Notes about my caution plus three interview at Wimbledon police station on the 22nd of May 2025

The DS told us that the officers had instructed her to inform us that if any recordings were made of the interview I would be subject to arrest if I attempted to publish any such recordings.

(In previous interviews under caution the police have performed intimate body searches without the presence of an AA, have inspected my blind person shades, my guide cane and even disassembled my snack lunch brought with, me looking for potential concealed recorded device)

--- start ---

1) The interview was scheduled for 10 AM which is when we arrived only to find out that the solicitor who had been summoned to be in attendance had been given 11:30 as a start time and took over an hour to arrive;

2) During this time my father and I discussed our problems with the nominated appropriate adult (the AA). We explained that we had said we didn't want an AA but she was very authoritative and explained that that wasn't our choice. If the police accepted that Michael was vulnerable it was obligatory to have an AA and if we hadn't chosen one acceptable to them she was the alternative. 

We then had a long discussion about why my father was not acceptable and chaotic scenes ensued over the next two hours including after the solicitor arrived where by different stories and excuses were used by the interviewing officer, [name], relying on what he was being told by the Inspector, the officer in the case and the Sergeant at the end of which he admitted they had misled him and that my father was not a witness but that he had been ‘instructed’  he was not to be allowed to be the AA with no extra reason given. 

3) [the AA] explained that she could call the whole interview off because of this but then the whole process would have to be gone through again and on balance we might think it best to get this disposed off.

4) During these discussions we had the opportunity to show [the AA] the video of the events in question and having watched the unredacted copy of the video we showed her she seemed audibly distressed at the point in the video where the aggressor is seen striking me across the head knocking my blind person shades to the floor. It should be noted that during our conversations we learned that the AA had been doing the job of AA for people in my position for seven years and the fact that after seven years she was still palpably distressed by what she saw was a clear demonstration to me that the events where as severe as we had described them.

5) By this time the duty solicitor had arrived ( The DS) and we went into conference with her and [name] also in attendance

6) After the DS had first arrived she went into conference with the interviewing officer after which we then had our consultation with the DS in which it became apparent that the interviewing officer had briefed her incorrectly based on false information including the fact that according to them there were still several outstanding cases against me. 

This was proved to be incorrect and the PC then came into the room and tried to clarify the situation saying that there were in fact open no open cases opened against except today’s.

7) Reluctantly we accepted the DS’s advice to get the meeting over with based on a prepared statement. She first of all viewed the full video and then our version of a prepared statement and suggested it would be better if she translated that into more standard legal language and then we could proceed with the interview without my father present with a starting point of the prepared statement and no comment to any questions

8) By then it was 12:30 PM and we had been there for 2 and a half hours before the interview commenced.  Throughout the entire time the constant loud distracting alarm noises which were causing me increasingly more distress which is triggering my autism which is now even more bothersome in combination with the tinnitus which I now suffer as result of my assailant’s building works four years ago without due consideration or care.

9) My father left the room and the PC entered with a second officer unidentified. Just before the end of the consultation and before the interview commenced the DS told us that the officers had instructed her to inform us that if any recordings were made of the interview I would be subject to arrest if I attempted to publish any such recordings. I had already assured her and through her the officers, that I was carrying no such devices.

In previous interviews under caution the police have performed intimate body searches without the presence of an AA, have inspected my blind person shades, my guide cane and even disassembled my snack lunch brought with, me looking for potential concealed recorded devices.

This time because they weren't able to perform such searches as it was a voluntary interview they simply just made any such recording arbitrarily an arrestable offence.

10) The interview commenced in the normal way with the officers introducing themselves for the tape (I can not remember the second officer’s name) and also the AA and the DS. They then proceeded to read out the normal caution. After that they went straight into the first questions which were about the alleged public order offence. At this stage the DS interjected and read out the prepared statement as corrected by her.

Both at this stage and several times later the officers seemed to question whether that was my statement or just hers and she confirmed that it was mine prepared on my instructions and then it transpired that they were talking about the witness statement I had submitted as part of the case against my assailant and asking whether that was my statement; it was clarified several times that as with the prepared statement these were my words corrected and put into proper English by my father.

