Employment Judge Gary Self Ian Readhead Paul Kernaghan
Paul Housego Pump Court Chambers NPCC (formerly ACPO) JACO (MOJ)
Why did Employment Judge Housego refuse to hear evidence from the only senior CID officer supporting me in this case?
The answer is simple, because his evidence would have meant that EJ Housego would not have been able to proceed with his pre determined outcome of the case.
Why did Employment Judge Housego permit Hampshire Constabulary to drip feed new witnesses to bolster their case when I was not permitted to introduce just one new witness?
It would be helpful if you read the post concerning the employment tribunal case first as this will give useful background.
You may recall that EJ Housego went on a course with Paul Kernaghan (Chief Constable) and the main witness against me half way through the case.
Gary Self from Pump Court Chambers is also mentioned in this statement, you may recall Mr Self and DCC Ian Readhead attempted to discredit Det Supt Thomas in his absence and EJ Housego refused Det Supt Thomas to be introduced as a witness.
Det Supt Thomas wrote three letters to Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan which were included in the document bundle which was in the possession of EJ Housego as part of the tribunal documents.
Rather than take action to protect me from victimisation by DCC Ian Readhead which was raised as a concern in the letters, Mr Thomas misjudged the character of Paul Kernaghan who then also victimised and subsequently wrongly dismissed me from the force.
It is not necessary at this stage to go through the three letters but one I feel is significant concerning racially aggravated offences committed at an Asian restaurant on the Isle of Wight by police officers on a cricket team.
In addition to the cover up by Hampshire Constabulary PSD, the cover up was perpetuated by an uinspection of Professional Standards in Hampshire Constabulary when it was inspected by Sir Ronnie Flanagan of the HMIC following my disclosures.
Mr Flanagan went on to become the Chief HMI and then the International Cricket Council Anti Corruption Chief.
Former Chief Constable Alex Marshall of Hampshire Constabulary ignored my MP and also failed to deal with my allegations of corruption, he then moved on to the College of Policing and displayed hypocracy by publishing the Police Code of Ethics.
Jobs for the boys
As you will have probably gathered by now there is this unsavoury reward system in Hampshire police which, no doubt also exists in other forces.
I am not saying that this is the case here however; Mr Flanagan when conducting the HMIC inspection of Hampshire Professional Standards provided a very watered down report which appeared to omit the allegations of corruption we reported.
The response from the HMIC at the time was that they were not an appellate or investigative authority to get round their failure to deal with the allegations.
Could another reason have been that Mr Flanagan and Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan were buddies having both served in the RUC at the same time where it is said Mr Flanagan was Mr Kernaghan's mentor.
During my issues with Hampshire they were also both photographed together in the back of a landrover in Iraq.
Chief Constable Pinkney , the following statement is from one of your own former Deputy Head's of Hampshire CID.
There appear to be offences disclosed particularly with regards to former DCC Ian Readhead which are additional to those I have informed the force of.
It could be considered an attempt to pervert the course of justice to try and persuade a judge not to hear the evidence of one of your senior officers.
The statement is supporting evidence of the Misconduct in Public Office by Paul Kernaghan and Ian Readhead.
Please read the following statement and depart from this culture which whichever way you look at it is corruption.
I, Desmond Thomas MBA Dip m XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX will say as follows:
1. I am an Associate Lecturer at Southampton Solent University and Honorary Visiting Professor at Cardiff University Law School. I also review the quality, validity and fairness of police and other investigations. I was previously Deputy Head of Hampshire Constabulary CID. My last operational deployment, as police officer, was as a UK based Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) on the 9/11 investigation.
2. After leaving the army I spent 30 years in the police service. Where following training I spent my entire career in the CID. As a Drug Squad Officer in the 1970 and 80ies, I witnessed the corruption scandals which became known as the fall of New Scotland Yard. Whilst I took many physical risks during my career, as the result of these experience I resolved never to place myself or, as Deputy Head of CID, the CID in a situation where it could be accused of or be perceived to be corrupt.
