Justice for Tony Marshall - Complaint to IPCC Against Police, Upheld
'The British Justice System works, very slow to rectify any damage caused by those who had created it'
'A couple of meanings from the definition of the word fair is; reasonable, fair-minded, open-minded, impartial, even-handed and non-discriminatory. The question here is, can our very own British Justice System really live up to these expectations? Is it really a fair deal, to have offences committed by those who are supposed to be doing the complete opposite? '
Tony Marshall's trial & Conviction was covered in MOJUK bulletin 12/02/2012 and can be viewed <>here . . . .
A complaint was made in 2011 to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) regarding the breaches of professional behaviour and misconduct carried out by the investigating officers/forces, the offences that Mr Marshall was convicted of had covered the areas of six police force's, three of whom had taken the leading roles, that being the Metropolitan Police, Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary.
The basis of Mr Marshall's complaint was that; officers 'built' a conspiracy charge around him, officers paid cash to an individual for information to whom himself was named as being one of the offenders within the case, officers had perjured themselves in Court by lying under oath stating that; a named suspect within this case (the informant) was never a suspect within this case when he was clearly named within the case papers as being 50, CCTV from the Police Station Custody area of one of the named forces being deliberately destroyed not disclosed as it would have confirmed that this individual was a suspect and had in fact been arrested on the same day as Mr Marshall by the investigating officers and that deals had been done between the named forces to cover up offences that would have undermined their case against Mr Marshall.
Mr Marshall's original complaint was made to the IPCC in 2011, as part of the IPCC's protocol this was sent to each of those named forces (Professional Standards Department's) as individual complaints, Mr Marshall was given three different reference numbers for this complaint by the IPCC, one for each force. Mr Marshall has never been content with the fact that the named police forces had been allowed to investigate their own fellow colleagues; this in itself would be a recipe for bias, cover up's and the protection of those officers/forces involved. All forces named acknowledged the complaint and promised to look into the raised issues. The first police force to get back to Mr Marshall was the (Metropolitan Police), they state that they take any complaint against the police very seriously and are rigorous in their investigation, on the 02/02/1012 Ms Lucy James, Police Sergeant at the Professional Standards Department of the Metropolitan Police states;
I have to tell you that while we take a serious view of what you tell us" this is not a complaint that we intend to take any further. The Police Reform Act 2002 sets out the kind of complaints we must always follow up. Yours does not fall into this category because I do not consider that you are a complainant under that act, after a further short description of the complaint she states; this means I do not plan to take any further official action in connection with your complaint.
This being the exact type of response that Mr Marshall had expected in connection with his complaint, Mr Marshall being determined to get to the bottom of the officers conduct, he appealed this decision, taking it direct to the IPCC.
Metropolitan Police: On the 28/02/2012 the IPCC replied to Mr Marshall's complaint stating;
The Metropolitan Police have not recorded this complaint on the grounds that Mr Marshall is not a complainant, for the purposes of these issues, as defined by the Police Reform Act 2002. In particular they state Mr Marshall is not a member of the public in relation to whom the conduct took place nor was he adversely affected by the conduct.
Section 29(5) of the Police Reform Act 2002 states a person is adversely affected if he suffers from loss or damage, distress or inconvenience, if he is affected; this is a broad definition. In this case Mr Marshall alleges inadequate investigations were conducted by police or the police decided not to pursue investigations which in turn detrimentally affected his criminal trial. Such conduct, if true, has caused Mr Marshall considerable distress and, at the least, inconvenience. He is therefore adversely affected and is entitled to lodge a complaint regarding this alleged conduct.
On the basis of this assessment I have decided to UPHOLD the appeal (against The Metropolitan Police).
Hampshire Constabulary: On the 28/09/2012 after ten months of investigating completed their investigation, just as Mr Marshall had previously predicted, this complaint was Not Upheld by the 'Professional Standards Department' of Hampshire Constabulary, amongst the cover ups of the misconduct carried out by the officers involved, they stated;
It is legitimate practice for the Police to provide financial rewards to persons who provide information of criminal activities however the identities of these persons are quite correctly kept strictly confidential.
Mr Marshall at no point was asking as part of his complaint for them to reveal the identity of any individual as he already knew who the informant was, what the informant had told the Police and how much the informant was paid in return, this was all noted on the Police National Computer (PNC) between 2009 - 2010. The issues that Mr Marshall takes is that these individuals were named as suspects during trial, they were identified within the case papers as offenders, they were identified by police officers as being involved in a robbery/burglary offences, but yet off the record deals were being made to cover up their criminal activities, these individuals are career criminals with extensive criminal records and quite simply their information could not be trusted, if this is legitimate practice as was stated by the Professional Standards Department of Hampshire Constabulary, is it any wonder as to why today there are so many innocent people within prison for offences that they truly were not involved in. Mr Marshall being dissatisfied with the outcome of this report and determined to have his complaint robustly and correctly dealt with, he again, appealed this complaint direct to the IPCC.
