Assessment and Refutation

AN APPLICATION FOR

THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE IPCC DECISION TO GRANT DISPENSATION TO THE SUSSEX POLICE

FROM INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS AGAINST THEM

1. JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM FORM (PDF) (Click link to see)

2. ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICATION BY THE HIGH COURT ADMINISTRATION, INTER - DISPERSED BY THE REFUTATION OF STAFFORD FREEBORN (10 claims underlined below, Roman numerals i to x)

Court Admin ― (i) Mr. Freeborn suggests that fingerprints were wiped off the phone in the bedroom of his house where the incident took place. In a police photograph of the crime scene Mr. Freeborn states that the phone and an ASDA bag appear to have been moved. He suspects Sgt Bannister and PC Kenward.

Furthermore, the phone has now been re-tested using modern techniques and several fingerprints have been found on the phone. He wants these fingerprints tested against Sussex Police records to see if they match those of Sussex Police officers, thus compounding his theory that the phone was wiped. First of all it would be useful to discuss the evidential value of the telephone. The events of 10 December 1997 began to unfold when Mr. Freeborn saw his flatmate Mr. Bickle assaulting their landlord Mr. Dalley. Mr. Freeborn asserts that … (continued)

Refutation: ― Bickle was nothing to do with me – he lived on the third floor – my room was on the second Floor. After Dalley shouted up to me “call the police” I, on the second floor landing looking down, stepped away from the rail, went back into my room, shut the door which locked on closing, and proceeded to call the police. Bickle then came up the stairs after me.

Court Admin ― … he ran into his bedroom and attempted to call the police; however as he did so Mr. Bickle followed him, broke into his bedroom, grabbed the telephone from him and threw it across the room. Mr. Bickle then proceeded to attack Mr. Freeborn, and during the struggle which ensued Mr. Freeborn shot Mr. Bickle in the shoulder.

Refutation: ― In the left arm 3 inches above the elbow as he was making a stooped down, right arm forward, lunging attack on me. This position was verified by the bullet marks and accepted at trial.

Court Admin ― At his trial, Mr. Freeborn put forward a case that he was acting in self-defence when he shot Mr. Bickle, and if Mr. Bickle's fingerprints were found to be on the phone, this would verify Mr. Freeborn's story that he was initially attacked by Mr. Bickle and that Mr. Bickle threw the phone - Mr. Freeborn asserts that no-one other than he had ever used the phone. However, when the telephone was examined by police prior to Mr. Freeborn's trial there were no fingerprints on the phone at all; therefore it appeared as if the phone had been wiped. Mr. Freeborn asserts that a police officer wiped the telephone and he believes they may have done this because the police dog had urinated on the phone. During a review of Mr. Freeborn's conviction conducted by the CCRC the telephone was re-tested and ten partial prints were identified.

Refutation: ― 10 full prints were disclosed by advanced techniques - not available in 1997 - that allowed wiped finger prints to be disclosed

Court Admin ― Three of the prints belonged to Mr. Freeborn however the rest are unaccounted for. The prints have been tested against the majority of the officers that attended Mr. Freeborn's property following the incident, however Sergeant Bannister and PC Kenward have not been eliminated from enquiries. Mr. Freeborn asks that the fingerprints of PS Bannister and PC Kenward are tested against the prints on the phone. This would seem an easy line of enquiry to follow up, however, Temporary-ChSupt Parrott informs us that both of these officers are no longer in the employ of Sussex Police: PS Bannister's whereabouts are unknown and PC Kenward is believed to be deceased. He also confirms that Sussex Police have destroyed the records of these ex-officers' fingerprints in accordance with Regulation 18(3) of the Police Regulations 2003.

Refutation: ― If they are receiving a police pension they can be easily found.

Court Admin ― It seems therefore that it would not be reasonably practicable to complete an investigation into this aspect of Mr. Freeborn's complaint as the fingerprints required are not available; nor are the officers available to be questioned about the ASDA bag. It appears this issue has also been looked into by the CCRC and, although they do not categorically rule out the possibility that the phone had been wiped, they assert that because partial prints were found on the phone during their investigation, this "undermines" Mr. Freeborn's theory that the phone had been wiped.

Refutation: ― It does not – no prints were detectable by normal methods in 1997. How does their disclosure in 2005 undermine the claim that the phone was wiped? The forensic Science Service was only able to disclose the 10 prints they found by using special dyes and techniques available after 2005. Without these advances the prints would have remained undetectable.

Court Admin ― The CCRC also reviewed the evidence of fingerprint expert Mr.Beldon who gave evidence as part of Mr. Freeborn's trial. They note that Mr. Beldon did not say that the marks found on the phone were wipe marks. Furthermore, whilst Mr. Beldon said the material found in the phone had been forced into the earpiece, he made no comment about whether this had been caused deliberately.

