection (2) of that section].

(3) After explaining to the accused as provided by subsection (2) above the court shall ask him whether he consents to be tried summarily or wishes to be tried by a jury, and—

(a) if he consents to be tried summarily, shall proceed to the summary trial of the information;

(b) if he does not so consent, shall proceed to inquire into the information as examining justices.

Director Generals Charging Guidance

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/directors_guidance/dpp_guidance_annex_a.html

The Director's Guidance on Charging

Annex A

Offences or circumstances, which must always be referred to a Crown Prosecutor for early consultation and charging decision - whether admitted or not

• Offences requiring the Attorney General's or Director of Public Prosecution's consent.
• Any indictable only offence.
• Any either way offence triable only on indictment due to the surrounding circumstances of the commission of the offence or the previous convictions of the person.

In so far as not covered by the above:

• Offences under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 or any other offence linked with terrorist activity.
• Offences under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
• Offences under the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
• Offences under any of the Official Secrets Acts.
• Offences involving any racial, religious or homophobic aggravation.
• Offences classified as Domestic Violence.
• Offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 committed by or upon persons under the age of 18 years.
• Offences involving Persistent Young Offenders, unless chargeable by the police under Paragraph 3.3.
• Offences arising directly or indirectly out of activities associated with hunting wild mammals with dogs under the Hunting Act 2004.
• The following specific offences (see note 1):
• Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
• Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
• Violent Disorder contrary to Section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986
• Affray, contrary to Section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986
• Offences involving deception, contrary to the Theft Acts 1968 & 1978 (see note 2)
• Handling stolen goods, contrary to Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968
• Offences under the Fraud Act 2006.

Notes

1. File requirements for these cases will be in accordance with the Manual of Guidance expedited file, to include key witness statements or other compelling evidence and a short descriptive note of any interview conducted.
2. If the offence was committed before 15 January 2007.

CPS Blunder

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207448/Film-maker-taken-court-stealing-0-003p--cost-5-000-taxpayer.html

Film maker taken to court for' stealing' 0.003p worth of electricity .... at a cost of over £5,000 to taxpayers

Camden police are I suspect involved in the above story as well as the Camden based CPS who share a building with the police in Holborn.

These people are dealing with other peoples lives and liberty and 'mistakes' like this can have a profound negative affect on lives and the public perception of these agencies if the standards they should be adhering to are allowed to slip.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8192964.stm

Amnesty for Met credit card abuse

More than 1,000 police officers and staff who misused corporate credit cards will not be punished, a police watchdog has decided.

The Metropolitan Police Authority found 1,183 Met employees used the American Express cards for personal spending.

They were given "training and guidance" instead of punishment.

But Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) member Jenny Jones said training was "not enough" and called for disciplinary action to be taken.

The MPA audit found that one in three of the 3,533 Met officers and staff issued with corporate credit cards misused them.

At one point £3.7m of public money was unaccounted for.

The majority of this money was paid back but legal action is expected against two officers who owe £82,000 and £1,100.

Money repaid

People who made "potentially unacceptable" use of the credit cards, including cases of suspected fraud, were labelled "category A" by the MPA and passed to anti-corruption detectives.

The 1,183 people who misused a card but did not break the law were labelled "category B".

These included officers and staff who purchased personal items and later repaid the money or bought equipment that should have been purchased by other means.

The internal MPA document stated: "It was agreed between all interested parties that due to the volume of files involved, those officers that are deemed to have category B files would receive no formal discipline sanction for their card use, but would receive 'training and guidance' with regards their use."

But Ms Jones said: "I find it unacceptable that the police have just let these officers go with guidance.

"They must have known what they were doing was wrong."

She added: "Having police who do not obey the rules is damaging for public confidence in the Met because you ask: 'What other rules do they break?'"

A Met spokesman declined to comment.

A spokeswoman for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said: "The IPCC agreed with the Met that any cases where there were possible misconduct or criminal offences committed would be referred to the IPCC, all other cases would be dealt with locally by the Met."

Fifty cases of Met credit card misuse have been referred to the IPCC so far, she added.

"Of those, three officers have been convicted, two are awaiting trial, 14 have been given written warnings, one has received words of advice, one has received a formal reprimand and two are awaiting misconduct hearings."

The Met has introduced a new Barclaycard corporate credit card system with tighter spending controls.

Inquiries into corporate credit card use by Met officers and staff are expected to continue until March 2010.

DNA & Fingerprints

According to a Freedom of Information (Act) request response from the Home Office:

"Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, the police may take, without consent, DNA and fingerprints from persons who have been arrested for, charged with, informed they will be reported for or convicted of a recordable offence.

A recordable offence is any offence under United Kingdom law where the police are able to keep records of convictions and offenders on the Police National Computer (PNC).

A list of all recordable offences are listed under the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, (SI 1139/2000) as amended by The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (SI 2823/2003), 2005 (SI 3106/2005) and 2007 (SI 2121/2007). These regulations were made under s.27(4) of PACE. Copies of the above Statutory Instruments can be viewed on the Office of Public Sector Information website (www.opsi.gov.uk).

