In November 2006 Gordon Park Complained about Cumbria Constabulary to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
The following thread shows the dialogue between Gordon Park, Cumbria Constabulary and the IPCC. Some details have been omitted to protect witnesses.
- The Circuitous Route for the Jury see this page
- 14th November 2006 - Gordon Park's application to the Independent Police Complaints Commission [here]
- Details Enclosed with the Complaint [here]
- 1st December 2006 - The IPCC Acknowledgement [here]
- 27th December 2006 - Response from Police Headquarters - Carleton Hall [here]
- 17th January 2007 - Gordon Park’s reply to the IPCC [here]
- 17th January 2007 - More Details sent to the IPCC [here]
- 19th January 2007 - IPPC Request more details [here]
- 24th January 2007 - More Details are sent to IPPC [here]
- 27th February 2007 - Latest reply from IPCC [here]
- 7th March 2007 - Response from Police Headquarters - Carleton Hall [here]
- 23rd March 2007 - Final Response from the IPCC [here]
Dear sirs,
I write this letter to your office with the intention of registering a complaint regarding the conduct of police officers during the investigation in which I was involved.
I think the simplest way of relaying the facts is to list the points so as to form a picture of the basis of my complaint. The investigation and the trial both feature in the complaint.
The case was first opened in 1976 by the Cumbrian police force, again in 1997 and again in 2004, A trial took place at Manchester Crown Court in December 2004 before Mr Justice McCombe resulting in my conviction on 28th January 2005.
List of points:
1. In the original extensive investigation in 1976 a comprehensive file was built up. The police have unaccountably and mysteriously ‘lost’ this but retained the cover. (a lost murder file?)
2. My ex-wife, the victim of the murder, was at that time involved with a then married police officer serving with the local force.
3. Police officers have told blatant lies while under oath in the witness box in the trial at Manchester Crown Court.
4. Two witnesses testified to hearing cell confessions made while I was remanded in custody for 2 weeks after my arrest in 1997. These people gave evidence that was clearly coached by police officers.
5. The exhibits recovered from the lake bed were recorded in a strange manner. The exhibits officer lied under oath.
6. A Senior police officer lied under oath while justifying the circuitous route taken to a lakeside viewpoint by the court in the police convoy.
7. A rock whose origins are in fact unknown, but purported by the prosecution to have been ‘with’ recovered clothing, was lied about.
I should be grateful if you would look into my complaint. If you require to interview me personally I shall be happy to meet with you in order to assist in your enquiries.
Yours faithfully,
G.Park
The first stage is to pass the matter to the Professional Standards Department of Cumbria Constabulary for them to consider and respond.
Dear Mr Park
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has forwarded to me your letter dated 14th November 2006 in which you make a complaint against police officers who were involved in the investigation and trial that lead to your current conviction.
Cumbria Constabulary is deemed to be the Appropriate Authority within the terms of the Police Reform Act 2002 and this places responsibility on the Constabulary for the recording of complaints against the police.
I have considered the content of your letter and have decided not to record the issues you raise as a complaint under the provisions of the Act. I have come to this decision on the grounds that all the points that you mention were raised during the course of the trial by your defence team and would have been fully examined and considered by the Court.
I also note that your trial ended on 28th January 2005, yet you have not made your complaint until 18th November 2006. The IPCC makes a presumption that it is not fair for those complained against if a complaint is made more than 12 months after an incident. In such cases the Appropriate Authority would make application to the IPCC for a dispensation not to take any action; this would have occurred if I had decided to record your complaint.
I understand that you will be disappointed by my decision not to record your complaint. The Act allows for you to make an appeal against this, which will be considered by the IPCC. I enclose a leaflet that explains this process.
Yours sincerely,
Acting Detective Chief Superintendent
Professional Standards Department
Enc.
Dear sir,
You wrote to me on the 1st December 2006, your ref.xxxxxxxx to inform me that you had referred my complaints of the 14th November to the Professional Standards Department of Cumbria Constabulary. I enclose their response.
It does not surprise me that they are reluctant to investigate and uncover the shameful conduct of officers of their own force. This attempt to bury the truth shames them even further.
Their letter cites two reasons to justify their inactivity.
The first reason given is that these matters arose during the trial and cannot therefore be considered now. It is patently obvious that a lie told in the witness box cannot be addressed until after it has been perpetrated, and we have had time and opportunity to find the hard evidence.
The second reason given is the time lapse. I do not see the relevance of this. I can substantiate my complaints with written documentation taken from witness statements and court transcripts of what was said under oath from the witness box. This is hard evidence and not subject to erosion by time. A lie is a lie. Detective Chief Inspector Keith Churchman committed perjury. He lied under oath in the witness box, thereby deceiving Justice McCoombe, the jury and the court. It is therefore no surprise that other officers beneath him, who consider him their boss, also lied.