Refutation: ― He pointed out that the earpiece was concave and there were marks of an upholstery like material leaving marks at the bottom of the concave. He said for those marks to be at the bottom of the concave the material must have been forced into it. Although the marks were exactly what one would expect if the phone had been wiped, he could not testify that was how the marks got there.

Court Admin ― Given the seeming impracticability of investigating this matter and given that the matter seems to have been looked at by the CCRC with no adverse conclusions being reached, I agree that discontinuance should be granted with respect to this complaint.

Refutation: ― I disagree – and want Bannister and Kenward’s prints taken and compared to those found on the phone. They had no trouble finding and taking a statement from retired DI John May – why is it so impossible to find these two?

Court Admin ― (ii) Mr. Freeborn alleges that the Scene of Crime Officer Mr. Loska lied about the position and the amount of battery left in the phone. Photographs taken of the crime scene allegedly verify this allegation.

Scene of Crime Officer (SOCO) Mr. Loska, originally stated that he did not replace the telephone onto the charger until after 16:22 hrs on 11 December, whereas SOCO Mr. Ottaway's photograph taken at 13:03 hrs on 11 December shows the telephone already on the charger.

Noting the contradiction in his evidence, Mr. Freeborn's defence cross-examined Mr. Loska in court, and when cross-examined Mr. Loska conceded he had been mistaken and that he in fact replaced the telephone onto the charger on the morning of 10 December.

Refutation: ― This is untrue. My defence did not cross examine Loska. When questioned Loska simply gave different evidence than he had in his written statement and my defence accepted it without further comment. I questioned this with King later and she replied he has told the truth now so there is no point questioning him further. The point about his conflicting evidence was never put to him by my defence and he never conceded he had been mistaken.

Court Admin ― The CCRC have subsequently found photographic evidence to support Mr.Loska's assertion that the telephone was indeed replaced onto the charger on 10 December as described by Loska in court (paragraph 197 of the CCRC report).

Refutation: ― This is evading the issue completely. I am not aware of this additional photo mentioned in Paragraph 197, however 197 simply states the photo shows that the handset was not on the floor at 14:25 on 10 December 1997. I do not doubt this at all. I believe Loska put the handset on the charger around 05:25 that morning. In his statement on page 14 of the complaints folder he says “at 16:22 11 December 1997 he returned to the scene and the handset was on the floor”. He goes on to describe it as being in the position where he photographed it the previous morning. This is clearly a lie calculated to justify the claim that the battery was discharged.

Court Admin ― Mr. Loska also stated it was not possible to determine the last number dialled on the phone because the phone was out of battery - to do so would verify that Mr. Freeborn was first to call the police for assistance. Mr. Freeborn say that the picture taken by Mr. Ottaway shows there are two LED lights glowing on the phone which Mr. Freeborn believes shows that the phone did have some charge, contrary to what was said by Mr. Loska.

Refutation: ― The photo in question was taken by Loska – if the LED lights are glowing red – which they are – this proves there was charge left in the battery. If the battery was discharged the lights would be black. Loska’s evidence in court was not that he was unable to find the last number dialled – he simply said that it could not be determined because the battery was discharged.

Court Admin ― This issue has also been looked at by the CCRC. Paragraphs 160, 161 and 165 of their report state as follows: "ln an officer's report (R3) dated 10 December 1997 PC Reed stated that the phone was found on the floor in a discharged state and that Mr. Loska had tried dialling 1471 without success. He, PC Reed, had confirmed with BT that the phone, once discharged, would not have retained any dialling information.

Refutation: ― This is stated in paragraph 160 - it is nonsense – what can BT know without examining the phone itself? – moreover, paragraph 158 states: “the findings of Mr. Gregory Smith, a Consulting Forensic Engineer, who prepared a report (dated 12 November 1998) for the defence prior to the trial expressed the opinion that had the police carried out proper tests on the last number redial (LNR) memory at the time the phone was first seized, or within approximately three months of that date, there was “a very high probability” it might have produced evidence to show whether Mr. Freeborn had attempted to dial 999 72. In conclusion, he said that the failure of the police to carry out such tests reduced and removed any chance of evidence being recovered 73.”

Note 72 “His opinion that evidence might still have been available within a three month period was based on information from the manufacturers of the phone that with fully charged batteries the slow release power supply in the handset would dissipate after several months”.

Note 73 “At trial an admission was made under section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to the effect that tests which could have been carried out on Mr. Freeborn’s phone in order to determine whether he had made a 999 call were not made before the batteries were discharged and could not now be made.”

