Blog entered 6 August 2014


I was arrested on 24 April 2012 for allegedly posting information on the internet about the complainant which are disparaging and malicious causing her to lose clients and damage her reputation, which amounts to the harassment of another, namely Ms Oonah Lacey (the Complainant).

My defence against the allegation was that the posted information was in response to extreme unlawful provocation by the complainant in her capacity as an external Mediator in a dispute between myself and my landlord Sanctuary Housing. That her role was not impartial because she was acting for my landlord and that the process was a Scam.

Sanctuary Housing being the first TPAS Accredited Landlord in the country.

2 Officers visited my home on the morning of 24 April 2012 and explained why they were there. I explained I needed to get ready and would also need to explain to my wife, who was visiting me, what was happening as she suffered long term mental illness. After waiting downstairs the Officers drove me to St Austell Police Station.

At the tender age of 60 I had never been arrested before so did not know what to expect. I was searched by hand and with a metal detector and was asked to empty out my pockets. I was asked numerous questions by the Desk Sargeant who typed the answers electronically which I then signed. I was advised of my rights and elected to have a duty solicitor.

I then had my picture taken, gave a DNA sample, gave fingerprints and palm prints and was locked in a cell by the Desk Sargeant for a little under an hour altogether. My coat was confiscated because it had an internal cord. I later rang the cell bell and asked the Desk Sargeant to call my wife to make sure she was okay. He tried but had problems getting her.

Sometime before I spoke to the solicitor on the phone the Desk Sargeant suggested if I agreed to remove Blogs from my website he would be happy to give me a warning only. That if I was charged that day my PC would be taken as evidence knowing I earned my living online. Because I felt threatened by his remarks I decided not to agree anything.

I spoke briefly with the duty Solicitor when he eventually arrived and before the recorded interview began at 13.46 hours. Present in interview was myself, the Solicitor, and 2 Officers. Following a short break later to change the audio tapes the interview resumed again and ended at 14.59 hours.

Due to a lack of written police evidence the Officers relied upon the complainant’s written complaint and her Victim Personal Statement (VPS), which the Solicitor expressed was inappropriate in interview. Further use of the VPS later caused the Solicitor to state that the interview was becoming ‘oppressive’. In response to the VPS pressure I did agree to remove some limited references from my website and from Twitter.

Shortly after the interview the Solicitor and myself approached the duty desk expecting me to be charged because I hadn’t admitted to doing anything wrong other than to protect myself from extreme provocation.

The Desk Sargeant announced he had phoned the complainant and she had agreed to me receiving a warning only. I then agreed to the conditions indicated on Form No. : 311.

On leaving the Solicitor seemed surprised but happy it had turned out the way it did.

Feeling unhappy with what had happened I made an application to Devon & Cornwall Constabulary for a transcript of the interview and any other data I was entitled to under the Data Protection Act. I also requested a copy of the complaint because it named me and made false allegations about me.

I later received 2 audio tapes, internal documents, and was refused a copy of the written complaint. On questioning this I was told in writing that if I applied for a Court Order to get a copy he would use the police legal department to stop me.

Once a transcript was made I had a clearer indication of the complaint details and concluded the complainant would, in my opinion, have been done for perjury had it gone to Court. That the police would have come under scrutiny for not acting impartially and for not properly investigating the complaint or producing any evidence to justify my arrest and detention.

In response I lodged a complaint against the Desk Sargeant and 2 Officers with D&CC via the IPCC. D&CC nominated an Investigating Officer (I/O) who was also a Sargeant. He investigated and recommended in his Report dated 13 December 2012 that the 2 Officers should receive Management Action only and that the Desk Sargeant had no case to answer.

Because the I/O’s investigation barely scratched the surface or investigated the evidence I had submitted I lodged an Appeal with the IPCC on 8 February 2013. That I did not accept the Desk Sargeant and 2 Officers had made individual mistakes but that all 3 had acted collectively.

(The Appeal was lodged after I received the decision by a Superintendent from the Professional Standards Department to up-hold the I/O’s recommendations in his letter dated 7 January 2013. In an earlier email to me the I/O advised me the Detective Superintendent responsible for the Professional Standards Department, a female Officer, would write to me by 10 January 2013. Clearly she was unavailable and one of her team dealt with the I/O’s Report and recommendations).

The IPCC recently made it’s decision on 9 May 2014, some 15 months later, and decided not to up-hold my complaint. That the 2 Officers would still only receive Management Action. However, the IPCC disagreed with the I/O regarding the Desk Sargeant and recommended he should also receive Management Action for “performing a multi function role which may leave him open to a challenge on impartiality in the future”, unquote. This also due to the IPCC establishing there were other Sargeants available at the station on the day of my arrest and detention.

