This week David Abbott received a letter from Nigel Battersby the solicitor for the Greater Manchester Police Authority (GMPA) regarding his complaint against Peter Fahy, the Chief Con for Manchester's GMP. Mr. Battersby informed David that the GMPA were applying to the Independent Police Complaints Commission(IPCC) for dispensation from “further investigation” of David's complaint.

This week David Abbott received a letter from Nigel Battersby the solicitor for the Greater Manchester Police Authority (GMPA) regarding his complaint against Peter Fahy, the Chief Con for Manchester's GMP. Mr. Battersby informed David that the GMPA were applying to the Independent Police Complaints Commission(IPCC) for dispensation from “further investigation” of David's complaint. When David emailed the good Nigel, he said that they were applying on the grounds that the complaint was “vexatious, oppressive and an abuse of procedure.”

Well boo, we wouldn't want them having to suffer vexatious or oppressive complaints now would we the poor dears?

Anyhow, David looked up the IPCC Statutory Guidelines 2010 about what constitutes a vexatious or oppressive complaint. It says:

“The complaint is vexatious, oppressive or an abuse of procedure

176. It is important to note that it is the complaint itself that must be judged vexatious, oppressive or an abuse, not the complainant. Evidence to support an application for dispensation on this basis should therefore focus primarily on the current complaint. The complainant’s past complaint history may however be included where it is relevant to show that the current complaint is vexatious, oppressive or an abuse. The complaint history may be relevant, for example to show whether there have been a series of like complaints that have been addressed, either directed at the person subject to this complaint or another person.

177. Some assessment of the complaint may be required if the IPCC is to be satisfied that the complaint does indeed lack any foundation or amounts to an abuse. Information and explanation should be provided to support the application. 178. ‘Vexatious’ and ‘oppressive’ should be given their usual dictionary meaning. So, a vexatious complaint will be one without foundation which is intended, or tends,

to vex, worry, annoy or embarrass. For a complaint to be vexatious, it does not have to be repetitious.

179. An oppressive complaint is without foundation and is intended, or likely, to result in burdensome, harsh or wrongful treatment of the person complained against.

180. An abuse of the complaints system will occur where there has been manipulation or misuse in order to initiate or progress a complaint which, in all the circumstances of the particular case, should not have been made or should not be allowed to continue. An abuse of process may take many forms. If, for example, a member of the family of someone serving with the police makes a complaint about something that has happened to the family member, this may be considered misuse of the system to progress a complaint that the person serving with the police could not make. Each case must however be judged on its merits and no overall rule for these circumstances should be applied.”

Now it seems to us that none of the above applies to David's complaint against Peter Fahy. The actual complaint is one of Misconduct in Public Office, due to the sometimes illegal activities of the GMP Professional Standards Branch in the way that they handled David Abbott's complaint about Barnard and others. Quite simply, as David saw it, the Chief Officer of GMP is the person responsible under the Police Reform Act 2002 for the proper and lawful handling of complaints under that legislation. He may delegate that duty to others but ultimately he is responsible.

So, I hear you ask, what is vexatious or oppressive about that? How is that an abuse of procedure? Well in the first place nothing is vexatious or oppressive about the complaint nor is it an abuse of procedure. Of course none of this matters because in the IPCC Statutory Guidance 2010 on page 55 para 169 it says:

164. Recordable conduct matters cannot be considered for dispensation.

So let us try to make sense of this, David Abbott makes a complaint against Peter Fahy, the Chief Officer of GMP of Misconduct in Public Office, and he makes it to the correct authority which is the Greater Manchester Police Authority (GMPA) and they refuse to record that complaint. David then appeals to the IPCC and they uphold his appeal and tell the GMPA to record that complaint. So does that make it a complaint of recordable conduct which in turn means it is not eligible for dispensation from further investigation? Well here is the good Mr. Battersby's explanation:

“Conduct complaints” relate to conduct which has an adverse effect on a member of the public or is sufficiently serious to bring the police into disrepute.

“Conduct matter” is defined (by section 12 of the Police Reform Act 2002) as, “any matter which is not and has not been the subject of

a complaint but in the case of which there is an indication (whether from the circumstances

or otherwise) that a person serving with the police may have –

(a)   committed a criminal offence; or

(b)   behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings”.

There is a distinction that can be drawn between a recordable conduct complaint and a recordable conduct matter. The IPCC directed that a conduct complaint be recorded. 

Oh right then so it is a matter of splitting hairs is it? Obviously it is up to the IPCC as to whether they consider David Abbott's complaint to be vexatious etc, but if they do then David can then appeal that decision and, if unsuccessful in that can turn to the path of Judicial Review .

What all this does show, in line with the Murdoch scandal and the resignations at the Metropolitan Police, is that there is, throughout public life in the UK an institutional arrogance that says we must never be wrong or held to account and to hell with the ordinary people. What they forget is that they are ordinary people too.

David asked Nigel Battersby, if the relevant committee of the GMPA had sat and considered the complaint and been given the correct legal advice about the way to proceed. If they had then could he have the minutes of the meeting please. There was of course no reply. We all remember how Battersby wrote to David and said that as far as he was aware, no committee had ever sat and considered his complaint. So what the hell are they being paid for? Over half a million quid is spent on this authority in terms of expenses each year and yet they don't even perform the function they are paid for!!!

This whole episode shows quite clearly that the GMPA are not fit for purpose being merely lackeys of GMP. Let us not forget that the GMPA received around 255 complaints about GMP since 2005 and only 1 of those were investigated. There is also the evidence from GMP aboput the thousands of complaints made and even when they are investigated and proven, only in a very small number of cases are officers disciplined. Superintendent Mike Freeman (you remember him from David's case) said when asked “However, it is important to stress that while an allegation might be upheld, this does not necessarily mean the particular officer involved has done anything wrong.”

Say What now?? So the allegations are proven but they did nothing wrong? That is the kind of logic that prevents Manchester having an honest and corruption free police force.

It also tells us that this a desperate attempt to keep the news that Fahy has a complaint recorded against him out of the news so that he can still apply for the Met Commissioner's job he so obviously wants, despite being the first and only person to withdraw from consideration.

As for the GMPA, perhaps it is time that these sort of bodies were done away with and a truly independent body set up to over see the police who seems to think that complaints against them are just a bit of sport to be played. Time to clean the stable.

The link on what Mike Freeman said is to the Manchester Mule newspaper a paper that actually prints the truth about what goes on.