It should be noted that the police refused to allow the defence access to the phone to have it tested until November 1998 – 11 months after they had seized it. That is why Mr. Smith’s report is dated more than a year after the police seized the phone.

Court Admin ― At trial, Mr. Loska gave evidence that when he attended the scene on 10 December he placed the phone back on the base unit to charge as there was a risk that if the battery was low details of the last number dialled might be lost."

Refutation: ― As soon as Loska entered the court room DI May went up to him and had a brief conversation with him before he entered the witness box. What did DI May say to him?

Court Admin ― "The evidence of the police officers who attended the scene and of Mr. Loska was that the phone was in a discharged state when found. The [CCRC] has found no evidence which contradicts that assertion." Two questions to be put to Mr. Loska are: (a) can he give reasons as to why his initial account was incorrect with regard to when he replaced the phone on the charger; (b) can he confirm that he attempted to find the last number dialled when he first found the phone? Ch Supt Parrott has questioned Mr. Loska with regard to this matter, however Mr. Loska asserts that he is unable to remember more than is written in his statements of the time. I accept that Mr. Loska is unable to recall these events given that they occurred 12 years ago. It would also seem that although the original account given by Mr. Loska was incorrect, he corrected himself in court, and the account he gave in court has been verified as being accurate by the CCRC investigation.

Refutation: ― This is complete nonsense. Paragraph 158 quoted above shows that the CCRC knew and accepted that Loska’s evidence – that no last number redial detection was possible because the phone was discharged – was untrue.

Court Admin ― I agree that it is not practicable to complete the investigation into this matter due to the time lapse, also that the matter has, in the most part, already been determined by the CCRC; therefore discontinuance should be granted.

Refutation: ― I disagree, Loska did not carry out proper testing and clearly lied in his written statement. He should be prosecuted for obstructing and perverting justice and destruction of evidence by not carrying out proper testing and deliberately allowing the phone not to be tested until 11 months later. This, in conjunction with section (i) above show there was deliberate action by the police to destroy evidence adverse to their case against me.

Court Admin ― (iii) Mr. Freeborn alleges that Dl May also lied about the phone being out of battery; also that Dl May colluded with Mr. Freeborn's defence lawyer as Dl May told Mr. Loska to change his story about the phone being out of battery when questioned in court.

Refutation: ― In going over the evidence while being held in prison I noted the discrepancy between Loska’s statement and Ottoway’s Polaroid photo. I told my solicitor Vicky King. She had not noticed this. I believe she told DI May and he told Loska when he entered the court room.

Court Admin ― It is Mr. Freeborn's belief that the officer in charge of the case against him, Dl May, colluded with his defence solicitor and fellow police officers in order to ensure a conviction against Mr. Freeborn. Dl May is a retired police officer and as such is under no obligation to respond to these allegations. I am aware however that Dl May has been visited in retirement previously and has been asked to verify a document which he had signed because Mr. Freeborn suspected his signature to be a forgery. On this occasion Dl May was happy to oblige and confirmed the signature was indeed his. In this instance however the allegation which is being levied against him is far more serious: that he was directly involved in perverting the course of justice.

Refutation: ― This is all very vague and hearsay – exactly what document did DI May verify and exactly what does he say in his statement? My knowledge of the situation is this: In March 2008 I complained to the PCC that the signatures on the pink note and on the letter (see page 80 & page 81 of complaints folder) were forgeries and that DS Parrott refused to allow any forensic examination of these documents. The complaint was forwarded to Sussex police. CS Ken Probert wrote to me informing me that my complaint was to be investigated by DCI James Torbet.

After 12 days of waiting to hear from him I telephoned him on his direct dial number. I asked what he was doing, he replied that former DI May was coming in to see him that afternoon (2 June 2008). I said I wanted the signatures examined by a forensic handwriting expert; his response was he refused to do this – He said if DI May looked at the documents and confirmed the signatures were his that was all that was necessary in law and that would be the end of my complaint. I said what if he denies they are his signatures; he replied “in that case I will have a very big investigation on my hands”.

I telephoned him the next day and asked what May had said; he replied he didn’t know. I of course returned “why don’t you know – you told me yesterday he was coming in to see you”. H e replied he had not said that – what he had said was he was sending someone to see May and take a statement from him. I said “OK what does his statement say” Torbet replied “I don’t know I haven’t read it”.

On 20 June 2008 I received a letter from him informing me he applied to the PCC for dispensation to drop the complaint without doing any investigation. See his letter Tab 6. The PCC supported his application.

Considering what he said to me on 2 June 2008 why would he ask for dispensation to drop the complaint? If May had in fact stated that the signatures were his all Torbet had to do was declare this. He was a dour straightforward Scotsman and did not want to lie so his only way out was to ask for dispensation to not answer. Clearly May did not confirm the signatures were his and Torbet applied for dispensation to avoid stating this.