National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000
National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2003
The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2005
The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2007

'Robocop'

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23729365-details/%C2%91Robocop%C2%92+who+targeted+drug+dealers+died+at+home+from+heroin+overdose/article.do

‘Robocop’ who targeted drug dealers died at home from heroin overdose

Justin Davenport, Crime Correspondent

07.08.09

A Met police officer renowned as a scourge of London drug dealers was found dead in his flat from a heroin overdose.

David Pilling - who was known as “Robocop” for his efforts in tackling drugs - was found collapsed at his home in Camden earlier this year.

An inquest heard yesterday how the 47-year-old died from an overdose from a heroin injection while his body also had traces of cocaine and Ecstasy use.

His sudden death shocked friends, colleagues and family none of whom had any idea he took drugs.

Colleagues say the hugely popular officer may have been experimenting with drugs and died from an accidental overdose.

An investigation into his death found that the officer had been looking at websites dealing with drugs and how to take them in the weeks before his death.

Pc Pilling, who was originally from Canada, built up a reputation for tackling drug dealers on his beat in Holborn and Covent Garden.

A member of the local Safer Neighbourhoods Team he once chased a dealer down a flight of steps in Tottenham Court Road on his motorbike.

Camden borough Commander Dominic Clout, said: “PC Pilling was a truly valued member of staff who proved popular with colleagues and members of the local community.

“Clearly Pc Pilling displayed no signs of drug use whilst at Camden borough and his colleagues and supervisors were unaware of any issues relating to drugs.

“The Met does operate an alcohol and substance misuse policy which includes random screening of serving officers. Whilst we will always support colleagues through challenging or difficult times who alert us of potential problems and actively seek help we will never tolerate the use of drugs amongst officers and will deal with any reported cases severely.”

The inquest heard that tests showed the police officer was not a heroin addict.

There was evidence that he had used the drug before and some evidence that he had also tried cocaine and Ecstasy.

Colleagues said there was nothing in his behaviour to show that he had been using drugs regularly.

Detective Inspector Paul Clack of Camden Police said: “The whole thing has been a complete shock to everyone. This came out of the blue.

“There was no major incident in his life that might have prompted this. In fact he was always very active in arresting people in possession of drugs.”

More than 100 friends and colleagues have posted tributes to the officer on Internet social networking sites.

The Office of Constable

"The independent Office of Constable operates within, and is accountable to, the rule of law.

The rule of law is the principle that no one is above the law. Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that government authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps.

The principle of the rule of law is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance.

The law must be accessible, intelligible, clear and predictable and must apply equally to all. It must also afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights. It is the independent and impartial holder of the Office of Constable who is tasked with upholding and enforcing the law". (Source: Police Federation of England and Wales May 2008 )

Read the full text HERE

CPS

http://po12bg.co.uk/portsmouth.aspx

" The Crown Prosecution Service has refused to pursue the allegations from these councillors of criminal activity on this site, as a viable case. In other words, no crimes have been committed on this site."

Portsmouth CPS appear to hold the view that 'blowing the whistle' on blogs isn't a 'heinous crime' . This is as many people may agree a common sense and reasonable assertion. Over here in the London Borough of Camden the CPS take the very different view that 'whistle blowing' on blogs is a most heinous crime indeed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197427/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION--Waterboarding-Met-force-faces-biggest-police-scandal-decades.html

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION:

Waterboarding at the Met and why the force faces the biggest police scandal in decades

By Tom Rawstorne and Stephen Wright
Last updated at 2:20 AM on 04th July 2009

In his first-ever media interview, Nigerian immigrant David Nwankwo stands by his claim that he was tortured by police. An outrageous smear? Perhaps. But it's part of wider allegations of corruption, theft and brutality that dog the Met.

A nondescript terrace house in North London and a police drugs raid is in full swing. On a bedroom floor, David Nwankwo is sitting, semi-naked, with his hands handcuffed behind his back as a plain- clothes officer yells: ‘Tell the truth.’ The 24-year-old Nigerian-born immigrant is repeatedly kicked and slapped, on one occasion even being struck around the head with a Bible.

On the landing, another suspect has a bucket placed over his head. While one policeman beats out a rhythm on the bucket with his hands, another breaks into a mocking dance.

For Mr Nwankwo, it is about to get even worse.

Hauled to his feet, he is dragged into the bathroom. The door is closed and the officer places the plug in the sink and turns on the taps. As the water rises, Mr Nwankwo is grabbed around the back of the neck and his head forced downwards.

‘I was screaming and screaming,’ he says. ‘I was trying to pull my head up. I was so near to the water that it touched my nose. He wanted to intimidate me.’

Though the incident was brought to an end when another officer entered the room, the ramifications of Mr Nwankwo’s claims have a long way to run.

His description of his alleged torture by the police — published here for the first time — is at the centre of the most significant investigation into police corruption for decades. Six police officers with the Enfield borough crime squad, based at Edmonton, North London, are suspended from duty while an investigation is carried out by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

If there is sufficient evidence, criminal prosecutions and sackings could follow.

As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing a string of cases in which the officers were involved. If it is found that their evidence is tainted, scores of suspects could walk free.

As well as investigating Mr Nwankwo’s allegation of water torture, the Daily Mail can reveal that anti-corruption investigators are probing claims that a number of others were subjected to ritualistic humiliation. Victims were almost always vulnerable people living on the edge of society, such as the homeless or illegal immigrants.