I have since pointed out to the IPCC that most of the evidence I provided remains un-answered and un-resolved. In reply the IPCC has said it has no legal powers to act once the decision is made and the case is concluded.

I specifically pointed out that according to the I/O’s Report the ‘Statement of complaint’ was dated 05/04/2012, yet an internal document obtained through the Data Protection request clearly proved I was being investigated weeks before that date when the police contacted Sanctuary Housing as part of it’s investigation on me. That the false date served to give the misleading impression the Officers had less time to investigate than was the case in reality according to the entries on the document.

The written complaint twice maliciously and wrongly alleged I had mental health issues and that I was also ‘dangerous’, none of which the police investigated. The police has since defended it’s position by saying I answered “NO” to being mentally ill when the Desk Sargeant booked me in that day.

My problem with this is that if the complainant was telling the truth, that I was “mentally disturbed”, I was the worst person to ask since a lot of people with mental illness do not believe they are mentally ill. That the police had every good reason to investigate these serious allegations before approaching me.

The malicious and false allegations of me being “dangerous”, “mentally disturbed”and having “mental health issues” in the written complaint to the police originated from Sanctuary Housing.

In reply to the alleged intimidation by the Desk Sargeant to take my PC as evidence if I was charged that day the IPCC pointed out I had no witnesses. The IPCC also said the Desk Sargeant has since explained that he was of the opinion I was “unemployed”, which the IPCC accepted despite the IPCC itself acknowledging my website “forms part of your business communication”. That although it was the Desk Sargeant’s investigation neither he or his 2 Officers noticed the Blogs in question were on a website called ‘Geoff’s Cameras’ and which had camera equipment for sale.

I also believe my landlord would have advised the police I was not in receipt of benefits when it was contacted mid-March 2011, because it knew I was self-employed.

The IPCC also said nothing about the written errors in the Pre-Interview Disclosure, which I assume was due to the senior interview Officer having such little time to cobble together the erroneous Disclosure an hour before his interview began.

The Police, the I/O, and the IPCC also failed to establish once and for all if the complainant Oonah Lacey had been sacked for alleged fraud in 2011. This despite evidence I provided to show how the complainant lied to the police in her written complaint regarding this issue *). Also that the Officer in interview who stated he knew for a “fact” the complainant had not been sacked for alleged fraud could not provide any proof to substantiate his “fact”.

*) To distance herself from the time she was sacked for alleged fraud around June/July 2011, Oonah Lacey stated in her wriiten complaint ” I decided to hand my notice in to TPAS and left on the 19th August to set up a housing consultancy and training organisation in partnership, um, with Penny and Charles Arbuthnot”, unquote.

It took me less than 5 minutes to establish on the internet that the housing consultancy and training organisation was registered as a limited company called ‘Involvis Limited’, No : 07675921, on 21st June 2011, months before Oonah Lacey claimed it had been set up. Also that she, Penny and Charles Arbuthnot were appointed Directors on 21st June 2011.

That Oonah Lacey did willfuly lie to the police in her written statement and that although Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and the IPCC were made aware of this evidence neither have investigated it.

Having established the Desk Sargeant was running the police station as if he owned it and that all 4 Officers were individually found to be at fault in some way, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest the 3 Officers willfuly colluded to do what they did and that the I/O attempted to willfuly cover-up evidence, the Desk Sargeant’s partiality, the Desk Sargeant’s influence over the 2 Officers and the Desk Sargeant’s multi-functional role. That all 4 Officers willfuly and jointly perverted the course of justice.

I also do not think it inconceivable that a more Senior Officer at the police station agreed to the Desk Sargeant taking on multi-functional roles that day, and that the Superintendent representing the Professional Standards Department may have been briefed about the Desk Sargeant’s multi-function roles before he agreed the I/O’s recommendation that the Desk Sargeant had no case to answer. That the Detective Superintendent responsible for the Professional Standards Department was then protected in not having to personally deal with the I/O’s flawed investigation and Report herself.

I also do not think it unreasonable to suggest the Desk Sargeant did NOT phone the complainant after interview but did phone somebody. This based on the organisations and individuals who would have benefited more than Oonah Lacey from the removal of Blogs.

If there are any law firms/barristers out there who would like to help me take any of the above to the cleaners, they desperately need it, please get in touch. My details are below.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s