On the 23rd May 2013, IPCC replied to Mr Marshall's appeal, stating;
I consider that Hampshire Constabulary has not adequately addressed the complaint. The only officer identified is DC Hooper but it is evident the complaint concerns the conduct of other officers/members of staff from three different police forces and with the exception of complaint '1' (as listed in the Investigating officer's report), I am unable to decipher which allegation relate to Hampshire Constabulary and which officers/members of staff. As such the investigation is not adequate.
The Investigating officer is required to state his own opinion about whether the people complained about have a case to answer. The Investigating officer has reached a conclusion in respect of DC Hooper (no case to answer) but has not reached a conclusion for any other officer/member of staff.
The Investigating officer has not followed all relevant lines of enquiry. Firstly the officers subject of the alleged conduct need to be clearly identified by the appropriate authority. Once identified, due to the severity of the allegations made, consideration should be given to serving regulation notices and seeking formal accounts. It should be ensured there is an auditable trail of all enquiries made. Where it is decided a notice will not be served and/or an account will not be sought, the rationale should be clearly documented. Although I note the report refers to a review of the Record Management System and 'all' the documents used in the court file, within the papers provided to the IPCC I have not seen reference to contemporaneous notes of decision making being reviewed, such as relevant policy decisions or officers' notes. I would recommend policy books are checked and other contemporaneous evidence is reviewed for example, in respect of complaint J, the relevant custody records. Once these enquiries are complete, the Investigating officer should review the investigation and establish if this evidence has generated any new lines of enquiry. If it is decided it is not proportionate to pursue a line of enquiry, the reason for this should be documented.
The investigation is therefore not proportionate and the above enquiries need to be undertaken before the investigation is considered to be complete.
Until the outstanding enquiries have been completed I am unable to assess the appropriateness of the specific findings reached or the other conclusions of the investigation.
For the reasons given above, I consider that the findings of the police complaint investigation are not appropriate. This aspect of the appeal (against the Hampshire Constabulary) is therefore UPHELD.
The IPCC then go on to make directions and recommendations for the Investigating force;
* To re-investigate the complaint, clearly identifying the allegations which Hampshire Constabulary is the appropriate authority for.
* The Investigating officer is required to complete the investigation report by stating their opinion about whether there is a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct for each of the officers/members of staff identified and also whether the complaint investigation will be referred to the CPS.
* The complainant should be given a new appeal right at the end of this process.
The following enquiries should be considered as part of the investigative process:
* To identify the Hampshire officers/members of staff subject of the alleged conduct.
* It should be ensured Mr Marshall's submissions have been considered and if an allegation is deemed too vague to progress, reasonable attempts should be made to obtain clarification from him.
* Once identified, due to the severity of the allegations made, consideration should be given to serving regulation notices and seeking formal accounts [It should be ensured there is an auditable trail of all enquiries made. Where it is decided a notice will not be served and/or an account will not be sought the rationale should be clearly documented].
* It should be ensured contemporaneous notes/documents of the police decision making are reviewed, such as relevant policy decisions or officers' notes and relevant custody records (for example, in respect of complaint J).
Once these enquiries are complete, the Investigating officer should review the investigation and establish if this evidence has generated any new lines of enquiry. If it is decided it is not proportionate to pursue a line of enquiry, the reason for this should be documented.
In addition, from reviewing the background papers provided I was concerned by some of the comments made in Emails from the assisting IO regarding the investigative process, for example in an Email to xxxx dated 7 February 2012, xxxx states " ... this job has been graded as not misconduct ... unless something extraordinary occurs there will be no papers served ... I do not anticipate [the investigation] will identify any wrong· doing and if it were it would be at a much higher level". In order for there to be confidence in. the complaint investigation process it is paramount that the outcome of the investigation ls not pre-judged. An investigation should be a search for the truth. If a complaint is determined to be without foundation then there are appropriate mechanisms within the complaints system to deal with these. I would recommend these observations are reflected on for the complaint process going forwards.
Mr Marshall remains dissatisfied with the fact that the same force is given the opportunity to reinvestigate their own officers' again, this force was previously been given the opportunity to address Mr Marshall's complaint but had clearly failed to follow all relevant lines of enquiry, as stated by the IPCC; Hampshire Constabulary has not adequately addressed the complaint, the investigation is therefore not Proportionate, the above enquiries need to be undertaken before the investigation is considered to be complete.
This complaint has now been ongoing since 2011, the relevant forces have been given ample opportunity to appropriately address Mr Marshalls complaint but have failed to do so, we now again await the outcome of this further investigation into Mr Marshalls complaint, will keep you updated!
Similar Police case management was exposed within the Panorama programme that was aired on the 8th October 2012, ("Return of the Supergrass") this programme highlighted specific cases and the handling of police informants by police forces within that case, one of which is currently being reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).