There are further suspicious circumstances. Torbet had been having a seven year love affair with Chief Insp. Sharon Rowe. In July the pair of them were caught shoplifting two cases of wine from Marks & Spenser. The pay at their rank is around ₤50,000 each. They had no need to steal the wine – why did they do it? They were both arrested and spent the next 36 hours locked in police cells. In October 2008 Torbet hanged himself before he was charged.

Sharon Rowe had been caught red handed shoplifting two cases of wine from Marks & Spenser. Why did the police refuse to prosecute her. Her only possible defence would have been that the reason Torbet hanged himself and that she had shoplifted was that their knowledge of how crooked the senior officers at police HQ were had upset the balance of their minds and they had done something completely out of character because of it. I felt very sure she and Torbet would have discussed the forgeries and she knew all about it but I could not be certain, so I sent her a CD with all the information on it addressed to her husband’s office. He is a solicitor. Such a plea would have certainly got her largely off the hook and put several others firmly on it. The police could not let such testimony become public knowledge.

Court Admin ― When police officers have complaint allegations made against them they are served with a 'notice of complaint' by virtue of Regulation 9 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2OO4. The notice informs the officer:

"...he may, if he so desires, make a written or oral statement concerning the matter to the investigating officer or to the appropriate authority and that if he makes such a statement it may be used in any subsequent proceedings under these Regulations".

However, Regulation 21 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 removes from police the ability to levy disciplinary proceeding against retired police officers. As Dl May is no longer a serving police officer he is no longer subject to the police (mis)conduct regulations and therefore, I contend, he is highly unlikely to comply with an investigation under which he is being accused of what is tantamount to perverting the course of justice.

The IPCC will always encourage the police to investigate allegations against retired officers, however, where the officer will not comply with the investigation it will often render the investigation impracticable. Given that it is highly unlikely that a retired officer will comply with a misconduct investigation where he is being accused of perverting the course of justice over 12 years ago, I believe further investigation into this issue would indeed be impracticable. What is more, the likelihood that the officer will be able to reply with any accuracy to the questions being asked of him, is small to say the least given that 12 years have lapsed since the incidents being complained of.

It also worth noting paragraph 327 of the CCRC report which states:

"There is absolutely no evidence to support Mr. Freeborn's allegations that Vicky King [his barrister] and Dl May were involved in a conspiracy..."

Refutation: ― MR. CARR HAS OMITTED THE REST OF THE SENTENCE. it continues – “or that Mr. Loska changed his witness statement or that he gave perjured evidence at DI May’s behest.

This is evasion and artful wording. The letter to me from Stephanie Dale on page 21 of the complaints folder shows that the police had a cassette with serial number 80677/ARP/1 on it. This is the serial number of an electronically altered version of the plain tape given by the CPS to my defence solicitor Vicky King. The new defence tape was made shortly before my trial.

How did the police get hold of it? The CPS have no record of ever having been given a copy of this new version by King and to this day the only version they have in their file is the plain unaltered version given to them by the police a year earlier. The CCRC answer to this is “although there is no evidence to show King gave the tape to the CPS and the CPS gave it to the police, this is what must have happened”.

I consider this to be very firm evidence that a conspiracy was going on between King and May and the assertion that while there is no evidence to show how the police got the tape the CCRC made up a story and to insist “this is what must have happened” is ridiculous. The complete lack of evidence from both police and CPS as to how May came to have the tape is very good grounds to believe there was collusion between DI May and Vicky King.

The artful wording is that Loska did not change his witness statement he ignored it and just gave a completely different testimony in court. At May’s behest he told the truth!

Around this time I wrote a letter to the junior solicitor listed on King’s firms stationary enclosing the above and other information about King and my case. Shortly thereafter 6 solicitors and 4 partners one of whom was King herself left the firm. Her entire career up to that point had involved criminal defence and prison matters. She moved to a different firm and now works in personal injury cases. From senior standing at her firm and author of two books on prison and criminal law she suddenly dropped her partnership and became an ambulance chaser! I believe the others left to avoid being tainted by her and that her departure was a stipulation laid down, by those who did not leave and of their staying with the firm. The firm Thanki Novy Taube was reduced to ½ its original size by the exodus.

Court Admin ― I believe discontinuance should be approved under the 'abuse' and 'not practicable' grounds.

Refutation: ― I believe there is no abuse and that it is practicable to find the truth. All Mr. Carr has done is give a lot of nonsense reasons why crooked police should not be investigated.

Court Admin ― (iv) PCs Nicol, Poulter, Cantrell and Ayers lied (perjured themselves) by saying that the police dog had not been upstairs and that they had not re-arranged the crime scene.