Sources say the officers took particular delight in humiliating women, but chose their victims carefully.

A source said: ‘It was gratuitous violence on people who were unlikely to make complaints or whose complaints were unlikely to be taken seriously.’

Investigators are also examining claims that suspects’ property was stolen and evidence fabricated. Another source added: ‘This is without doubt the most serious corruption scandal facing the Metropolitan Police since the Seventies.

‘The complete lack of supervision of this squad beggars belief and is a major indictment of how Scotland Yard has been managed over the past few years.’ Two senior officers have been transferred to non-operational posts by Met chief Sir Paul Stephenson.

Insiders believe the allegations of a lack of leadership could damage the reputations of some of Sir Paul’s most trusted lieutenants, not to mention causing public outrage.

Perhaps most shocking of all are the allegations of torture.

Until today, Mr Nwankwo has not spoken publicly about the circumstances surrounding his arrest. News of his ordeal leaked out three weeks ago, when it emerged that the IPCC was investigating an allegation of police torture.

At the time, it was widely described as waterboarding, a term used to describe an interrogation technique whereby a victim is tied down and water poured down their nose and throat to make them feel as if they are drowning.

It was used routinely on terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay.

Police sources have attempted to play down the incident, claiming it has been exaggerated.

A colleague of those suspended spoke out against the ‘false claims’ that threatened to destroy the careers of the officers, all of whom have denied wrongdoing. ‘The only thing this investigation has achieved is letting drug dealers go free,’ the source said. ‘It’s a joke.’

But there are two sides to every story. While Mr Nwankwo’s claims must be treated with caution, they are sufficiently credible that they are being taken seriously by the police authorities. He has given statements to the Directorate of Professional Standards, the Met’s anti-corruption squad, and to the IPCC.

He and his lawyers are also considering civil action against the police.

If even half of what he has to say is true, then it paints a deeply disturbing picture of brutality at the heart of one of London’s biggest crime squads.

Mr Nwankwo came to Britain four years ago and is legally allowed to live and work here.

While his lawyers have advised him not to discuss his background, it is worth noting that he has been in trouble only once, when he was cautioned after travelling as a passenger in a car that failed to stop for police.

Mr Nwankwo’s arrest took place shortly after 10pm on November 4 as police tracked a consignment of smuggled drugs. Intelligence had shown that a parcel containing 10kg of cannabis had been delivered from South Africa to a North London address.

An individual from that address had been followed to the home in which Mr Nwankwo and four other men were living. On the night of the raid, Mr Nwankwo was returning from an off-licence when four plain-clothes officers emerged from a vehicle parked outside the house and wrestled him to the ground.

‘I saw some men coming from a car and I thought they were robbers,’ he says. ‘They never told me they were police. They tackled me to the ground and handcuffed me.’

Because Mr Nwankwo did not have his house keys, the officers broke down the front door, dragging him up the stairs. He cut his hand badly on a broken bottle and his trousers were ripped off.

Once upstairs, Mr Nwankwo says he was not taken to his own room, but to that of another tenant, a man called Victor. It quickly became clear that he had fled out of the window as the police entered the property.

‘When they came into the room, they went immediately to the window,’ said Mr Nwankwo. ‘They were angry. They were saying they had lost the job.

‘They were asking me: “Where is the boss?” I was telling them I did not know who is the boss. They were telling me they wanted Victor, they wanted to see Victor.’

A subsequent search of the bedroom discovered a number of packages of cannabis resin hidden under the bed. ‘One officer opened up a package and brought it to me,’ said Mr Nwankwo.

‘They were telling me to tell the truth. I was telling them that I had never seen cannabis, that it was a shared house, that I didn’t know Victor very well and I had lived there for only eight months.’

In total, six officers were involved in the raid.

As they dispersed through the house arresting two other men, Mr Nwankwo says he was left in the custody of a single officer for about 45 minutes.

He claims the policeman repeatedly slapped him around the head and whenever he tried to straighten his legs, he was kicked. ‘I have never done anything wrong, so I was asking: “Why are you beating me up?” I was told that if I told them the truth I could go free.

‘The same officer took a Bible and he hit me with it. He said: “Do you go to church?” I said “Yes” and when I said I didn’t know anything, he hit me hard on the head with the Bible.’

Mr Nwankwo was able to see on to the landing, where two officers were dealing with another man they had arrested, 33-year-old Ajah Mpakaboari. ‘One of the officers went to the toilet and brought out a bucket. They put the bucket on Ajah’s head,’ said Mr Nwankwo.

‘There was a little water in it, and it spilled out. One (officer) was beating on the top of the bucket and one was dancing and laughing. 'Ajah was struggling to get the bucket off. It lasted a few minutes, two or three minutes.’

Meanwhile, he claims another officer joked that a plasma TV in the property would ‘look good’ in his house. Another is said to have tried on a jacket he found and then asked his colleagues what they thought of it.

‘They were making a mockery of us,’ said Mr Nwankwo. ‘I felt humiliated because I couldn’t believe they would do this.’

But it is the allegations of water torture that are causing most consternation at Scotland Yard and beyond. What did Mr Nwankwo think the officer was doing when his head was forced down towards the water in the sink?

