Monday, 21 November 2016

FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MR OR MS CONNELLY, SCOTTISH POLICE AUTHORITY


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

20 November 2016

 

 

Scottish Police Authority

1 Pacific Quay

GLASGOW G51 1DZ

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

COMPLAINT AGAINST MR OR MS CONNELLY, SCOTTISH POLICE AUTHORITY

I am not sure of the name of the person that I want to complain about but he or she can be identified with reference to the date of the letter in question.

In a letter to me dated 14 November 2016 this person included the following two points, which are reproduced here in italics for convenience, and I have added my comments in normal type:

 

1.     ‘As per our previous response we are unable to amend or alter any of the information you are stating as inaccurate, as we are not the originators of the information in dispute. Should you wish to challenge this information, this would have to be directed to Police Scotland to investigate.’

 

SPA director Ms Moi Ali already stated the following in an email to me dated 17 October 2016, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘I shall ask that someone reviews your correspondence and responds to the specific queries and questions that you raise.’

The specific queries and questions that I raised on this point in my letter dated 22 September 2016, a copy of which is attached, included the following:

     (a)     Separately, the abject carelessness of the SPA/Police Scotland written response is highlighted by the obvious omission of about two lines of text from its first paragraph rendering that paragraph incomprehensible.

     (b)     These false and damaging statements were communicated to me by the SPA’s Mr Stuart Milne in April 2016 and again in subject access disclosures to me from the SPA in July 2016 and Mr Milne relied upon the false and damaging statements to reject my complaint against ACC Nicolson which has caused me unwarranted and substantial damage and distress and can reasonably be expected to cause me further unwarranted and substantial damage and distress in the future.

     (c)     Since the SPA had access to Police Scotland’s files relating to this information a rather serious question arises. Did the SPA not check the available evidence to establish whether or not the information provided by Police Scotland was accurate?

     (d)     And what about all the proofs I provided in support of my allegations and exposing the falsity of several statements by the police, not least Mr Nicolson’s false assertion to me in 2008 that ‘Strathclyde Police has conducted a full and thorough investigation into your allegations when reported in 1993 and also when the enquiry was reviewed at your instigation in 2004’?

 

On 16 November 2016 I wrote to the SPA including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience, indicating my further concerns about the assertion of this point by the person who wrote to me on 14 November 2016:

In recent correspondence Police Scotland confirmed to me that they hold no information indicating that a recommendation by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to Strathclyde Police should be applied to Police Scotland.

 

Nevertheless Police Scotland did apply such a recommendation to Police Scotland in my case.

A reasonable suspicion could arise in the mind of an independent observer that Police Scotland did so in order to disregard legitimate concerns and complaints that I had raised.

As you know Mr Milne accepted Assistant Chief Constable Nicolson’s decision to disregard the Chief Constable’s instruction to ensure that I was contacted on the basis of the application to Police Scotland of such a recommendation by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to Strathclyde Police.

 

According to Police Scotland’s formal response to my Freedom of Information request on the point Mr Milne and ACC Nicolson had no information available to them indicating that a recommendation by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to Strathclyde Police should be applied to Police Scotland.

 

Consequently Mr Milne and ACC Nicolson were wrong to apply to Police Scotland this recommendation by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to Strathclyde Police.

 

The erroneous and for years the secret application of that recommendation greatly increased the time I waited for Police Scotland’s ACC Nicolson to ensure that I was contacted.

 

Police Scotland’s ACC Nicolson never informed me why he was continuing to disregard my correspondence. His reason for doing so has now been formally confirmed as having no valid basis. Mr Milne ought to have checked this instead of accepting it as valid especially since I had alleged that Mr Nicolson had an ulterior motive for disregarding my correspondence.

 

In my letter to Mr Milne dated 25 March 2016 I included the following relevant points:

 

‘Mr Nicolson could reasonably be suspected of failing to ensure that I was contacted in accordance with the email dated 12 July 2012 in order to suppress any consideration of the allegations of previous serious misconduct by Mr Nicolson, known associates and others.’

