“Representing the interests of 140,000 Constables, Sergeants, Inspectors and Chief Inspectors “

That is what it says on their website and that is what police constables sign up to when they pay their first subscription on joining the force. The idea is that, according to their booklet that each police constable receives right at the beginning of their service, the police federation will negotiate on their behalf and fight their corner in times of trouble.

The truth? Well just like everything else in public life in Britain, these are fine aims that don't actually meet up with reality. You name it, every area of public life in the UK is now pervaded by the no-blame culture. Who me guv, scream the politicians, bankers, social workers, police forces, etc etc., no guv it was not our fault. The first reaction of these people is to deny everything and try to deflect all criticism and blame away from them. They have, as amply outlined in the case of “Fred the Shred” of RBS fame, too much to protect along with their buddies who are also dipping their snouts in the gravy pot.

The Police Federation are no different. When Kristian was first accused, a rep from GMP federation  came to see Kristian and told him, “don't worry son I will be with you every step of the way”. That was in April of 2007. The next time Kristian had any contact with the fed reps was after the trial in November 2008. Every step of the way eh? Hmmm.

Anyway, the reason that Kristian came into contact with the fed reps again was that immediately the trial was finished, he sacked the defence team. That is an issue that will be discussed in a later article. He contacted the federation in Stockport and a meeting was arranged with a fed rep. At the meeting, the first thing that Kristian was hit with was a demand from the Y division that he admit his guilt and face a disciplinary hearing. Why did the federation representative alert Y division to the meeting and invite them along? Keep with us dear reader all will be explained. Kristian of course denied guilt and agreed to go to the disciplinary meeting. The situation with his defence for sentencing and a possible appeal was then discussed.

At this stage Kristian still believed that the federation was on his side. He should have known when Tom Elliot told him and his father, that they were employed by the Greater Manchester Police. I digress. the two federation reps spoke at length about the disciplinary hearing which was to take place a few weeks later and advised Kristian that he did not need legal representation as they would be there, fighting his corner. The talk then turned to legal representation. Now Kristian was only part funded by the federation as the main funding was legal aid. Still, funding is funding. They told Kristian that there would be no problem for the sentencing but that they were not sure about the appeal. They promised to look into it as a matter of urgency.

They both recommended a solicitor from  Rowlands solicitors, but told Kristian that this guy did not do legal aid work but that he was an accredited solicitor for the federation. It was arranged that they would speak to the solicitor from Rowlands and sound him out. Kristian and his Dad went home feeling that at least the federation were on his side. A meeting was arranged with Rowlands for a few days later. Then Kristian received a call on his mobile from the solicitor saying that the meeting would have to be postponed as he had not heard anything from the Police federation about funding. Kristian agreed and told the solicitor that he was sorry to mess him about but that they would have to look elsewhere for solicitors. The fault of course for any trouble the solicitor from Rowlands had gone to was completely at the door of the Police Federation.

It was at this time that Kristian found out that Russell Jones Walker, his trial solicitors, were the accredited solicitors for the police federation nationwide. So if you sack their favoured solicitors, it seems that the police federation don't like you any more and will not fund you. Nowhere in their booklet that is given to all police officers who join the federation, does it say that you have to use the solicitors that the police federation recommend. You would think that you would be able to choose you solicitor.

All the time this debate is going on Kristian is getting worried that an appeal will not be allowed because it has gone outside the 28 day time limit. He decides, with a little push from his dad to go with his present solicitors. As soon as he does he tells the police federation and they immediately refuse funding. No explanation and no funding. So, why did they refuse his funding? Well after writing several letters to the secretary and chairman of the GMP police federation, and finally writing to the head honcho at the national headquarters in London, the answer comes back that the allocating of funding is entirely discretionary. And who exercises this discretion? Well the Joint Central Committee of the police federation. Well OK then, so provide us with a copy of the minutes and record of the meeting where the JCC sat and decided this funding would be withdrawn. We await that answer with baited breath.