His answer is unequivocal: ‘I felt that he was torturing me.’

He started to scream, which alerted another officer, who knocked on the door and asked what was happening. ‘I didn’t answer,’ said Mr Nwankwo. ‘So he asked his mate. He said I had wanted to use the toilet. I told him that he was lying.’

From the bathroom, he was taken into his own bedroom for the first time. There he was shown cannabis that police said they had found on top of his wardrobe.

Mr Nwankwo told them he had never seen the drugs before and could not understand how they had got there. He and two other men from the house, Mr Mpakaboari and Bernasko Adji, 37, were taken to the police station, where they were charged with drugs smuggling.

Victoria Seabrook, 24, and Nicholas Oforka, 25, who were arrested at a different address, were also charged. All entered not guilty pleas.

In his initial interview with police, Mr Nwankwo did not mention the alleged assaults. He says he did not see the point because all police ‘work together’.

But in subsequent interviews with his lawyers, he did outline the claimed abuse. As it turned out, Mr Nwankwo and his four co-accused would never stand trial.

The case was set for a six-day hearing in March at Wood Green Crown Court. But when lawyers for the defence requested information about the character of the police witnesses, it became clear there was a problem.

The prosecutor applied for a public interest immunity certificate, a legal device to allow a hearing to be held in secrecy.

After two days of discussions with the judge, the CPS announced it was dropping the cannabis charges.

The reason? The officers who had arrested Mr Nwankwo were the subject of an internal investigation into allegations of corruption.

‘If we had continued (with the trial), we would have compromised a wide-ranging criminal investigation into the activities of a number of officers,’ said a CPS spokesman.

The previous month, a number of officers at Edmonton had been suspended or placed on restricted duties following an internal investigation by the Met. This followed the conviction and imprisonment of a female civilian worker at the station, who was jailed for stealing from the stores, where items seized from suspects are held.

Following this, the Met’s anticorruption directorate is understood to have placed video probes and listening devices inside the police station to gather evidence.

Initially, the directorate’s inquiry is understood to have focused on claims of theft of property — including computers, flat-screen TVs and iPods — from people who had been arrested.

Why the investigation widened is unclear.

One legal source has told the Daily Mail that those involved in the arrest of Mr Nwankwo were caught by the covert cameras discussing what had happened on the night of the arrest.

Another suggestion is that a police officer on the raid blew the whistle on his colleagues. Whatever the reason, with the collapse of the drugs trial, Mr Nwankwo was immediately interviewed by police investigators.

When the matter was referred to the IPCC, he was interviewed for a second time.

The Mail understands that the bucket allegedly placed on Mr Mpakaboari’s head has been seized by the IPCC as evidence. In the meantime, Mr Nwankwo is trying to get on with his life.

He has moved house and continues to maintain that he had nothing to do with the drugs found in the raid. Indeed, a central plank of his defence was to have questioned exactly how those drugs came to be in his bedroom.

Mr Nwankwo says that on being taken into the house, he repeatedly asked to be allowed into his own room, but that he was not taken there for an hour. Only then was he shown the drugs that the police claim to have found there.

He also says fingerprint and DNA tests would have shown he’d never had any contact with the cannabis. While angered by his treatment, he admits to being concerned that if he does decide to sue the police, they might ‘come after him’.

‘I have never seen British police beat people up, so this was my first experience,’ he says. ‘And it was me they beat up.’

So does Mr Nwankwo trust the British police?

‘That question is very difficult to answer,’ is his cautious reply, before he adds: ‘No comment.’

But one thing is certain. What he alleges took place has caused shock and deep unease at the highest levels of the Met.

Only in time will the full story of the goings-on at Edmonton police station emerge.

The fear is that when it does, it may rank as one of the greatest police scandals of our age.

Police Oath

Section 83 of the Police Reform Act 2002 requires all UK Police officers to swear the following oath of office: "I, .. .. of .. .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

The act of swearing an oath allows police officers to have legal jurisdiction over other people ie to issue formal warnings, penalties, arrest, detain etc. As I see it if a police officer/s (wilfully) breaks the Oath by treating another person unfairly or criminally - as is proper and just shouldn't they then forfeit the right to have any authority (jurisdiction) over anybody?

If they break the law to 'uphold' the law doesn't that make any arrest, penalty, detention etc null and void?

Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service is the government agency (quango) law firm responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the Police in England and Wales. Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate is the body responsible for monitoring the CPS's performance - but not complaints about performance.

The Crown Prosecution Service must first decide, after evidence is gathered by the police, whether the case should be pursued further. If it is not pursued it is dropped. Their main function is to prosecute on behalf of the state; however, they will prosecute a case only if there is enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against each defendant on each charge and the case is in the public interest. Primarily, they review the evidence, and give guidance on the police evidence; they prosecute in the magistrates court if there is enough evidence and, if the case needs to go to crown court, they sometimes hire independent advocates to prosecute for them but increasingly use their own in-house higher court advocates.(ref wikipedia)

The 2004 Code for Crown Prosecutors is currently being revised.

The Code says Crown Prosecutors must be "fair, independent and objective."

The Code also says "it is the duty of Crown prosecutors to make sure the right person is prosecuted for the right offence".