Mr. Freeborn alleges that four officers have perjured themselves. Mr. Freeborn believes the police dog went upstairs and urinated on the phone, which supports his theory that the phone was wiped. The officers named all asserted under oath that the police dog did not go upstairs. The statement of the dog handler (PC Kenward) explains that he went upstairs, however it does not explicitly say that the dog went upstairs, it only says the dog was "deployed to search as required by the armed team". Mr. Freeborn asks why the dog handler would leave his dog downstairs and search for an armed man on his own.

Refutation: ― Carr has been deliberately deceptive in the above quote. See page 25 & page 26 in the complaints folder. The full sentence reads – “A search was made of the upper floors, the dog being deployed to search as required by the armed team”. This clearly shows the dog did go upstairs.

Court Admin ― PC Cantrell can be questioned on this matter as it was allegedly PC Cantrell that held the dog downstairs whilst PC Kenward went upstairs; however, Ch Supt Parrott informs us that all officers subject to this particular complaint, with the exception of PC Poulter, have retired and therefore can no longer be subject to an investigation which may result in disciplinary action. When the threat of disciplinary action is removed, the likelihood that officers will comply is, in my opinion, greatly diminished. Even if officers were to be traced in retirement, I still find it unlikely they will be able to remember the incident in question, or that they will be able to offer anything more than what was said in court. PC Poulter can be asked for recollections concerning re-arranging the room, however I think that time-lapse will still be a major issue. I recommend that discontinuance is granted on the grounds of impracticability.

Refutation: ― It is well known that police dogs are controlled by their handlers. It would have been unsettling for the dog to be left being held by a stranger and any police dog handler will say they would only do it in very abnormal circumstances. The armed man should have been with his team on the second and third floors not downstairs holding the dog. Kenward’s job was to handle the dog, not wander around while leaving a stranger holding his dog.

There is very good evidence to show the dog did go upstairs. Furthermore, it would have been perfectly normal and acceptable for the police to say the dog searched upstairs. So, why did the police deny it? I believe Vicky King told them my theory about the dog peeing on the phone and they, knowing it to be true, all colluded to say the dog couldn’t have peed on the phone because it didn’t go upstairs. The dog handler did not give evidence in court.

Court Admin ― (v) Dl May doctored a tape of the 999 calls made during the incident.

Mr. Freeborn's allegation that Dl May doctored the tape of 999 calls was one of 11 issues explored by the CCRC in their review of Mr. Freeborn's conviction. This allegation was subject to an extensive investigation by the CCRC which included having the tapes in question examined by a forensics expert in audio tape analysis.

The CCRC give a fairly definitive conclusion in respect of this issue, and this can be found in paragraph 84 of their report:

"There is no evidence that any of these tapes have been enhanced nor is there any evidence to support Mr. Freeborn's contention that dialogue has been erased or re-arranged or that the tapes have been tampered with in any way."

Refutation: ― Paragraph 84 goes on for two pages and it would be very lengthy to pick it apart here. My contentions and the reasons for them are as follows:

The original tape given by the police to the CPS and by them to my defence was not electronically altered it was a plain copy of the control room tape, also it did not have a talking clock track on it. My defence solicitor, Vicky King, sent the original police tape to Network Forensics where Adrian R. Philips made a copy of it onto another cassette; he electronically altered this copy and put on it his company serial number 80677/ARP/1. He then returned both tapes to King.

I believe DI May or someone acting on his instructions removed part of Michael Dalley’s dialog such as emotive remarks which favoured my case and reversed other dialog to make it seem Dalley was calling the police for me and an ambulance for Bickle when the opposite was the case. From October/November 1999 onwards I tried to get the police to produce the master copy of the tape so I could have it forensically tested. This is described in the complaints folder between page 28 and page 47.

I engaged solicitor Dale to act for me. Vicky King sent her copies of tapes she claimed to be the original given to her by the CPS and the copy of the electronically altered tape. Dale sent these copies to me. The dialog was not as I remembered it, in particular the BT operator had been removed. This can be attributed to my memory being defective, however, both of the tapes including the one with the police label on it were now electronically altered and both now contained a talking clock track, which had never been on either of them before. No satisfactory evidence has ever been given as to how the last two occurred. I believe King swapped the tapes with Ken Probert when he met her in London in April 2000.

Court Admin ― This issue has been fully examined by the CCRC and proper conclusions have been drawn, therefore to re-examine this … (continued)

Refutation: ― The CCRC have fudged over this issue both as described earlier “no evidence but it must have happened” and by other evasive tricks. Mr. Carr cannot present unsound claims by the CCRC as being total justification for the police to not answer. The misuse of the system in this case is by Mr. Carr and the PCC.

Court Admin ― … matter under the police complaints regime would constitute a misuse of the system, and as such, I agree that discontinuance should be granted in respect of this complaint.

Court Admin ― (vi) Supt Probert provided Mr. Freeborn's lawyer with yet a different copy of the (allegedly doctored) tape.

Ex Det Ch Supt Probert has been approached by Sussex Police however he is unable to recall providing a tape to Mr. Freeborn or his representatives. As Mr. Probert has retired, he would have no compulsion to give a fuller response to the allegation than the one he has given.

Refutation: ― How is it the tape I got from Stephanie Dale which she got from King has a talking clock on it when all previous versions do not? The tape must have been switched by someone; I am quite certain Probert was the one who did it or else arranged for someone else to switch it.

Court Admin ― In any respect, neither the CCRC nor Mr. Freeborn himself have been able to produce any cogent evidence of a 'doctored' tape. I would therefore suggest that this mater was fully examined by the CCRC and so is an abuse, and even if that weren't the case, any further investigation into this matter would be impracticable.

Refutation: ― Probert was in charge of Sussex police complaints department between February 2006 and February 2009. As soon as he received the original complaints from the PCC on 6 July 2006 he applied for dispensation to drop them. This was a serious conflict of interest known to both Sussex police and the PCC but not to me. Neither did anything about it even after my protests when I found out in August 2007 that Probert was in charge of the investigation against himself.

The Sussex Police Authority (SPA) claimed the conflict of interest had been settled by the chief constable appointing ACC Robin Merrett to supervise the investigation. I had never even heard of him. I wrote to Merrett asking: 1. was he in charge of my investigation? 2. who appointed him? 3. what date was he appointed? Merrett refused to answer the letter at all. I complained to Mr. Carr and requested he obtain answers from Merrett – Carr refused. No one in the police has ever confirmed the SPA story especially not Robin Merrett.

After leaving his job as head of the complaints department Probert went to the London police as an assistant commissioner - quite a nice step up. I was informed about this by a contact with Sussex police. I wrote to the commissioner with a copy of the complaints folder. They got rid of him. His next move was to leave the country and go to Australia. I have sent a copy of the complaints folder to the high commission in London and asked that if Probert is working for a police or government department they send it on to his superiors, who might well be interested. I have not heard the result of that yet.

Court Admin ― vii) Blood was found on the telephone that Mr. Dalley used to call police. if this blood was found to have belonged to Mr. Dalley it would have assisted Mr. Freeborn's defence as it would have verified that Mr. Bickle attacked Mr. Dalley.

Once again this matter has been examined by the CCRC. They agree that blood found on the telephone was not examined by Sussex Police; they also responded to Mr. Freeborn's request that they test the blood to see if it belongs to Mr. Dalley, refusing to do so on the following grounds:

During cross-examination at Mr. Freeborn's trial Mr. Dalley stated that the blood marks on the phone: "were not his"; Mr. Dalley does not mention in any witness statements that he sustained any injury; the doctor that saw Mr. Dalley at Brighton Police Station shortly after the incident made no mention in the police welfare record that Mr. Dalley had sustained an injury; Mr. Freeborn and Mr. Dalley's descriptions of the assault on Mr. Dalley (he was pushed and put in a headlock) does not suggest that a bloody injury would be likely to have been caused;

Refutation: ― I never said this – what I saw was Bickle holding on to Dalley’s clothes high up in the centre of his chest (like grabbing lapels but Dalley was wearing a shirt and pullover) and throwing him around like a terrier with a rat. Dalley began to squirm out of Bickle’s grasp so Bickle then grabbed him by the neck, bent him over, and continued throwing him around.

Dalley did not say the blood was not his. He said he did not remember receiving an injury and did not think the blood was his.

Court Admin ― It is possible and more likely that Mr. Dalley or Mrs Morris came into contact with Mr. Bickle's blood and transferred it onto the telephone.

Refutation: ― The pictures on page 43 of the complaints folder show that all the blood is on the floor. For the above to have happened they would have to have bent down rubbed their hand in the blood and then used the phone – most unlikely!

Dalley wore a helmet-like-wig which had fallen off while being attacked by Bickle. I believe Bickle bashed Dalley’s head against something and that is where the injury was. When he put his wig back on (he was very sensitive about his baldness) it would not have been visible. He was hysterical at the time and remained distressed and confused about the attack for a long time. He would not necessarily have noticed any injuries. The police held him in their cells for three days during which time he was not able to wash shave etc. After three days the cut must have healed sufficiently that it was not noticed. After a couple of weeks Dalley came and visited me in prison. He still did not have any memory of Bickle attacking him at that time. It took a long time and psychiatric counselling before his memory returned.