3. Towards the end of my service this determination led to a number of disputes with Ian Readhead. Whilst they may not be relevant to these matters I can expand on these issues if required to do so.
4. I make this statement with the greatest reluctance and only after inviting those who represent Hampshire Constabulary to correct, what I believe are, misstatements in the evidence provided to an Employment Tribunal by Deputy Chief Constable (DDC) Ian Readhead. A transcript of which may be found at Exhibit 1.
5. I do not dislike Ian Readhead nor do I bare him any personal enmity. It is just that, in my view, his values fall below those appropriate the office of constable; being more expedient than honest. As such his behaviour may, on accession, have offered hostages to fortune to which I cannot, given my current status, and do not wish to be associated. In my view these issues impinge on matters of both professionalism and morality.
6. The Tribunal may judge the accuracy of this assessment by comparing the evidence attributed to Ian Readhead in Exhibit 1, with the letter signed by him and dated 15.2.2002 and produced as Exhibit 2.
7.
a. The Tribunal, if it thinks it appropriate, it may also wish to consider the following; a. Possibly because of my MBA in 2000 I was transferred to the newly created post of Head of Performance Review and Evaluation where I was responsible for advising to the newly appointed ACC, Territorial Policing, Philip Jacobs on matters related to the investigation of crime and performance. Mr Jacobs had recently taken over this responsibility for this role from Ian Readhead who had been promoted to the rank of Deputy Chief Constable (DCC).
b. Sometime in 2000 Mr Jacobs asked me to assess the accuracy of a report submitted by DS Panayiotou, who was then stationed on the Isle of Wight. On reading the report I realised that, if accurate, it would represent a considerable embarrassment to a number of people including Ian Readhead and may justify disciplinary proceedings against them. An example of the sort of behaviour I found included an Inspector (it may have been a Chief Inspector) who had a rubber stamp which he used to stamp BULLSHIT on hard copy crime reports, statements and other documents which he was required to manage; hardly professional conduct of which one might be proud.
c. After conducting the appropriate research I submitted a report which concluded that with one exception, racial discrimination, the report painted an accurate picture of the situation on the Island. The exception was an objective assessment which found that police officers on the Isle of Wight provided the same poor level of service irrespective of race. Attached to this finding was a caveat, that when viewed from the narrower perspective of DS Panayiotou or a victim of crime, this behaviour may have appeared racist.
d. When conducting the review I found, through the audit facility of the crime management system, that following submission of his report a significant number of police managers had accessed and examined investigations held in DS Panavioutou’s account. As many of these people were uniformed officers with no responsibility for managing his work, it seemed reasonable to assume that they were looking for some way to discredit him. In these circumstances it might be reasonable to expect the Deputy Chief Constable to protect such an officer. I believe the reverse to be the case and that DS Panayiotou was subsequently the subject of an unjustified investigation. Which it may have been more appropriate to have been directed at those who may have failed in their duty.
e. As a result of my report I was instructed to audit the performance of the whole force. The result painted a picture of variable but somewhat poor performance. Once in possession of this information ACC Jacobs took the robust action required to secure an immediate and radical improvement in the quality of the service provided. In this respect I believe that he was entirely successful. Subsequent HMIC inspections placed Hampshire in the police equivalent of the premier league.
f. The research I conducted also supported an allegation of criminal conduct, by identified members of the Hampshire Constabulary. Details of one offence, which had been recorded under the crime reference ZS/5585/00, were passed to Ian Readhead who, as Deputy Chief Constable, was responsible for disciplinary matters. To the best of my knowledge and belief he took no action either in respect of this allegation or the officer who stamped BULLSHIT on hard copy documents. The accuracy or otherwise of this information may be established by examining records held by the Professional Standards Department and in particular a report I submitted on 10.1.2002.
g. I subsequently received information that in order to prevent anyone else from conducting a review, of the kind I had conducted, Ian Readhead removed or attempted to remove the audit facility from crime management system. If successful one practical effect of this action would have been to prevent Assistant Chief Officers from assessing the performance of senior officers. I made reference to this matter in a letter to the Chief Constable details of which are set out below.