I perceive this response by Cumbria Constabulary as an attempt to sideline this investigation, a shabby manoeuvre, a further extension of Cumbria Police looking after their own interests, perpetuating the cover up which began before they “lost” the original file, a perversion of the course of justice and undoubtedly a miscarriage of justice. I appeal to you to insist that a proper inquiry take place, preferably by persons not connected with Cumbria Constabulary. I look forward to being given the opportunity to prove all my allegations to your appointed truly independent investigators.
I believe it would be better to do this face to face, but if you require, then I can send you documents with an explaining letter.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
G.Park
Dear Sir,
You wrote to me on the 1st December 2006, to inform me that you had referred my complaints of the 14th November to the Professional Standards Department of Cumbria Constabulary. I enclose their response and will deal with the points in my original complaint in turn:
1. Missing Persons File
I have suffered because evidence relevant to my defence was no longer available. The Cumbria Constabulary response is irrelevant. My defence was entitled to examine this file which would have been highly relevant to my defence.
Retention of the file and its disclosure was, and remains, the responsibility of Cumbria Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service.
I appeal to the IPCC to physically search for the file. If it really has been disposed of, the IPCC should find out who disposed of it, since this person may be a potential suspect in the case. There is a relevant Holmes action relating to this file - already mentioned. There should also be a result of the action recorded, and this has not been disclosed as it should have been. The IPCC should obtain and disclose this and any other relevant missing records. The IPCC should trace the continuity of this evidence going back until they find the officer who had it last.
2. Police Officer Involved with Carol Park
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 s23 (1) (a) states 'where a criminal investigation is conducted all reasonable steps [should be] taken for the purposes of the investigation and, in particular, all reasonable lines of inquiry are pursued'. In not investigating Dawes and McBride, the police have failed to carry out their duty under the CPIA.
Failure to carry out this duty has resulted in me being deprived of my right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights / Human Rights Act.
The Cumbria Constabulary response is irrelevant. My defence was not in a position to investigate these officers. It was, and still is, the responsibility of Cumbria Constabulary. The same applies to result of disclosure of Action 1058.
I appeal to the IPCC to find out whether Dawes and McBride were investigated, and what records were generated as a result; to obtain and disclose the result of Action 1058; to examine and disclose the investigation policy relating to these officers; and to obtain and disclose the disciplinary records of these officers.
3. Police Officers’ Lies Under Oath
My argument is that if the officers were prepared to lie about anything, then their testimony is not to be believed in relation to other matters.
I appeal to the IPCC to examine the evidence which contradicts the officers' testimony. I have already highlighted this evidence to you. Somebody is not telling the truth and I believe it is the IPCC’s responsibility to find out who this is.
4. Coaching of Prosecution Witnesses
This point is already explained at length. Keywords are suggested to [Witness A] during a police interview by officers: Wallace and Dick. The incidence of these spoken words is irrefutable and is recorded in the interview transcript itself. Yet officers Wallace and Dick said in court that they did not suggest words to [Witness A]. Clearly this is not true.
I appeal to the IPCC to read the transcript of Glen Bank’s interview and compare to the testimonies and court transcripts of officers Wallace and Dick.
I appeal to the IPCC to establish who gained from the £5000 reward offered by Crime-Stoppers.
5. Recording of Exhibits from the Lake-Bed
The Cumbria Constabulary’s incompetence and failure to carry out their duty under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act is self-evident here also. The continuity of evidence allegedly collected by divers was a) extremely weak to the point of there being no continuity b) recorded into police statements well after the event and just before being disclosed to the court c) withheld until the last minute. Please look at the dates on these statements and the dates of the dives themselves.
I appeal to the IPCC to interview the officers already mentioned and ascertain who is telling the truth and who is not, and to ascertain if there was any pressure applied to any individual officers. I appeal to the IPCC to ascertain who was responsible for this failure in duty to record critical evidence in a timely manner, so-called evidence which became instrumental in my conviction.
Somebody is not telling the truth about evidence retrieved, the recording of it and the subsequent handling of it. I believe it is the IPCC’s responsibility to find out who this is.
6. Police Lies and Circuitous Route to Coniston
This point is already explained at length and amounts to a deliberate effort by the Cumbria Constabulary to deceive the Judge, the Jury and the court. Clearly this is an abuse of process.
I enclose;
(a) maps of the route taken and easiest and most obvious for the convoy and the bus;
(b) the statement of Janet Hallatt who lived in the area of Greenodd at the time and who is very familiar with that territory.