The CPS is a public authority for purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Burglary

The Theft Act 1968

Definition of “theft”

Basic definition of theft.
1. — (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

6. — "With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

(1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

Burglary

9. A person is guilty of burglary if -
(a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below , or

Click HERE to read the full version of the Theft Act 1986.
___________________

Any police officer/s who enters your home without a warrant for a summary (petty) offence is trespassing which is a common law offence. If they then take your property they are committing a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968.

They are also breaking the law in regards to the Human Rights Act 1998 namely Articles 1 Protection of Property and Article 8 Right to Respect for Private and Family Life.

If this happens to you I would advice you either make an official police complaint, where the majority of complaints will be passed onto the Professional Standards Department, report the crime to your local police station or contact a good solicitor and take legal action against the trespassing thieve/s.

DNA Statched from Children in Camden

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newshamhigh&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshamhigh&itemid=WeED04%20Jun%202009%2012%3A28%3A17%3A683

DNA snatched from children in Camden

04 June 2009

Ben McPartland

TEENAGERS with no criminal record are being arrested so that their DNA can be stored in case they commit future crimes, a police officer has admitted.

An investigation by the Ham&High into how Camden police take DNA from under 18s led to the admission from the officer, who asked not to be named. He says police acting on intelligence will target only known troublemakers they believe are heading for a life of crime.

His comments come as an FOI request revealed how 386 under 18s had their DNA taken and stored by police last year - more than one a day.

The police were not able to say how many of these arrests led to charges but the officer's comments suggest the DNA collection will be used to build a database of likely future offenders.

The officer said: "It is part of a long term crime prevention strategy. We are often told that we have just one chance to get that DNA sample and if we miss it that might mean a rape or a murder goes unsolved in the future.

"Have we got targets for young people who have not been arrested yet? The answer is yes. But we are not just waiting outside schools to pick them up, we are acting on intelligence. If you know you have had your DNA taken and it is on a database then you will think twice about committing burglary for a living."

Already this year 169 under-18s have had their profiles uploaded.

Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for Holborn and St Pancras Jo Shaw obtained the figures. She said: "Storing the DNA of innocent people as young as 10 is unlikely to solve Camden's crime problems, but is a really costly way of stigmatising young people. If you're innocent, you shouldn't have your data kept for years."

DNA samples, which are taken by police after an arrest is made, are turned into a number known as a profile, which is kept on a national database indefinitely.

Ch Insp Sean Wilson from Camden Police said: "The DNA database is a nationwide one. Legislation governing the recording and retention of DNA is fully adhered to by Camden Police."

In response to criticism of the DNA system the government is now proposing that youngsters who have only been arrested once for minor offences and been acquitted will have their DNA profiles destroyed once they reach the age of 18.

Entry, Search and Seize without a warrant

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1871554

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)

Part II
Powers of Entry, Search and Seizure

Entry and search without search warrant

18. Entry and search after arrest.

— (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a constable may enter and search any premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for an indictable offence.

----------------------

An indictable offence is one that can only be tried at the Crown Court with a jury. The first hearing is held at the Magistrates Court but has to be sent onto the Crown Court.

Arrest without a warrant

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871587&filesize=19867

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)

Part III Arrest

Arrest without warrant: constables

[ F1 24.

Arrest without warrant: constables

(1) A constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a) anyone who is about to commit an offence;

(b) anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;

(c) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;

(d)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.

(2) If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

(3) If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;

(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

(4) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1), (2) or (3) is exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (5) it is necessary to arrest the person in question.

(5) The reasons are—

(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);

(b) correspondingly as regards the person's address;

(c) to prevent the person in question—

(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(ii) suffering physical injury;

(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;

(iv) committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or

(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;

(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;

(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

(6) Subsection (5)(c)(iv) applies only where members of the public going about their normal business cannot reasonably be expected to avoid the person in question.]

Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1	Ss. 24, 24A substituted for s. 24 (1.1.2006) by Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15), ss. 110(1) , 178; S.I. 2005/3495, art. 2(1)(m)
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1	S. 24 extended (2.8.1993) by S.I. 1993/1813, art. 6, Sch. 3 para. 2(4).
C2	S. 24 applied (12.5.2005) by The Sudan (United Nations Measures) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1259), art. 10(6) S. 24 applied (9.6.2005) by The Democratic Republic of the Congo (United Nations Measures) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1517), art. 10(6)
C3	S. 24(1) applied (6.2.2004) by The Democratic Republic of Congo (Financing and Financial Assistance and Technical Advice, Assistance and Training) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/221), reg. 4(2) S. 24(1) applied (19.2.2004) by The Sudan (Technical Assistance and Financing and Financial Assistance) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/373), reg. 4(2) S. 24(1) applied (26.2.2004) by The Liberia (Technical Assistance and Financing and Financial Assistance) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/432), reg. 4(2)
C4	S. 24(1) applied (17.5.2004) by The Burma (Sale, Supply, Export, Technical Assistance, Financing and Financial Assistance and Shipment of Equipment) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1315), reg. 4(2)
C5	S. 24(2) modified (1.9.2001) by 2001 c. 16, s. 47(3); S.I. 2001/2223, art. 4(c)
C6	S. 24(2) applied by S.I. 1990/1768, art. 8(10) (as replaced by S.I. 1990/2144, art. 3) S. 24(2) extended (15.4.1992) by S.I. 1992/975, art. 16(13). S. 24(2) extended (5.6.1992) by S.I. 1992/1302, art. 17(13). s. 24(2) extended (1.5.1993) by S.I. 1993/1188, art. 16(11). S. 24(2) extended (24.5.1993) by S.I. 1993/1244, art. 22(13). S. 24(2) extended (22.7.1993) by S.I. 1993/1784, art. 13(12). S. 24(2) extended (22.7.1993) by S.I. 1993/1787, art. 10(12). S. 24(2) extended (1.10.1993) by S.I. 1993/2355, art. 12(12). S. 24(2) extended (1.12.1993) by S.I. 1993/2807, art. 19(12) S. 24(2) applied (23.5.1994) by 1994/1323, art. 17(12) S. 24(2) applied (19.10.1994) by S.I. 1994/2673, art. 13(12) S. 24(2) applied (7.2.1995) by S.I. 1995/271, art. 11(4) S. 24(2) applied (15.11.1996) by S.I. 1996/2721, art. 11(4) S. 24(2) extended (1.11.1997) by S.I. 1997/2592, art. 12(12) S. 24(2) applied (with modifications) (15.7.1998) by S.I. 1998/1531, art. 4(2). S. 24(2) extended (3.6.1999) by S.I. 1999/1516, art. 9(9) S. 24(2) extended (14.10.1999) by S.I. 1999/2821, art. 4(2) S. 24(2) extended (14.10.1999) by S.I. 1999/2822, art. 4(2) S. 24(2) extended (26.11.1999) by S.I. 1999/3133, art. 8(12) S. 24(2) applied (16.6.2000) by S.I. 2000/1556, art. 17(12) S. 24(2) applied (28.9.2000) by S.I. 2000/2620, reg. 11(5) S. 24(2) applied (25.5.2000) by S.I. 2000/1408, reg. 3 S. 24(2) extended (16.2.2001) by S.I. 2001/396, art. 25(13) S. 24(2) applied (10.10.2001) by S.I. 2001/3365, art. 10(10) (subject to art. 1(2))
C7	S. 24(2) applied (with modifications) (25.1.2002) by The Al-Qa'ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/111), art. 20(13) S. 24(2) applied (with modifications) (31.3.2002) by The Zimbabwe (Sale, Supply, Export and Shipment of Equipment) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/ 868), reg. 4(2) S. 24(2) applied (with modifications) (24.10.2002) by The Somalia (United Nations Sanctions) Order (S.I. 2002/2628), art. 16(12)
C8	S. 24(2) applied (14.6.2003) by The Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/1519), art. 20(12) S. 24(2) applied (11.2.2005) by The Ivory Coast (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/253), art. 9(12)
C9	S. 24(2) applied (13.2.2004) by The Liberia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/348), art. 15(12)

______________________________________

Rather worryingly 'offence' is not defined in the above act which leaves a lot of room for not so honest or over zealous coppers to arrest anyone (except most of the real criminals of course) on any trumped up 'offence'. Police state or what? So much for human rights and natural justice when the government makes laws that enable the police to arrest and detain anyone (usually innocent people) they choose for any made up and minor 'offence'!

Welcome to communist Britain.

Example 5

A Highgate single mother with children is harassed and abused in her home by a neighbour who works for Camden Council, the Police at first intervene and issue all kinds of warnings and cautions to the neighbour but then fail to prosecute the council worker when the abuse and harassment continues. The police then turn on the woman and issue her with a harassment warning for complaining about the council employee.

Met Officers Criminal Charges

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/officers_facing_criminal_charges#incoming-27840

Officers facing criminal charges

A Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

24 March 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to request the following information.

1. How many Metropolitan Police officers have been charged with any criminal offence in the following years 2006, 2007, 2008

Answer - MPS unable to provide accurate data

2. How many Metropolitan Police officers have stood trial for any criminal offence in the following years 2006, 2007, 2008

Answer 307

3. How many Metropolitan Police officers have been convicted for any criminal offence in the following years 2006, 2007, 2008

Answer 193

4. How many Metropolitan Police officers have been dismissed following conviction for any criminal offence in the following years 2006, 2007, 2008

Answer 4

5. How many complaints against Metropolitan Police officers have resulted in criminal charges being made against the officer(s) concerned for the following years 2006, 2007, 2008

Answer 7

NEWSFLASH

NEWSFLASH


Met Police Officer says 'the police are lawfully permitted to tamper with evidence'

I say the unaccountable, do as they please, Police State is here


END OF NEWSFLASH

Human Rights

http://www3.camden.gov.uk/templates/committees/showHTML.cfm?file=27494.htm

THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the key articles of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. These include the following:

(a) Article 6: Right to a fair trial

6(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations......everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

(b) Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(c) Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

(d) Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, or other status.

However most Convention rights are not absolute and set out circumstances when an interference with a person's rights is permitted.

Thus for example Article 8 states that "there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of (rights under that Article) except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" and Article 1 of the First Protocol states that the provisions of the Article "shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

However, any interference with any of the Rights contained in the Convention must be sanctioned by law and be aimed at pursuing a legitimate aim and must go no further than is necessary and be proportionate to the intended objective of the authority. The interference will not be justified if the means used to achieve the aim are excessive in the circumstances.

