For those who don't know about bail, the PC in charge of a case can choose to authorise the first 3 months, the next 3 months require an Inspector to do so and the three month's following need a superintendent to do so.

For each of the last 2 stages, the bailee is entitled to notice of the intention to extend, and to make representations. 

Reluctantly the OIC telephoned this week to see if we wanted to do so over the phone. Having no trust in the system any more, we wrote in instead, but with low expectation that anyone would read it..

The bail extension was allegedly authorised by some unnamed inspector with no connection to the case, but who knows if that really happened as the OIC refuses to provide any evidence that this was done. This is what we said:

"We require your assurance that your request for extension is reviewed by Inspector French-Greenslade, to whom I have copied this, and not another officer with no knowledge of this matter without access to the complete correspondence and 3 year history of the abuse Michael has suffered at the hands of Cannon Hill SNT.  

I note you have accepted that the reason for extension is solely due to delay by your colleagues in providing the extracts from the CCTV.

No other enquiries are outstanding.

S 47ZC is clear, all of the 4 conditions have to be satisfied for further extension:
A) there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty:

B) further time is needed to complete enquiries;

C) decisions are being made diligently and expeditiously; and 

D) it is necessary and proportionate for there to be an extension:

You admit condition A & C has not been met, and you must know by now that there are no longer any reasonable grounds to believe Michael is guilty.

Michael is clearly not a flight risk, so condition D is not met either. In the unlikely event you need to interview him further, he is and always has been available to come in for a properly organised interview, whether under caution plus 3 or otherwise.

It would be entirely safe, proper and reasonable for him to be released from bail, while still under investigation, especially as you will have to release him without charge once your forensic team eventually get round to dealing with this.

Please remember the reason for the delay is your own deliberate actions.

• First, you failed to arrange for the technical officer to be on site until hours after the arrest had been made, leaving little time for the relevant information to be downloaded on the day,
• second you did not insist the officer stayed until he had completed that task,
• and thirdly you failed compel that officer to let Michael show him how best to do what he was doing (which clearly he did not),
• fourthly Michael offered to show those clips on his own phone with access to the system, you chose instead to ‘seize’ the phone at which point you made this impossible (remember you lied here as well – you agreed to collect the phone for this purpose, but then changed your mind to say that because it was now in your hands it had been ‘seized already’.

As the only ‘evidence’ on which you based the arrest was a video clip supplied by a known criminal who had already been arrested for harassing Michael and which itself showed no crime being committed, we now  believe you deliberately mismanaged the arrest to ensure the evidence of Michael’s innocence became unavailable, and you could continue to punish him without trial and cause thousands of £’s of damage in the process. 

In the process I have now calculated you have breached 9 different Articles of the Human Rights Act, we already know you have lied to the officer  investigating Michael’s complaint about this (which we are dealing with separately) and have no faith that you will uphold the obligations of the police in resolving this unwanted attack on a vulnerable person.

The arrest itself was improperly motivated, and continuation of bail unacceptable.

A release without charge would be a more appropriate course of action."

Add here is the resulting ridiculous email exchange.... Notice that long rumbling replies from our IOC Screem of a mix of desperation and insecurity....

Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 3:56 PM
To: David.McGinness@met.police.uk
Subject: RE: Bail extension

None of that alters the fact that extension of bail beyond 3 September requires the authority of a Superintendent, not an Inspector, so you are confirming it is invalid. See PACE. You have also confirmed that not all A to D conditions were satisfied as required by 47ZD(1)(c).

Do what’s right for a change.

Nicholas"
 

From: David.McGinness@met.police.uk <David.McGinness@met.police.uk>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 3:03 PM
Subject: RE: Bail extension
 

Dear Nicholas,

I am sorry you feel let down, however again I do not feel these summaries are reflective of the facts.

I told you I would not disclose the authorisation document on the basis that it is a restricted record. I did not disclose the inspector because to my knowledge and belief there is no requirement to and I fail to see the purpose it serves.  I told you there would be a bail vary letter, I did not say the authorising officer’s name would be on it.

When you asked me when the investigation would be complete I stated abstractions may play a role, I did not state any words to the effect of ‘’because [I] might be given other things to do’’.

The confusion here appears to be that you want a copy of the bail extension application I made. You are not entitled to this at this stage to my knowledge and belief as it is a restricted document.

My application for bail extension did refer to safeguarding and I have made that apparent to you.

I have extended nothing, I have applied for an extension which has been approved by an inspector and then passed to a custody sergeant to update the record. 

I have copy and pasted the bail conditions from his PNC.  In the interest of investigating this additional bail condition you refer to I returned to the bail front sheet signed by Michael, and counter signed by his appropriate adult on 07.03.24.  I see exactly the same bail conditions as the ones I sent to you. These signatures are electronic with dates and times attached, and downloaded from the custody record. 

The bail vary letter may not cover that fact but I am not in charge of the formatting of this letter. I have outlined a means for you to receive this confirmation, I am also sure the inspector will be able to confirm anyway when he is back from holiday.  I have no issue with you seeking his confirmation. Regardless, I reiterate that denying the authority of the bail extension is not a valid position. If you are unhappy you should make a complaint and otherwise comply with the conditions.   When and if the matter progresses to court you can request the exact copy of the application in disclosure.

I have no interest in coercive control of Michael. 

I have not interacted with Jacquie Prosser save in relation to your complaint, I have never met her in person. If you suspect collusion I encourage you to make a complaint and follow it through. I have no concerns about this.

I remain confident in my grounds for bail extension and the appropriate authority has sanctioned those grounds. I appreciate you may not like it, but that is the matter as it stands.

If there is more I can clarify I will be available

Respectfully,

David

Sent: 30 May 2024 14:05
To: McGinness Dave P - SW-CU <David.McGinness@met.police.uk>; French-Greenslade Oli R - SW-CU <Oli.R.French-Greenslade@met.police.uk>
Subject: RE: Bail extension
 

"To PC DM

You continue to amaze me, and it is sad that I can no longer rely on any phone conversation with you.

In your call today,

you said bail had to be extended for safeguarding reasons;

You said it was to be extended to 31 August because you might be given other things to do so couldn’t spend any time on this;

You said the bail conditions remain unchanged;

You refused to identify the Inspector who authorised the extension but stated that the written document would confirm authorisation had been given.

Now I have received this, I would point out that none of the above is confirmed – effectively you lied to me throughout our conversation. Hopefully it is on your body worn so that your Inspector can check for himself.

There is no reference to safeguarding or any of the reasons required by the Act for an extension in the ‘Bail Variation’ and in your covering letter you mainly refer to police delays, which is not a valid reason, and to an unexplained safeguarding issue with which none of the approved bail conditions deal;
You have purported to extend it to 4 September, when 3 September is the latest date (PACE is clear, the day of the arrest is day 1) which means the bail variation is invalid in any event.
In your covering letter you have added an additional bail condition that was not present when bail was granted on 7 March as a blatant afterthought in the hope we wouldn’t notice solely to validate the safeguarding claim.

There is no reference to you having received authorisation, let alone any confirmation that a senior officer had seen our representations only a statement that some document exists which we will never be able to see (this case can never proceed to prosecution, as you well know, so disclosure can never happen).

This whole fiasco is merely Cannon Hill SNT trying to continue the coercive control over Michael that has now continued for over 2 years and makes a mockery of your public duty to protect the vulnerable.

I am copying this to your Inspector, who, I suspect, knows nothing of this because with his background knowledge, and him having seen the video of the alleged offence, will have known that no safeguarding issues arise, and that police delay is not a good excuse, especially as it was caused by your failures throughout.

This bail variation must be retracted immediately, and Michael released under investigation as should have happened in the first place.

Please note that your corrupt collusion with PC Prosser has already been reported to 101, and we will now have to follow that up in this case, too, unless there is a proper explanation from your senior officer to explain your deceptions, and any proper rationale for bail extension beyond that allowed by PACE.

Nicholas"

From: David.McGinness@met.police.uk <David.McGinness@met.police.uk>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 10:20 AM
Subject: Bail extension
 

"Dear sir(s)

Good morning, I am writing following phone consultation with Nicholas regarding receipt of the attached notice of bail change. It has been changed to the 30th of August 2024 at 1500hrs as shown in the letter.  This letter has been generated via the custody application and if you are sceptical as to its efficacy I suggest you phone 101 and give your details (custody record 01/1082/24) so they can confirm that it is indeed in place. Given the suggestions on the phone by Nicholas, I feel compelled to caution that denying the authority of the bail extension is highly unlikely to be viewed as valid in this instance.   As noted the principle rationale for the extension is due to unforeseen delays in forensic examination coupled with an imperative to safeguard.  The only factor which has changed is the date, the following bail conditions remain in place

[ Remove because quoting this would actually bring my bell conditions] 

The extension authorisation is a restricted document for police use. However it has been added to the case file and may be requested in disclosure should the matter progress to court.

Any concerns, do not hesitate to contact me

Respectfully,

David."