‘Therefore my complaint effectively alleges that Mr Nicolson has abused his position as a member of the police service for personal gain or for gain for others and is continuing to do so by his inaction.’

 

This is only one example of false and misleading information communicated to the SPA by Police Scotland and readily accepted by the SPA as valid despite all the proofs I submitted to the SPA contradicting or questioning Police Scotland’s assertions. 

 

The SPA has been unreasonably and persistently reluctant to check whether or not the information provided to them by Police Scotland was accurate.

The published document on SPA complaints handling procedures includes the following important points, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘Gathering supporting evidence and information relating to the complaint(s) is crucial to establishing the facts upon which a decision will be based.’

 

‘Evidence is the information on which to base proof or to establish a truth or falsehood. Evidence gathering relates to the identification, capture and recording of data relevant to the complaint being investigated.’

 

I am not satisfied that the person who wrote to me on 14 November 2016 acted in accordance with these important points on behalf of the SPA. On the contrary this person appears to have completely abandoned any such obligation on the SPA to gather evidence, to establish the facts and to establish a truth or falsehood. 

 

2.     ‘In relation to the postal mark of Police Scotland, your correspondence is managed and handled by SPA, Police Scotland provide us with a service for all outgoing mail.’

 

Again, SPA director Ms Moi Ali already stated the following in an email to me dated 17 October 2016, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

‘I shall ask that someone reviews your correspondence and responds to the specific queries and questions that you raise.’

The specific queries and questions that I raised on this point in letters dated 22 and 27 September 2016, copies of which are attached, included the following:

     (a)     It is a matter of very grave concern indeed that whoever wrote the SPA/Police Scotland letter, apparently someone in Police Scotland according to the proof of its source, he or she has entirely omitted to mention anything at all about what is clearly at the heart of this case, overwhelming evidence of the operation of a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving senior managers in Scottish Enterprise, senior Police officers and senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

     (b)     The handwriting of the signature in the letter dated 19 September 2016 and on the envelope it was delivered in are obviously the same although the letter purports to have come from the SPA whereas the envelope refers to Police Scotland.

     (c)     What is going on here? Are the SPA and Police Scotland operating as one and the same organisation in opposition to members of the public?

     (d)     Does Police Scotland act on your behalf?

     (e)     I cannot make out the signature on the letter definitely but it seems to be close to ‘Carol Connelly’.

Is this person in the SPA, in Police Scotland, or in some other undisclosed organisation?

     (f)     This will undoubtedly be a matter of very grave concern indeed to the general public and I find it hard to believe that SPA directors would regard this as even remotely acceptable practice since it plainly undermines the fundamental principles of independence, impartiality, truth and justice.

    (g)     I will wait for a reasonable time for a response in case you want to address these points seriously, or in case another director wants to address these points seriously, before I decide what to do.

 

On 19 November 2016 I wrote to the SPA including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience, indicating my further concerns about the assertion of this point by the person who wrote to me on 14 November 2016:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

In a letter to me dated 14 November 2016 you included the following information:

 

‘In relation to the postal mark of Police Scotland, your correspondence is managed and handled by SPA, Police Scotland provide us with a service for all outgoing mail.’

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 I formally request the following information:

 

1.     Does the Police Scotland’s provision to the SPA of a service for all outgoing mail not compromise what the SPA’s Mr Stuart Milne wrote to me on 21 January 2016:

 

‘The SPA and Police Scotland are two separate public bodies.’

2.     Is there any information available to the general public on this provision by Police Scotland to the SPA of a service for all outgoing mail?

3.     Prima facie does this arrangement not undermine public confidence in the independence and client confidentiality of the Scottish Police Authority?

 

The person who wrote the letter to me dated 14 November 2016 having been directed by Ms Ali to review my correspondence and respond to the specific queries and questions that I raised has not done so adequately nor has he or she addressed those points seriously.

Consequently, I want to raise a formal complaint against that person, whose name appears to be close to Mr or Ms Connelly.

Yours faithfully,

                           Eddie Cairns.

No comments: