Legal facts on criminal acts by the police

Facts on criminal acts by the police against my person and the United Kingdom:


A)Shielding of crime committed and the offender: all offences within s 4 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967:

. Refusal to investigate a reported offence of the assailant having administered poison (by insecticide) in Feb 2005: an act contrary to Offences Against The Persons Act 1861 s 24.

. Refusal to investigate a reported a reported offence of wounding and grievous bodily harm by the assailant unlawfully and maliciously administering poison (insecticide) in Feb 2005:an act contrary to Offences Against The Person Act 1861 s 23.

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial, and diligent manner, a reported offence of the assailant threatening to kill the victim with a weapon on the 23rd April 2005: an act contrary to the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861 s 16.

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported offence of the assailant assaulting then occasioning actual body harm on the victim on the 23rd of April 2005: an act contrary to the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861 s 47.

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported offence of the assailant assaulted and battered the victim on the 23rd April 2005: an act contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s 39.

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported offence of the assailant intimidating the victim on the 23rd April 2005: an act contrary to the Criminal justice and Public Order Act of 1994 s 51 (1) and (2).

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported act of the assailant harassing the victim on the 23rd April 2005: an offence within the Protection From Harassment Act of 1997 s 2 and 4.

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported act of the assailant being racially abusive to the victim on 23rd April 2005: an offence within the Public Order Act of 1986 s 18(1).

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported act of the assailant committing malicious wounding, grievous bodily harm against the victim on the 23rd April 2005, (an offence within the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 s 20) which is racially aggravated: an offence within the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s 29 (1) (a).

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported an act of the assailant committing actual bodily harm against the victim on 23rd April 2005, (an offence within s 47 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861) which is racially aggravated: Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s 29 (1) (b.

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported act of the assailant committing common assault against the victim on the 23rd April 2005: an offence within the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s 29 (1) (c).

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported act of the assailant destroying the victim’s property on the 23rd April 2005: an offence within the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s (1) (2).

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported act of the assailant destroying the victim’s property (an offence within s 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971) which is racially aggravated: an offence within the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s 30 (1).

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported act of the assailant committing wounding and grievous bodily by any means, against the victim: an offence within the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 s 18.

. Refusal to investigate in a conscientious, fair, impartial and diligent manner, a reported act of the assailant committing wounding and grievous bodily harm with or without weapon or instrument, against the victim: an offence within the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 s 20.

B) Examples of methods employed by the police men in shielding

a) Refusal to act when victim was poisoned: on the 28th February 2005, I reported at the police station (ref: CRIMINT....) that the assailant and her brother poisoned me with insecticide. The officers at the station refused to investigate an act by the assailant of having administered poison (by insecticide) in Feb 2005: an offence within the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861 s 24.

In furtherance of shielding a crime and an offender, the police refused to send me a copy of my complaint as logged in their records, till today. This is contrary to the Freedom of Information Act and clearly shows the lack of respect for the law, at least when it concerns me.

b) Refusal to search for the weapon: On the 23rd April 2005, the police officers refused to search for the weapon that was used for the threatening me with death i.e. the six inches knife (about two inches wide and tapered to a nib, a nib that was pressed against my throat). When they came to the house, everyone was there including the assailant.

It is obvious that a conscientious, fair, impartial, and diligent police officer would immediately ask and check for the violent weapon. These officers refused to ask for, check for or search for the weapon.

One of the primary duties of the police is the detection of crime. By this action, these officers acted against their primary duty and against the law, within s 1, 2, 5, 6, 12 and notes (a) & (c) SI 645 2004 Regulation 3.

c) Refusal to record the description of the weapon: again, the victim described the weapon to the police officer when he later went to the station. The officer refused to write the description of the weapon, see victim’s statement. Clearly, he was shielding the crime and the assailant.

d) Refusal to arrest the assailant: Although, there was no evidence seen by the victim, the police claimed to have arrested the assailant that night i.e. 23/04/05. If she was arrested, why did the police officers not return to the scene of the crime to search for the weapon? WHY ARREST AND NOT INVESTIGATE OR SEARCH FOR THE WEAPON? The action of these officers is contrary to the law: see s18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

a) If the assailant was truly arrested, then the following should proof:
1) CCTV records of the station
2) Custody records
3) Interview records
4) Tape records including the sealed and signed master tape
5) Police notebook.

I believe that a check of the above will confirm that she was not arrested.

b) On arrest, did the assailant not call a solicitor? Is there any evidence of the presence of a solicitor e.g. on CCTV, signed forms, etc.

c)If the assailant was arrested as claimed by the police officers and later freed on bail, what were the conditions for granting bail?

d)If the assailant was arrested, was her alcohol level done, was she examined by the police surgeon?
e)

B. BLACKMAILING AND INTIMIDATING THE VICTIM AT HOME
The police officer called me to a corner and said the assailant had made counter-allegations against me saying that I had pressed a knife against her throat. I replied that I wanted the case pursued to court and that I was ready to do a lie-detector test. The officer then countered that the police usually do not do such a test. I replied that I would pay for one (lie-detector test).