Shocking beyond words

thttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173555/How-family-kept-police-killer-Harry-Roberts-bars-betrayed-called-Ministry-Justice.html

How family who kept police killer Harry Roberts behind bars were betrayed by the so-called Ministry of Justice

By Ian Gallagher
Last updated at 10:06 PM on 25th April 2009

Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that Justice Secretary Jack Straw faced urgent questions about how Britain's most notorious police killer, Harry Roberts, was able to terrorise a family whose evidence blocked his release from jail. Roberts callously shot three policemen in 1966 and was sentenced to life in prison. James and Joan Cartwright, who gave Roberts work at their animal sanctuary for his day release, told how a series of brutal attacks on their animals coincided with a five-year campaign of intimidation. Here the Cartwrights continue their shocking story...

Click HERE to read full story

Met suspends 9 officers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/17/police-corruption-inquiry

Met suspends nine police officers in corruption inquiry

Enfield officers removed from duty over allegations of 'mishandling of property', says Scotland Yard
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 February 2009 18.56 GMT

Scotland Yard suspended nine detectives today over corruption allegations.

The nine are based in the north London borough of Enfield and face allegations concerning stolen flat-screen televisions, computers and other consumer electrical goods.

Anti-corruption detectives have been investigating claims that the electrical goods were taken from criminal suspects.

The Metropolitan police, which is Britain's largest force, has fought a decades-long battle against corruption in its ranks. Senior officers hoped reforms and efforts to stress the importance of integrity to officers would make such scandals a thing of the past.

Officially the Met said the allegations focused on the "mishandling of property". It said a further two officers had been placed on restricted duties.

All those concerned are detectives in Enfield's crime squad, part of that borough's CID unit. Police said they were not of senior rank.

The Met said there had been no arrests, and that its investigation, which is believed to have been running for more than a year, was continuing.

In a statement, the Met said: "The MPS [Metropolitan police service] demands the highest levels of honesty and integrity from its officers and staff. All allegations of malpractice are taken extremely seriously and are investigated swiftly and thoroughly."

Scotland Yard's anti-corruption squad is an elite unit of hand-picked detectives that has been nicknamed "the ghost squad". In the mid-1990s, Scotland Yard began a new drive against corruption, setting up the special squad, which included retired detectives and even accountants. Their investigation led to a host of trials and several convictions.

Met Police Service

Met Police Service Annual Report 2001/2

This is the joint report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Metropolitan Police Authority for April 2001 to March 2002.

Mission Vision and Values

Mission
Our mission is:
Making London safe we all the people we serve

We:

• Make places safer
• Cut crime and the fear of crime
• Uphold the law
  

Values
Our values are to:

• Treat everyone fairly
• Be open and honest
• Work in partnership
• Change to improve
  

Not Good Practice

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/reminder-to-police-it-is-not-good-practice-to-doctor-evidence-966074.html

Reminder to police: it is not good practice to doctor evidence

David Williams and Jonathan Owen

Sunday, 19 October 2008

That the police shot dead the wrong man was a mistake. That one officer has been force to admitt doctoring the records of exactly how and why they came to shoot him threatens to turn the mistake into something more enduring.

The notes of the officer – identified only as "Owen" at the inquest of Jean Charles de Menezes – were altered the day before being submitted as evidence to a Metropolitan Police solicitor earlier this month.

The officer told the court he did not see the deleted evidence as relevant, even though it appeared to contradict the testimony of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, who led the ill-fated operation resulting in Mr de Menezes's death.

The former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Imbert said last night that the doctoring row is a "wake-up call" for officers.

The Met faces intense scrutiny over the shooting of the Brazilian electrician in Stockwell in 2005 after he was mistaken for a failed suicide bomber. Public confidence has been sapped by the recent resignation of Sir Ian Blair and a spate of race rows involving senior officers.

Lord Imbert, who led the force between 1987 and 1993, said last week's revelation, that a Special Branch officer had altered notes submitted to the inquest as evidence, presented an opportunity to remind officers of correct procedure. "It is certainly not acceptable to alter your notes," he said, and condemned the doctoring of evidence as "not good practice".

"This is a wake-up call, and officers must be reminded of the correct way of doing things."

He added that the practice of officers collaborating to produce a single written statement, while not wrong, should also be kept within "proper limits".

Anthony Scrivener QC, former chairman of the Bar Council, went further and said "What is needed is a reminder of the rules regarding taking statements," he said. "You can alter it, but it has to be by way of an official statement. A police officer should not decide what is relevant or not. That's for the court to decide."

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and the Metropolitan Police Authority will now investigate the officer's actions.

The controversy is likely to swell the growing numbers making formal complaints to the IPCC.

The IPCC's latest figures reveal public complaints over "irregularity in relation to evidence/perjury" have almost doubled in the past four years – rising from 493 in 2004 to 931 in 2008. And the number of complaints made each year accusing police of "corrupt practice" has almost tripled over the same period – up from 91 to 251.

A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said: "The Met continuously reviews policies and procedures to ensure we can deliver greater policing and operational effectiveness. We will of course consider any options for learning and best practice that may arise from the inquest.