11) The general flow of the interview went as follows: They started by reading out the allegations against me and then they proceeded to play a video clip of the events just before and ending at the alleged assault on my assailant.

Before the video was played I stated for the record that both the DS and the AA had already been shown a full copy of the incident by us and would be able to interject should it turn out that the video being presented as evidence during the interview was not a fair reflection of the full incident.

12) After playing the video they then gave a brief verbal summary of their interpretation of the events shown in the video and then proceeded to ask questions.

13) They asked me do I accept I continued to use offensive language even after my assailant had told me to stop swearing in front of his child several times. I said as per my written statement I accept shouting and swearing but I do not accept the consequence was obvious because they were the result of an autistic meltdown caused by the deliberate actions of my assailant whose intention was clearly to incite a confrontation 

14) They asked me how I became aware of my assailant’s presence and I responded telling them that I was unaware of my assailant’s presence up until the point when he started intentionally setting off the motion sensitive alarms; at that point I became aware that he was engaging in activities intended to cause the alarm and distress including walking up and down the boundary fence suspiciously looking at things and getting a water key and appearing to interfere with the water supply on our side of the fence

15) The AA interjected asking to clarify based on the descriptions given by the questioning officer that my assailant was in fact using a grabber to manipulate an item over the boundary fence and that to clarify my assailant can be clearly heard calling me a [DELETED VILE offensive word] loudly in the presence of his four year old child. [And anyone else property in proximity]

16) They then sked me again if I accept that I was making abusive statements which were audible to other people to which I responded asked and ansered then no comment as instructed.

17) They asked me if I accept that my fox deterrent devices cause a nuisance to my neighbour. I responded to this question by first repeating that my assailant is no longer our neighbour as he was thrown out of the house last November and has not lived there since and only returned to collect his mail and engage in behaviourslikely to cause harassment. 

I stated the devices were physically incapable of producing any nuisance owing to the fact that the speakers in the devices have long since been disconnected.

I also noted that previous malicious allegations had resulted in Merton Environmental Health being involved and after investigation concluding for the record that these devices are not a statutory nuisance

18) I also said that I ignored a lot of what he was doing for approximately 45 minutes after I first became aware of my assailant's interference. I was able to do this up until the point when he reached over our fence and interfered with our fox and other devices and calling me a [DELETED VILE OFFENSIVE WORD] which is what triggered my [autistic] meltdown.

19) They asked me whether or not I was aware that other people were in fact able to hear my offensive language, to which I responded at the time I was not consciously aware of anyone else being present and that it was only later after reviewing the CCTV I became aware that his child was in relative close proximity.

20) They asked me what were the alarm sounds heard in the video which led to my assailant telling me to turn my alarms off.  I responded to them telling them that one of the sounds heard in video supplied to the police but not presented here as evidence clearly shows my assailant tampering with motion sensor alarms which we have installed over the last four years because he was interfering with and damaging property over the boundary line.

Additionally at the time of this incident another neighbour’s car alarm was malfunctioning which may also be one of the alarms heard

21) The officers then described that I had physically struck my assailant with a plastic bucket multiple times and asked me why I attacked my assailant. I responded by saying that I do not acknowledge or accept that I have attacked anybody as can be seen from the video they have entered into evidence my assailant followed me onto my property after being specifically told not to when I was retreating then kept invading my personal space walking towards me in aggressive manner forcing me back into the corner at which point I acted in self defence to try and ward him off and this does not constitute an attack and my instinctive response to the clear and present threat of imminent unlawful violence against myself resulted in my initiating an act of self defence only and that my saasailant’s physical assault on me was disproportionate to any possible threat I may have posed to him given that he is twice my size and I am severely sight impaired and have no ability to defend myself against physical attack.

22) The PC than asked me if I felt remorse for attacking my assailant I responded to that question saying that my assailant has on numerous occasions threatened physical violence against me on CCTV which is available to the police, that he has previously published on the Internet and in written form on the side his van  many libellous accusations that I am a [DELETED VILE OFFENSIVE WORD] and I do not feel remorse for defending myself against his imminent and clearly aggressive attempt to cause a physical altercation.

