Please see below the email exchange I have had with the officer dealing with this complaint (you're ref PC/1365/24) on your behalf, and a frank admission that she is unable to be independent in her investigations of the various complaints I have made, contrary to mission statement, evidenced in your title, that these must be independent.

It should be obvious that a system where the complainant is not entitled to know what the police officer was asked or to even know what he said in response to a complaint made by me is fundamentally wrong & cannot be what was intended! 

This is even more problematic when you take into consideration that I have absolute undisputable proof that officers have laid in previous statements which were solely relied upon to conduct the investigations.

Please now redirect this complaint to someone who is permitted to check the facts before reaching a conclusion, rather than someone whose job is to support the officer about whom the complaint is made. I would request that each of the many complaints I have had to make over my treatment by the police, both on disability  discrimination grounds and generally, are re reviewed to take into account the factual errors that PC Prosser has been obliged to accept as true, and that the blatant breaches of PACE I have suffered are actioned appropriately.

Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 12:39:34 PM
To: Jacqueline.M.Prosser@met.police.uk feedback@met.police.uk Oli.R.French-Greenslade@met.police.uk  Councillor Jenifer Gould;Complaint Reviews 

Subject: Re: Heads of complaint - Hart - PC/1365/24 
Thank you for your written admission that your investigations are intentionally biased and fundamentally flawed. 

You are supposed to stand for the truth, as you will not, then there is no truth to your existence and there is no point in engaging with you any further as you have no intention of conducting a fair or honest investigation. 

I will forward your email to IOPC as confirmation that you are not acting independently in your investigations, and request they appoint someone outside the police to review all the complaints I have made that you have handled to date as you are not acting in the public interest, and to take over this complaint too. 

Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 7:18:19 AM

Subject: RE: Heads of complaint - Hart - PC/1365/24 

I previously informed you that we would not share an officer’s account with a complainant prior to writing up the outcome and this process has not changed.

Sent: 20 February 2024 17:21
To: Prosser Jacqueline M - SW-CU; French-Greenslade Oli R - SW-CU ; DPS Mailbox - CRU  Councillor Jenifer Gould 
Subject: Re: Heads of complaint - Hart - PC/1365/24
 

We note your responsibility and that the question of PC Harold’s station is not relevant to your responsibilities.

However, the other point is still an issue.

It is an undeniable fact that Jack was present and causing anti-social nuisance and annoyance on the day in question.
 
It is an undeniable fact that there was perfectly serviceable CCTV to evidence that Jack was present with intend to cause a fear alarm and distress. 
 
It is an undeniable fact that this officer was solely responsible for ensuring evidence of antisocial behaviours and breach of ASBW was deliberately lost. 

Please confirm that on this occasion you will present your initial findings to us before finalising your report. This is the only way you will know whether or not the information you have been given is agreed or in dispute. It is not for us to know in advance what PC Harold might say in response to your questions, so we do not know in advance what information you need for balance.

The IOPC is meant to be an independent body and if you are investigating on its behalf, you should not be taking the sides of the police force against the complainant. However, that is what it looks like when you take the details given you by the police officer as fact without checking.

Please let me have a clear answer as to whether or not you will do so in this case.

From: Jacqueline.M.Prosser@met.police.uk 
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 12:44:00 PM
Subject: RE: Heads of complaint - Hart - PC/1365/24

Good Afternoon

My department is based at Kingston Police Station and is responsible for investigating all complaints regarding South West (SW) officers.  PC Harold is a SW officer and I will be investigating your complaint.

Thank you for confirming your complaint, I will now look into all the evidence for this and will keep you updated as to the progress.  At the conclusion of my investigation you will be sent the outcome which will include instructions on how you may request a review should you be dissatisfied.

To: Prosser Jacqueline M - SW-CU  French-Greenslade Oli R - SW-CU <
Cc: Cadman Ele C - Professional Standards <Ele.C.Cadman@met.police.uk>; Complaint Reviews <ComplaintReviews@mopac.london.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Heads of complaint - Hart - PC/1365/24
 

Before engaging with you in the matter of this complaint, it should be understood that as Harold was attached to Kingston Police station during the relevant period, and we have been assured previously that investigations should be conducted by an officer from a different station, there first needs to be some transparency about any conflict of interest that may arise before any progress can be made.

