OK, so let me get this straight, the complaint had enough foundation to be recorded and was not vexatious, but actually investigating the complaint would be oppressive to a Chief Officer who is paid almost £200,000 per year. Yeah we know he refused to take his performance related bonus the other year, but hey on that kind of money he can afford the odd gesture can't he? I digress. So this highly paid and often criticised Chief Police Officer would find a complaint against him for Misconduct in Public Office to be oppressive and vexatious. Why is that? Surely, if the complaint is valid enough to be recorded then it should be investigated in some form or other?

The problem dear readers is this. To investigate a Chief Officer, Greater Manchester Police Authority would have to ask an outside force to come and do the investigation. Now that would cost GMP some money which people might argue could be better used for putting police officers on the beat to "protect and serve". We might think that a bad thing excepting that GMP seem to like wasting money anyway, especially on "art" GMP spend over £100,000 on paintings . There is also the point that a Chief Officer is not above the law so if a complaint against him merits being recorded then it should be investigated no matter who it upsets.

So why did the IPCC grant dispensation to the GMPA from investigation? Who can say but, when we see that almost the same words are used by the IPCC as the GMPA to explain why they consider the complaint "vexatious", "unfounded" and Oppressive", we can make our own minds up about the reasons. The GMPA said that the alleged misconduct did not breach the guidelines set out by the Crown Prosecution Service. Firstly of course, they are "guidelines" designed to give guidance and are not set in stone. Secondly, does this mean that the GMPA and the IPCC feel that Misconduct in Public Office had taken place but not of a serious enough nature? So, according to them, Fahy has done something wrong but not that serious? Kinda blows their argument really.

Now, under the Police Reform Act (PRA) 2002, the responsibility for the handling of complaints is solely the Chief Officer's, in this case Fahy. The Chief Officer can delegate that responsibility to the Professional Standards Branch (PSB) of the force, which is more commonly known in tv parlance as "Internal Affairs". Despite having the PSB handle all complaints against police officers it still remains the Chief Officer's responsibility In law. Therefore, if any of the officers in the PSB breach the legislation that covers the handling, recording and investigation of those complaints, it is as if the Chief Officer himself had acted unlawfully. When several officers act unlawfully then it must be the Chief Officer who has to answer to the law. The IPCC and the GMPA both state (almost word for word)  that no legislation had been breached. Funny that because in February of this year, David Abbott had a Judicial Review case almost coming to Court when the IPCC backed down and admitted that it had acted unlawfully in refusing to allow David Abbott's appeal against the non-recording of his complaint by GMP. If the IPCC had acted unlawfully, then it follows that GMP PSB also acted unlawfully, in using the false reasons they gave David for not recording his complaint against Paul Barnard for conspiracy to pervert, perjury etc etc. That is because GMP used exactly the same arguments for not recording David's complaint. Stupid really as they now have to investigate.

That kind of sinks the IPCC argument about legislation not being breached.

So, we have both the GMPA and the IPCC using the arguments that Fahy cannot be held accountable for the actions of his staff in the PSB, whilst they both agree that it is Fahy's responsibility to handle complaints and also to ensure that legislation is not breached in his force. We also have both the GMPA and the IPCC telling David Abbott, that a threshold for Misconduct in Public Office has not been crossed, even though it is not their place to decide that. So they are saying, I think, that although legislation has not been breached it is not Fhay's fault even though it is and anyway it is not fair to expect him to do his job properly when he is only paid £180+ K per year.

Well that is ok then.

You can see why David Abbott is forced once again to go down the route of Judicial Review, when the authorities that are supposed to oversee the police constantly collude to deny people their rights and always protect people like Fahy. I suppose that given that the GMPA appointed Fahy and thus their first loyalty must be to him and given that the IPCC employs so many ex coppers, is is hardly surprising that they will always take the side of the police against some low life oik who dares to make a complaint.

If others of you have this kind of problem and are thinking of Judicial Review to resolve it, then take a look here at the official Justice site for answers. Follow this link: 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/administrative-court/applying-for-judicial-review.htm  then scroll down the page and you will find a link to the instructions at the bottom. If you qualify for legal aid then you can get a lawyer to help you but if you don't then it only costs £60 to apply for permission and if that is granted then it is a further £215. There is some work involved but we will soon be putting on this site guides of how to fight your battles with the police and local authorities.

Remember, if you don't fight them then you only have yourselves to blame if they treat you badly.

David Abbott's complaint is being looked at by GMP and we will update you when it is safe and reasonable so to do. We have no wish to jeopardise any part of that investigation by our actions.