23) They asked me why I did I attack my asailant with a bucket three times. I responded by saying that I had no intention to cause any violence or injury and I did not attack my assailant as previously stated I was responding instinctively to his continuing aggressive behaviours which were intended to cause fear of imminent violence which under the circumstances given that he has made various threats previously to assault me because I am disabled I had every reason to fear .

24) They asked me if I would consider any sort of reconciliation or arbitration to solve the issues between myself and my assailant I responded by telling them that because of the disgusting things he has published about me online and in writing on the side of his van in a public place(s) I have been unable to leave my property without somebody with me for over 4 years and have become a prisoner in my own home and there is no way to reconcile with someone who does anything like that, adding that earlier on in 2022 the question of arbitration was raised and that we were open to this on the condition that my assailant stopped interfering with our property and engaging in activities designed to cause fear alarm distress for three months and he couldn't even manage to do this for two weeks.

25) The officer asked me again if I felt regret for attacking my assailant. I then responded saying that they should not put words in my mouth and again I do not accept that any attack on my assailant ever happened beyond my proportionate self defence response to his clearly aggressive and antagonistic behaviour which was intended to cause fear of imminent violence.

26) The officers asked me who wrote my statement about the assault. There was a bit of backwards and forward because the question was unclear and in the end it was clarified but they were asking who was responsible for writing my victim statement relating to my allegation against my assailant of assault to which I answered it was my contemporaneous statement made just after the event dictated to my father and carer who broke down what I said and then helped me to draft it into proper English.

27) The officer asked if there were any other statements I would like to make. I referred to both the DS And the AA we all agreed that there was nothing further to add so I replied there was nothing further and the meeting terminated.

Dictated by me to Microsoft Word on 23 May 2025 – saved separately. This version corrected for sequencing, spelling, grammar and typos by father/carer, 24 May 2025 and subsequently anonymised.

*** Father’s Notes: ***

We had been informed only shortly before this interview that the formal interview of the assailant for his assault on Michael was to take place the day after this interview. Reading through the questions asked of Michael in the interview it seems an inescapable conclusion that the officers were fishing for information to use in the assailant’s interview to help him avoid prosecution. No other useful purpose can be ascertained from this interview as it was abundantly clear from the video:

1) that Michael was not in control or right mind during the incident in question, in other words the balance of his mind was disturbed, [autistic meltdown] (caused by deliberate indifference) and therefore no criminal prosecution could ever take place whatever happened.

2) that whether or not that had been the case there was no evidence of any crime at all being committed by him because of the absolute defences of provocation and reasonable self defence

3) that questioning him about a witness statement made for a different purpose was wholly improper in the context of this interview

4) that much of what Michael was able to say about it was because he had watched the video not because he could remember anything at the time of the incident.

It should be noted that the actual interview itself took one hour mainly because many of the questions were repetitive but in reality could have been over within a quarter of an hour. Yet another example of the SNT wasting huge amounts of time and budget in the determination to find something as a weapon against Michael. Should they have needed to have clarify Michael’s witness statement it should have been done in the context of the investigation against my assailant and not dressed up as a potential crime by Michael.

Had there not been a breach of the Equality Act by the police in preventing either myself as a note taker or a recording device as an appropriate reasonable adjustment these notes would have been fully accurate but instead represent the best that Michael could remember after such a stressful event. Michael tells me that there was a sound of typing throughout so it is hoped that the attending solicitor I was doing this and keeping good clear notes if ever required.

I feel personally abused as the various reasons given for why I could not be the AA includes a false record on the police database which I have several times asked to be removed, namely that I had been present at a previous interview as an AA and had had to be removed for causing an interference and been abusive. When that was discounted, another false statement was used as an excuse, namely that I was a witness to the events of 11th April, and when that was discounted that Michaels witness statement in the assailant’s case referred to previous events when I might be a witness. When even that was discounted, the ‘don’t care he can’t come in’ underlines the callous way in which this SNT ignore PACE when it doesn’t suit them.