Drive the route yourselves and see the untruth of DCI Churchman’s words.
I appeal to the IPCC to establish who gave instructions to the coach driver and what those instructions were. I believe it is the IPCC’s responsibility to find out if any officers behaved in a corrupt manner. Please read the recent defence statement which substantiates this point.
This kind of police behaviour breaches the public’s trust in them, and should be cause for great concern to them.
It does not surprise me that the Cumbria Constabulary are reluctant to investigate and uncover the shameful conduct of officers of their own force. This attempt to bury the truth shames them even further. Their letter cites two reasons to justify their inactivity.
The first reason given is that these matters arose during the trial and cannot therefore be considered now. It is patently obvious that a lie told in the witness box cannot be addressed until after it has been perpetrated, and we have had time and opportunity to find the hard evidence.
The second reason given is the time lapse. I do not see the relevance of this. I can substantiate my complaints with written documentation taken from witness statements and court transcripts of what was said under oath from the witness box. This is hard evidence and not subject to erosion by time. A lie is a lie. Detective Chief Inspector Keith Churchman committed perjury. He lied under oath in the witness box, thereby deceiving Justice McCoombe, the jury and the court. It is therefore no surprise that other officers beneath him, who consider him their boss, also lied.
I perceive this response by Cumbria Constabulary as an attempt to sideline this investigation, a shabby manoeuvre, a further extension of Cumbria Police looking after their own interests, perpetuating the cover up which began before they “lost” the original file, a perversion of the course of justice and undoubtedly a miscarriage of justice. I appeal to you to insist that a proper inquiry take place, preferably by persons not connected with Cumbria Constabulary. I look forward to being given the opportunity to prove all my allegations to your appointed truly independent investigators.
I believe it would be better to do this face to face, but if you require, then I can send you documents with an explaining letter.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
G.Park
Transcripts of police oficers and witness statements
Dear Mr Park
This letter is about your appeal against Cumbria Constabulary, which we received on 19th January 2007.
After considering all the information available and on the balance of probabilities, I have now made a decision about the appeal. I have upheld your appeal. The reasons for the decision are set out in the attached report. However you should note that it is still open for the Cumbria Constabulary to apply for a dispensation. If they choose to do this you will be informed.
If you have any questions or need more information about this decision, please contact me. However this decision is final.
Yours sincerely
IPCC
Relevant extract from the Statment of Findings follows:
A P P E A L F I N D I N G S
1. Should the matter/s raised have been recorded as a complaint?Some of these matters should have been recorded as complaints because they are allegations of police misconduct and do not fall under any of the permitted exemptions. In particular, the complaints alleging that
- Mr Park's defence suffered because the original file had become lost
- police officers lied under oath
- witnesses were improperly 'coached' by police officers
- exhibits recorded from the lake were not logged and recorded properly
should be recorded as complaints.
Dear Mr Park,
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has written to let me know that your appeal against the Constabulary’s decision not to record your complaint against the police has been upheld. I have therefore recorded the complaint under Category G 'Irregularity in relation to evidence/perjury' and enclose a copy of the complaint record for your information.
I am also writing to inform you that it is my intention to make an application to the Commission to consider granting a dispensation from the need to investigate the allegations you have made.
This application will be made in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002, on the following grounds:
- that more than 12 months have elapsed between the time when the alleged conduct occured (prior to 28th January 2005) and the time when the complaint was made (14th November 2006).
- that the complaint is an abuse of the procedures for dealing with complaints, in that all of these issues were examined during the course of your trial.
The Commission will contact you in due course to let you know the outcome of this application.
Yours sincerely,
Detective Chief Superintendent
Professional Standards Department
Dear Mr Park
I am writing about the complaint you made on 14 November 2006 about officers of Cumbria Constabulary.
I have received representation from Clarion Solicitors by fax on 20 March 2007 and by letter. Mr George Harrison has also made representation on your behalf by letter dated 16 March 2007. However, we have decided to grant a dispensation to the Cumbria Constabulary. This means they do not need to continue with the investigation into this matter.
Under the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regs 2004 if more than 12 months have elapsed between the events giving rise to the complaint, and the making of the complaint then a dispensation may be sought. In your case all the events occurred prior to the end of the trial on 28 January 2005 and no complaint was made against the police until the 14 November 2006. No good reason has been provided in the representations from your solicitor or Mr Harrison to explain the delay in making the complaint.
The complaint is also considered to be an abuse of the complaints process. The evidential issues you have raised are more appropriately considered in the appeal process or through the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
We have sent a copy of this letter to the Cumbria Constabulary and to your solicitor.
Yours,
IPCC