Court Admin ― This issue has been fully examined by the CCRC and to look at it again would constitute an abuse of the process for dealing with police complaints.

Mr. Freeborn further alleges the then Chief Constable Maria Wallis blocked his attempts to have the blood re-tested. Ms Wallis can be interviewed regarding this matter, however ChSupt Parrott informs us that Ms Wallis is no longer a serving police officer and is "not available to be contacted". Ch Supt Parrott has informed me of the reasons why he is unable to contact Ms Wallis and I can confirm it would not be plausible to contact her for the purposes of investigating Mr. Freeborn's allegation.

Refutation: ― Carr seems to be saying that for secret reasons, that he and Parrott refuse to disclose, it would not be plausible to investigate Wallis’ actions against me. This is nonsense.

Court Admin ― It would not be practicable to investigate this allegation further. Discontinuance should be granted in respect of this complaint.

Refutation: ― All the above are nothing more than excuses to avoid determining whose blood it is. It is outrageous using such arguments to actively prevent the sample being analysed. If the police will release the sample to me I will have it tested at my own expense. Why do they refuse to allow the sample to be tested by me?

In fact I am convinced the sample was sent for testing at the time and that the police have known all along that it is Dalley’s blood. They deny it but they control access to the records.

Court Admin ― (viii) Supt Pople lied about the destruction of the 999 tape with the backing of CC Jones.

Mr. Freeborn has indeed received contradictory information from Sussex Police with regard to the alleged destruction of the master tape which records the 999 call made by Mr. Dalley. In a letter from (then) Superintendent Pople to Mr. Freeborn dated 15 March 2004, Supt Pople states: "The issue concerning the tape was explained in court in that it was destroyed in error. This would have been taken into consideration by the judge."

Refutation: ― The background to the above is explained on page 64 of the complaints folder. It should be noted that her claim was first made to Sir Alastair Graham of the PCA, and then next to me, and then repeated by Sussex police lawyers to the judge against my application for judicial review. She had ample opportunity to retract her story but stuck to it.

Court Admin ― Next, in a letter from Supt Pople to John Harper of the Home Office dated 07 July 2004, Supt Pople states. "Mr.. Freeborn's allegations centre on a 999 call made by a witness to the argument that led to the shooting. Many of his letters referred to a master tape held by BT. BT do not hold such tapes, as the relevant conversation took place between the witness and police call-taker. However Sussex Police record all 999 calls and it was this recording that was played at the trial. Mr. Freeborn also referred to a sealed master copy which he says his solicitor was told was destroyed. Master tapes are not sealed but are recycled after a month and criminal courts accept copies taken from them, provided they are supported by a statement from the person who copied them. This procedure was followed in Mr. Freeborn's case and the first copy was played at the trial with no objections being raised. The point he made in his correspondence to Sussex Police about the destruction of the master tape being illegal was incorrect; it is accepted practice."

Refutation: ― This letter has never been disclosed to me, however, it is arrant nonsense. The PACE Act requires that all such evidence used to convict a person must be preserved for the entire length of sentence and after that for a further five years. Master tapes are not destroyed. If this were the case why would the defence solicitor and junior barrister have requested the police produce the master tape for them to listen to and attended Brighton police station to listen to it on 9 November 1998 (one year later) and why would the pink note say the tape was sealed and the seal was broken in the presence of etc. Sgt. Airey the control room operator says in his statement he made two copies of the tape: a master copy which he sealed and a working copy for the investigating police. A photo of what is now claimed to be the master tape is on page 82 of the complaints folder.

A further fact is that Mr. McCarthy-Fox (he is described on page 13) has told me that his department was moved from its own separate building into other shared accommodation because the police wanted a separate building that could be made secure to use as the Master Tape Stores where tapes could be held separately and securely.

Court Admin ― Thirdly, in Ch Supt Parrott's application for discontinuance of 05 November 2009, he quotes Supt Pople as saying: "Cliff, the matter of the tape was subject to investigation and I can categorically state that no tape was destroyed..."

Refutation: ― First she says the tape was destroyed in error before my trial, next that it was routinely destroyed one month after the trial, and then no tape was destroyed. These stories were preceded by the claim by Probert that the tape was routinely destroyed one year after my trial. If she were a confused old lady her stories might be explicable. As a Ch Supt of police they must be considered a string of deliberate lies.

Court Admin ― This issue was also looked at by the CCRC. During the course of their investigation the CCRC visited Sussex Police and retrieved a tape marked 'Master'. The CCRC proceeded to have the tape tested by the forensics audio tape analysts. The conclusions are outlined in paragraph 82 of the CCRC report: "The tape marked 'Master' and 'MJNI (NF1) is entirely consistent with Sgt Airey's statement. [The forensic expert] can find no evidence to suggest anything other than this tape being ‘the' tape that Sgt. Airey made direct from the Sussex Police control room tape. There is no evidence that dialogue on the first call NF1 has been erased, re-arranged or tampered with in any way."

