Further to my previous post
The situation has not improved and the force continue to act in a despicable manner which would not be tolerated if those representatives were working in private practice. They continue to hide behind the protection and unlimited funds of large organisations with deep pockets.
For those that don't know in addition to my own issues I have been supporting others who have contacted me, in some of those cases our issues are linked especially when it concerns the conduct of the force in failing to appropriately deal with matters relating to child abuse.
MY EMAIL TO CHIEF CONSTABLE
From: IPSG OFFICE <julian.king33@outlook.com> Sent: 15 March 2019 09:58 To: chief.constable@hampshire.pnn.police.uk Cc: John Caine; XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: FW: Police officers who failed to investigate child abuse cases facing prison | The Crown Prosecution Service
For the attention of Olivia Pinkney
Please note my concerns which I have expressed previously concerning the force's unusual approach to permit a force solicitor who does not appear to have knowledge of criminal law to make decisions on whether or not crimes should be recorded or investigated.
For the avoidance of doubt I believe this is a deliberate act on behalf of the force to avoid crimes being investigated or complaints being investigated by PSD.
I would suggest that you look into the interactions between Mr Caine and Miss XXXXXXX with the force solicitor. Mr Caine has Judicial reviews which appear to have now got through to a full hearing and the force appears to have been in contempt of a High Court order.
As a result of failures including by your PSD a suspect was permitted to continue to commit further offences. I have previously posted a blog on this case:
https://supportorgs4u.wixsite.com/goodcopdown/blog/arnewood-school-child-abuse-cover-up-in-hampshire
I see no reason why if Mr Caine wishes to pursue matters that officers/staff in his case should also not be prosecuted. I have previously supplied Insp Spellerberg with a copy of the JR documents which allege that Mr Trencher lied to a PSD Investigator concerning a conversation with the Children's Commissioner following information being confirmed by the Children's Commissioner.
In my own case, the force and the PCC have also acted in a corrupt manner in an attempt to discredit me to avoid investigating police corruption in a paedophilia case "Operation Bondfield"
These are serious allegations and should be investigated as criminal matters, this is linked to similar circumstances in my case where the force solicitor appears to abuse funds and takes cases personally, this is apparent from his actions and the contents of his email communications including; those with vulnerable individuals or who raise concerns regarding his conduct.
Miss XXXXXXXXXXXXX also appears to be dealing with the force solicitor when she should be dealing with an experienced child abuse investigator. Whilst my blog may be seen as an irritant to the force, it has resulted in a number of victims getting in contact with me and corroborating my own experiences of the institutional corrupt practices in this force.
I would respectfully ask that due diligence is carried out and the cases of Caine and XXXXXXXX be reviewed. Part of any review should be the unprofessional e mails generated by Mr Trencher which I have viewed towards these two people which breach the Standards of professional Behaviour for police staff let alone SRA code which i have raised previously.
I would like to take the opportunity to remind you of another victim of child abuse who hung herself following dealings with your PSD (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) , I am still in touch with her daughter. I want to make sure that as much is done as possible to prevent any other other suicides. Kind regards Julian King
EMAIL FROM FORCE SOLICITOR
roger.trencher@hampshire.pnn.police.uk Fri 15/03/2019 10:40
Dear Mr King,
You will note that XXXXXXXXX has sent a copy of the correspondence below to me. I am due to speak with the Chief on other matters this morning and will ensure she is aware of it and that it is passed to PSD. A couple of corrections as you are relying on information from third parties;
1. Mr Caine does have several current JR applications outstanding against the IOPC where permission has been granted. Hampshire Constabulary are an interested party in one. The JR that mentioned me was rejected by the High Court. There is, I believe a fresh JR against the IOPC that does mention me but I think that has been accepted on procedural grounds by the IOPC without any finding as to the truth of the allegation. I have been very clear that I deny any suggestion that I have lied to anyone.
2. I am very clear that I am doing the job I am employed to do namely, dealing with claimants robustly. I have never been sanctioned or had a finding against me in respect of the claims you mention and the dissatisfaction you raise suggests, to me, that I am doing my job well.
3. I have never, knowingly, committed a contempt of court and Mr Caine has, despite his allegations, never successfully taken action to prove I did.
Regards
Roger Trencher
EMAIL FROM FORCE MR CAINE TO CHIEF CONSTABLE
John Caine From: John Caine
Sent: 15 March 2019 11:37
To: 'chief.constable@hampshire.pnn.police.uk'
Subject: Legal action now proceeding in the High Court about Mr. Trencher's corruption.
I have just seen third party correspondence that Mr. Trencher is oblivious to his predicament unfolding in the High Court. This particular JR is all about his corruption and has been conceded by the IOPC. See below for the attention of the Chief Officer given he has informed her this case has been terminated. Nothing could be further from the truth.
John Caine
From: Moore, Rayann (ACO) [mailto:Rayann.Moore@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 11 February 2019 16:05
To: 'John Caine'; 'neil.moloney@policeconduct.gov.uk'
Subject: CO/80/2019 THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF JOHN CAINE V IOPC & OTHERS *OFFICIAL* Dear Sirs,
It appears from the Claimant’s emails that IOPC did file an AOS by email on 30th January 2019 albeit referencing the incorrect case number, dated the incorrect year (30th January 2018) and at the incorrect Administrative Court Office. We have checked out systems and can find no record of ever receiving this email in London or Cardiff.
In view of these circumstances it has been agreed that the case will be reopened; however the IOPC is requested to file a copy of their Acknowledgment of Service in this matter referencing the correct case number CO/80/2019 and stating the correct date of signing as soon as possible.
On receipt of the Acknowledgment of Service the matter will be referred back to the Administrative Court Lawyer.
Please note that as this is a Cardiff Case and all future documents should be filed at the Administrative Court Cardiff (and not London) either by:
post to The Administrative Court, Civil Justice Centre, 2 Park Street Cardiff CF10 1ET or by email to administrativecourtoffice.cardiff@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk Regards Rayann Moore Administrative Court Office for Wales
Perhaps it is time to establish exactly how much public money has been abused in victimising myself and others whilst the force deliberately ignores their main function which is to deal with crime and protect the public.
Mr Trencher states in an e mail that he had spoken to the Chief Constable today and that she had complete confidence in him.
The following extract is from an e mail I sent to the Chief Constable today:
"The force is in the situation it is now due to the conduct of Mr Trencher. This matter could have been resolved a long time ago. The conduct of your legal team has simply resulted in further claims being issued and a considerable waste and continued abuse of public funds."
In the earlier blog I raised concerns regarding Hampshire County Council Solicitors were being utilised by Hampshire police to deal with the ongoing employment tribunal matter and published an email chain between Mr Trencher and Liz Treadwell (Legal Executive) who is responsible for the conduct of the employment tribunal matter.
There have been developments concerning the conduct of the case again raising familiar concerns surrounding disclosure which will feature in a separate post so that the information which is in the public interest is in bite size chunks.
Comments