h. In September 2003 I received information that Ian Readhead was to take disciplinary action against DS Panayiotou in relation to issues arising out of his report. As, I was no longer a serving officer, I had no knowledge of or any way of finding out if these proceeding were justified or malicious. However, perhaps unjustly, knowing Ian Readhead I took the bleak view of his motives. Consequently, I wrote to the then Chief Constable providing him with information which may have balanced that which he may have received from elsewhere.
i. The letter also contained a reference to misuse of RIPA procedures. Whilst at this distance in time and in the absence of the relevant document I cannot be certain of the facts. I believe that this was a reference to my concern that Ian Readhead may have misused RIPA powers to conduct surveillance on DS Panavioutou. Where an officer is suspected is suspected of criminal activity it may be entirely legitimate to use these powers. In the case of DS Panavioutou the reverse seems to havebeen the case: he had reported misconduct and criminal activity.
j. I do not know if or how this letter influenced events, but to the best of my knowledge no disciplinary proceedings were instituted or if they were they were, they were discontinued. The accuracy of the information set out in this part of the statement may be validated by reference to documents held by the Constabulary and the then Chief Constable who is now employed as a Parliamentary Standards Commissioners to The House of Lords.
8. There are two further issues related to the character of Ian Readhead I would invite the Tribunal to consider;
a. The first of these relates to a civil case brought by the late D/Supt Robert Chegwiggen (ret) in relation to asbestosis. Prior to his death, from that condition, he told me that Ian Readhead, acting a witness for the Constabulary, had provided a statement, in civil proceedings, which he must have known was not, or could not reasonably believed to be true. In that he and the Constabulary had always provided adequate protection equipment to its staff. As Robert Chegwiggen regarded Ian Readhead as a friend he could not understand why he should do such a thing; lie in this way. The accuracy of this evidence may be determined by contacting Mrs Chegwiggen and documents in that case. My career and that of Robert Chegwiggen ran parallel, and during my service I can state that we did not fully understand the risks to we put our staff or ourselves and, as the relevant documents may attest, we were never provided with protection against asbestos.
b. The second relates to the nature of this case and to the police/ACPO procedures in force at that time. There seems little doubt that DS Panayiotou was an officer who not only drew the notice of his superiors to poor performance, which was undermining the reputation of the constabulary, he also reported criminal behaviour by other officers. In the event that existing procedures had been followed it may have been reasonable to have expected the Deputy Chief Constable to protect if not praised his brave and public spirited action. The fact that he does not appear to have been treated in accordance with the relevant ACPO policies and procedures may be significant.
8. I would also like to correct the perception created by Mr Self that, I have pitched up at 3 or 4 Tribunals where I tell everyone how dreadful the Constabulary is.’ I have actually given or provided evidence at two Employment Tribunals and one civil action for damages. These are;
a. DS Tania Cook v Chief Constable where I gave evidence in support of the Constabulary and I believe Mr Self represented the Chief Constable.
b. PC Gerald Dawson v Chief Constable where I gave evidence for Mr Dawson. This case had a long history which included criminal proceeding where there had been a failure by the Constabulary, and by implication DCC Ian Readhead, to disclose evidence which when discovered led to the case being dismissed.
c. D/Supt Chegwiggen v Chief Constable where I provided a statement in support of Mr Chegwiggen the general thrust of which was to outline the presence of Blue Asbestos in Southampton Civic Centre Police Station. As the undisputed presence of this material represented a hazard to all who served or were held in this police station, in common with everyone else who might be affected, I had a personal and, in my view, not unreasonable interest in the case.
9. In conclusion I would like to say that I have always attempted to behave in a way that is consistent with that expected of someone who holds or has held the office of Constable. I currently lecture young people many of whom wish to become police officers and to whom I try and impart the importance of integrity and high ethical standards. Not least because at a pragmatic level, they provide the best insurance against future contingencies, including the malice and bad faith of others.
Statement of Truth I believe that the facts contained in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.