Few minutes later, the same officer then advised me that the assailant had withdrawn her counter-allegations and that a WARNING would be issued to her and that I should let matters be. I REFUSED.

This police officer intimidated me with false counter-allegations and made me scared even more, after just escaping death with a knife pressed at my neck, near my carotid. He wanted me to let matters be at all costs and was now playing the role of a blackmailer and negotiator on behalf of the assailant.

His actions constitute offences within:
s 51 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
s 39 (1) of the Criminal and Police Act 2001
s 40 (10 of the Criminal and Police Act 2001 and
s 4 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967

C. INTIMIDATING THE VICTIM AT ILFORD STATION, (night of 23/004/05)

2. In the windowless room, when I told him several times that I wanted what he had written corrected he threatened to lock me up, bringing out handcuffs. I could not imagine being threatened by an officer when I had just escaped death with a knife pressed against my throat. I told the officer to go ahead and stretched out my hands to him reminding him that in the bible, St. Paul was locked up innocently.
I had just escaped being murdered about an hour earlier and here was the police officer intimidating me for saying the truth should be written down.

This intimidation constitutes an offence contrary to:
s 51 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
s 39 (1) of the Criminal and Police Act 2001
s 40 (10 of the Criminal and Police Act 2001 and
s 4 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967

D. EVIDENCE

The police officers refused to take evidence. Their actions can only lead to one result, a lack of or poor evidence and a poor prosecution. This also corresponds with the following:

When I told the interviewing officer that I insist the case must go to court, he replied that is if the CPS decides to prosecute, in a manner that seemed to imply that it is unlikely, that goal will be achieved.
By their actions, the policemen, clearly and deliberately acted to frustrate any and/or proper prosecution of the assailant.

Direct and real evidence police response

1. Knife refused to check for knife, refused to write its description in victim’s statement

2. Torn shirt refused to take it as evidence. Victim had to argue and abandon it with the interviewing police officer and the police woman manning the desk.

3. Property destroyed including thermometer Police officers did not take thermometer and hydrometer as evidence

Documentary evidence

1. Photograph of assailant’s bites on victim did not take photograph of the bites; did not advise victim to go to the hospital to have bite wounds documented.

2. Photograph of victim’s door torn did not take photograph of the door torn off the hinges hinges

3. Chicken stew (victim’s) strewn over floor. Did not take photograph or video. Initially claimed it was absence of equipment. Later, refused to take photo or video.

4. Okro soup (victim’s) strewn over the floor Did not take photograph or video. Initially claimed it was absence of equipment. Later, refused to take photo or video.

E. BREAKING THE POLICE CODE OF CONDUCT see reg 3 of SI no. 645 of 2004

Honesty and integrity

Fairness and impartiality

Conscientiousness and diligence

Obey all lawful orders and abide by the provisions of legislation applicable to the police.

Officers should support their colleagues in the execution of their lawful duties, and oppose any improper behaviour, reporting it where appropriate.

Whether on or off duty, police officers should not behave in a way, which is likely to bring discredit on the police force.

The primary duty of those who hold the office of constable are the protection of life and property, the preservation of public peace and the prevention and detection of crimes. To fulfil these duties, they are granted extraordinary powers; the public and police service therefore have the right to expect the highest standards of conduct from them.

Accordingly, any allegation of conduct which could, if proved, bring or likely to bring discredit to the police service should be investigated in order to establish whether or not a breach of the code has occurred and whether formal disciplinary action is appropriate.

F. DUTY OF THE POLICE see S 21 SI no. 265 of 1995
Every member of a police force shall carry out all lawful orders and shall all times punctually and promptly perform all appointed duties and attend to all matters within the scope of his office as a constable

F. PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
There has been a series of acts, which have been intended to and have a tendency to pervert the course of justice contrary to common law.
The course of justice starts from when the assailant burst into victim’s room against his expressed wishes and she started with assault proceeding into other criminal acts. From that moment, it is expected (and reasonably so) that a criminal investigation would follow.

A few of the criminal acts that the officers have done include:

1. Persuading and attempting to persuade by intimidation, the victim to keep silent about a series of criminal acts that have been done by the assailant.

2. Presenting false counter-allegations and blackmail against the victim with a view to avoiding police investigation and prosecution of the assailant.
Giving false information to the victim, with a view to frustrating a police investigation e.g. telling the victim that all the acts of the assailant, which are contrary to the law (see a – q in criminal acts by the assailant, Susan) all constitute racially aggravated assault which will be investigated by the Community Relations Police, and that they (Community Relations Police) would come and take a statement from the victim two days later

A detective telling the victim to destroy evidence and claiming not to know about photography and its role in evidence is giving false information.

3. Refusal to carry out the primary duties of a police officer i.e. detection of crime and in so doing shielding a crime and an offender, a repeat offender against the same victim contrary to statutes: see SI 645 of 2004

4. Refusal to collect evidence as already detailed e.g. refusal to collect the victim’s shirt torn by the assailant. Falsely claiming not to know about the role of evidence in prosecution by asking why should we collect the shirt.

There are so many more examples already stated in this complaint and the statutes that the police officers have acted contrary to. In order to avoid duplicity, I have presented the few above.