As you know, I am also unhappy that your method of dealing with our previous complaints has always been incomplete, in that it allows you to take the statements of the officer under investigation unchallenged end without a substantiation. This has resulted on the outcomes to each prior complaint being based on facts I knew to be, and can be demonstrated to be untrue, and where there would have been different outcomes if I had been given the opportunity to say so.

Nothing in the Regulations allows for this. I am copying this to the DPS in case it is they who have to permit you to investigate this properly.

It does not help that I think your summary of this complaint misses the point so widely.

I attach below my fuller statement of the facts to illustrate this point follows, please note the attached annotated photograph, which graphically demonstrates the easily disprovable lie that there was no CCTV available.

Last month, when I got the malicious injunction nullified, the guy that has been tormenting me decided he would come to the courthouse just to torment me some more.
The judge believed his presence alone was a breach of the ASBW already in place at that time, not to mention the clear intention to contact us, which is why she ordered that either the police should instruct him to leave the building, or she would make the hearing a private/closed session.
The guy had quite literally parked his distinctive black van mostly in a side road right next to the building, practically in the middle of the public footpath, he tried to make contact as we were walking past to get into the building..... the guy has a ASBW which literally says that he is not to contact either directly or indirectly.....He is clearly still obsessive and fixated and his actions are designed to intimidate us. So, we believe all the above is covered by the 'indirectly' in his ASB warning, and the judge agreed with us!
We immediately tell the investigating officer (Howard) who then proceeds to go out of his way to not only fail to investigate in a timely fasi9n, has went out of his way to actively find the only CCTV camera which didn't catch the event, then told us in writing that was no CCTV of either the other guy or us and more importantly ignoring all of the other canvas which would have caught the event. Email below  
This is of course a completely ridiculous statement to make, and which is easy to categorically disproof.

 A county court is going to have lot of CCTV, and just the ideal that there is supposedly no CCTV coverage of a security checkpoint where the guy had no other choice but to pass through, not once but twice, is absolutely absurd. 
Despite the almost comically obvious fact of multiple CCTV cameras pointing directly at where his distinctive van was sitting too!
There's even clear signage saying that CCTV is operational in the area, one of these signs is directly below two obvious CCTV cameras attached to the side of the court building!
No doubt by now, over a month later, all of the evidence, that would otherwise be available to prove the offence, will now likely have been lost. 
There is nobody to blame for this comically stupid oversight but the officer who, by any reasonable account, seems to have going out of his way to not do his job or is actively engaged in destroying evidence.

"Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 7:49 AM

Subject: RE: Mr [Deleted] ASB Warning - update 13 December

Thanks you for your account of what happened the other day.

I am currently in Kingston and I will try and make contact with the CCTV controller here to see if they capture the incident where he has shouted from his van.

This is highly unlikely to have enough evidence to prove that he was shouting that to you, but I will have a look to see if there is footage that I could use to evidence a breach of the ASB warning."

"Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 2:02 PM

Subject: RE: Mr [deleted] ASB Warning - update 19 Jan 24 // 25 Jan 202

Firstly sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I am now back in Wimbledon and have finished my attachment in Kingston.

In regards to the CCTV at the Court, the camera on St James's Road does not pick up the attendance of yourself or Mr [Deleted] as it is at the opposite end of the road."

The guy is either incompetent or he is going out of his way to deliberately ensure evidence is ignored or worse destroyed. There is absolutely no excuse for this sort of shoddy police work other than incompetence or deliberate indifference.

PLEASE NOTE:I 'm sorry for the topographical and other spelling problems, I am severely sight impaired, very dyslexic and my access technology just doesn't allways play nicely with the outlook app.
 
 

From: Jacqueline.M.Prosser@met.police.uk 
Sent: Friday, 9 February 2024, 15:58
Subject: Heads of complaint - Hart - PC/1365/24

Dear Mr Hart,

You recently made a complaint which has been assessed as suitable for progression and it has been assigned to me for investigation.

I have read through the full details of your complaint and I propose the following headings to summarise:

1.     The complainant states that, in relation to an ongoing investigation into his neighbour, PC Harold only obtained one piece of CCTV when there would have been numerous others that would have shown what was required.  

2.     The complainant states that he has informed PC Harold of further recent incidents involving his neighbour but PC Harold had failed to record them.

Please could you confirm that the above headings summarise your complaint?

Kind regards,

PC Jacqui Prosser 4154SW.

DPS Professional Standards Unit | South West

Directorate of Professional Standards.