Met Police Blunders

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165034/Police-blunders-left-ANOTHER-serial-rapist-free-attack-20-terrified-women-doorstep.html

Police blunders that left ANOTHER serial rapist free to attack 20 more terrified women on their doorstep

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:32 AM on 27th March 2009

Police yesterday apologised for appalling blunders that left a sex beast free to claim at least 20 extra victims.

Kirk Reid became a prime suspect in 2004 for dozens of attacks on women walking home alone. But, because officers failed to question him, he was able to extend his reign of terror for four more years.

The 44-year-old chef and children’s football coach was arrested last year only after the case was passed to specialist detectives. They took five days to crack the assaults dating back seven years.

Reid’s DNA was found to link him with a rape and two indecent assaults in 2001 and 2002. In all, the detectives connected him to attacks on 71 women in South London but believe there may have been hundreds more.

Many of the victims were fumbling for their doorkeys when Reid – described as having ‘crazy eyes’ – pounced.

A jury convicted him yesterday of 26 attacks, including two rapes. The inexplicable failure by officers to arrest him when he formally became a suspect has rocked Scotland Yard.

It has referred the case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The Met has also taken the unprecedented step of issuing a full apology to the women who could have been spared a terrifying ordeal had officers done their job properly.

More...

• Victim: 'It's shocking, he could have been caught years earlier'

Commander Mark Simmons, who has overall responsibility for investigating serious sex attacks, said: ‘It is clear from the evidence heard in court that the standard of investigation was not what we as an organisation, or the victims, should have expected.

‘Reid should have been arrested sooner and I, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service am sorry those women who were subsequently attacked by him have been caused unnecessary suffering.’

The blunders are even worse than those made in the case of John Worboys, who was convicted earlier this month of drugging and sexually assaulting women in the back of his taxi.

The black cab rapist attacked 30 women after he was arrested and released.

One senior Met source said: ‘Reid is ten times worse than Worboys. This was horrendous mismanagement on a massive scale. It was total and abject failure not to catch Reid sooner and there is no excuse for it.’

Deborah Glass of the IPCC said the four-year delay in the case was a cause for concern.

She added: ‘It takes courage for victims of serious sexual offences to come forward and report their ordeal to police.

‘That is why they have every right to expect the highest possible level of response.

‘When this does not happen, victims should have confidence the police will be held to account – and that real change will result.’

Following a review, the Met has decided to place its borough Sapphire sex offence units under central command.

At Kingston Crown Court, Judge Shani Barnes praised the officers who caught Reid but voiced sharp criticism of the ‘years of inadequate work’.

Reid would follow lone women on their way home on the Tube or on night buses after nights out in Central London. A keen athlete, he used his powerful 6ft 2inframe to overwhelm his victims on their doorsteps. They would be wrestled to the ground where he would molest them.

Most attacks took place in Balham, Clapham and Tooting – not far from Reid’s home in Colliers Wood.

In September 2002, the Met linked 26 crimes and had obtained DNA of the offender. By the end of 2004, the number of assaults under investigation had risen to 60.

Reid had come to the attention of police 12 times by then but was never visited or asked for the DNA sample that would have condemned him.

Finally, in January 2008, the case was passed to the Met’s homicide and serious crime command. Within five days, Detective Inspector Justin Davies and his team had charged Reid.

They managed to trace only 50 of his 71 victims because of the length of time that had elapsed.

Reid pleaded guilty to two attacks and, following his sixweek trial, was convicted of 26 more, including rapes in 2002 and 1995. He will be sentenced later this year after psychiatric assessment.

Police found hundreds of horrific porn films on his computer depicting stalking and rape.

His half-brother Roger, a Met police constable, played a role in bringing him to justice.

The court heard that Reid confessed the crimes to him during a conversation in cells at court.

He said his brother wore a ‘pathetic’ expression before suddenly saying: ‘I did it.’

Example 4

A non-violent dispute with council housing officers over shoddy housing works, leads to a Camden Town resident being harassed and intimidated in his home by a Camden police officer.

Example 3

Holborn based police officers collude with known criminals who are in receipt of public funding from the council as 'advocates', to intimidate an elderly, disabled very ill West Hampstead resident they had befriended. The criminals knew the elderly man who lives alone, had not long come out of hospital following a massive heart attack and stroke which left him debilitated and weak, but this didn't stop them using the police to intimidate and distress him when he disagreed with them over a matter.

Exmple 2

Kentish Town woman is unlawfully arrested by a DC from Holborn Police Station on trumped up allegations of harassment. Whilst in custody and unbeknown to woman, this DC breaks open the sealed bag of the woman's belongings that were being held by the police, takes woman's door keys from bag and goes to woman's home, enters using the keys and steals her laptop and old pc tower. DC justifies this by claiming the items are 'evidence' in a crime.

DC in collusion with the local council arrested the woman and took the items to punish her for speaking out on a web blog about council corruption.

Example 1

Kentish Town resident who is having serious problems with anti-social neighbours and local housing officers, goes to his local police for help but is then targeted by police officers who

• harass him on the street
• park an unmarked police car outside his home for weeks
  
• make false statements about him
• fail to protect him from a criminal neighbour who he had an injunction out against
• unlawfully arrest him
  

Fearing for his own safety and wel-being he is eventually forced to move out of the borough.