The next things was that Kristian had to appear at his disciplinary hearing at GMP HQ in Trafford. Kristian was sent a document outlining what had happened and what the disciplinary charge was going to be. This document outraged him as it contained so many untruths as to be pretty much worthless. He got in touch with the fed rep supposedly representing him, and told him what he wanted changing and what he would accept. This meant that pretty much everything had to be changed. Kristian also stated quite clearly to the fed rep that although he realised he had been found guilty of the charge he was in fact innocent so could not plead guilty to the disciplinary charge of misconduct in a public office.

Now this point is very important for all police officers. The Y dept or “professional standards” as they are now called, will try to get an officer who has been convicted of an offence to accept the disciplinary charge whether or not that officer is actually guilty or not. There is a very simple reason for this. Once an officer has been found guilty of a disciplinary offence that warrants dismissal, they no longer have to pay that officer. The other part of the reason is that if, eventually the officer is acquitted by means of an appeal, then they can refuse to take the officer back into the job because that officer, by agreeing to plead to the disciplinary aspect has effectively resigned from the force. This has actually happened to a GMP officer who was found guilty in 2008 of assault, jailed then freed on appeal. Because he had agreed to the disciplinary charge, GMP said they did not have to give him his job back.

So, Kristian made it quite clear to the fed rep, that he would not agree to the disciplinary charge and he wanted that point making to the ACC in charge of the hearing. Kristian did this by phone and in an email for the avoidance of doubt. On the day of the hearing Kristian's mum went in with him and they met the fed rep prior to the hearing. Kristian re-iterated his stance about refusing to accept the disciplinary charge. They all went into the meeting and, after the charge had been read out, the fed rep stood up and promptly told the hearing that Kristian plead guilty to the disciplinary charge. At this Kristian was outraged and jumped to his feet and told the hearing in no uncertain terms that this was not the case. An argument broke out with the ACC ignoring Kristian who then shouted even louder and got his say in.

The meeting then adjourned whilst everyone got their breath back. The fed rep rounded on Kristian and told him that Kristian had embarrassed him in front of senior officers. Kristian told the fed rep in no uncertain terms that the only person who had embarrassed him was himself. At this the rep stormed off shouting that he would not represent Kristian anymore. The meeting reconvened with the fed rep standing up and explaining that he would not be representing Kristian anymore. Kristian had his say and point blank refused to accept the charge of misconduct. The meeting ended with him being found guilty anyway due to the trial verdict. The tribunal had little choice really given that a court of law had found Kristian guilty.

The point for Kristian is that by pleading not guilty, and by asking for and getting a Chief Constable's review, where the CC upheld the tribunal's decision, Kristian has played the game by the rules. Now they cannot say that he did not try to tell them he is innocent so that when he is acquitted, he can demand his job back, with his back pay or he can sue GMP for wrongful dismissal. Had he accepted the charge then none of that would be possible.

2009-03-08

But this article is about the police Federation and we accuse them of firstly failing to represent and assist as they promise and did promise, never contacting or accompanying Kristian to Court, denying and removing funding without any explanation, and trying to stitch Kristian up at the disciplinary hearing. It seems that these so called representatives are more concerned with keeping their cushy salaries, which we believe are paid for by the local force and are at the same rate as an Inspector, than actually acting in the best interests of the officer in trouble. So ask yourselves this, is this an organisation you would want to represent you in your hour of need?

GMP police federation → Russell Jones Walker →Professional Standards Department. All these groups are tied together. The POLFED only normally use Russell Jones Walker who by their own admission will not do anything to jeopardise that relationship, and POLFED have very strong ties to the professional standards department by dint of their being paid by GMP and they all have to do what they are told.

What chance did Kristian have against all these awful people. He believed that the federation would be on his side and stand up for him. He also believed that GMP would investigate the charges against him fairly and find that there was no substance to them. Incredibly, he believed that the Courts would see through the lies, the barrister and solicitor would fight tooth and nail to show that he was innocent.

MUG