Refutation: ― There is very good evidence that the first call on the tape is not the first call that Dalley made. I have speculated on page 41 of the complaints folder as to what I think the police did. Whether I am right or not – the fact is that the time given by the police for the first call conflicts with the time given by the ambulance service of receiving Ms Bonds call. This is fully explained in paragraphs 2, 3, & 4 on page 41 of the complaints folder. Neither the police nor Carr addressed this impossibility.

Court Admin ― I have asked Ch Supt Parrott about this matter. He states that he would like to convey his apologies on behalf of Sussex Police if Mr. Freeborn has been given any contradictory information regarding the destruction of tapes. It appears however that the last explanation given by Supt Pople - that the tape was not destroyed - is the correct explanation. I would therefore … (continued)

Refutation: ― Given that she has changed her story three times there is no reason to believe her last explanation or any of her other explanations are correct. The tape could have been destroyed and a convincing looking replacement contrived later.

Court Admin ― … suggest it would impracticable to further investigate this matter being that a conclusion has been reached by the CCRC with regard to the whereabouts of the tape, and the CCRC have concluded that the tape in question has not been “erased, re-arranged or tampered with in any way“; therefore no evidence appears to exist to support the notion that Supt Pople would have deliberately lied about the destruction of the tape.

Refutation: ― The CCRC refused to recognize that changing her story three times does appear to support the notion that Supt Pople lied. The PCC contention seems to be “this is what the CCRC say therefore it must be fact” and no investigation is needed. Rather like some religious people who say “chapter XX of the (Bible) (Koran) proves” - he is talking nonsense.

Court Admin ― Discontinuance should be granted on the grounds of 'abuse' and 'impracticability'.

Court Admin ― (ix) Further allegations of collusion between Supt Pople and Mr. Freeborn's defence lawyer with relation to the missing/destroyed tape.

This particular complaint was subject to a previous appeal to the IPCC. On 27 May 2009 the Commission ruled as follows: "DCI Torbet has visited Dl May and asked him to verify that both signatures are his, which Dl May has done. This seems an appropriate response to this allegation and although I note that Mr. Freeborn disbelieves this outcome, I see no reason as to why DCI Torbet would lie. Accordingly, I am happy that this complaint has been addressed.

Refutation: ― As stated earlier DCI Torbet told me that he did not know what John May had said in his statement because he had not read it. Obviously he did not visit May. I keep a detailed diary and the entries made on 2 and 3 June confirm what I have said. I have asked to see May’s statement (if such a statement really does exist) but DS Parrott refused. I do not believe Oliver Carr has ever seen May’s signed statement and read it for himself.

I am not happy that this complaint has been addressed for the reasons stated earlier. The fact is that Torbet did not say any of the above (alleged by Carr) in answer to the complaint. All he did was apply for dispensation to drop it without investigating. Oliver Carr knows this and what he has said above is pure fabrication done after Torbet’s death. If Torbet was so happy in his mind about this business why did he shoplift two cases of wine and then hang himself? Something very unusual must have been troubling him.

Court Admin ― ln addition, the CCRC have identified an expense claim form for Ms King for the day in question suggesting she did go to Brighton Police Station (where the meeting took place) on that day, however the form has not been submitted for payment:

Refutation: ― As a result of enquires made in January 2005 under the FoI Act I heard the new story that the tape was produced by the police at a meeting with my defence solicitor and junior barrister. I asked for details from John McLean of the CCRC. He confirmed this was the latest story and that he believed it. I knew it was a pack of lies and said the taxation file would show no claims for either of them for attending this meeting. He refused to get the file. I tried to find it myself but only met dead ends. In March 2005 I gave up.

I have a good memory and remembered that Emma Whaites (the junior barrister) was working on another case and could not have been at this meeting. In July 2006 I telephoned the chambers she was with at the time to find out if they could confirm this. I spoke to their clerk, he said they kept such records now but did not at the time in question. He was helpful and I explained the purpose of my request. He said all I had to do was get the taxation file and told me exactly how to find it. I found it was currently held at Lewes Court and wrote to them (see letter on page 83 of complaints folder). When after three weeks I still had no reply I telephoned to ask why. I was told the file was currently with the CCRC and as soon as it was returned they would answer my letter. I wrote to John McLean but did not tell him I knew he had the file. A copy of my letter and his reply are in Tab 4. Subsequently I received the letter from Lewes Court on page 84 of the complaints folder. Clearly John McLean is a liar and he and the CCRC are not to be trusted. Oliver Carr is silent on this issue.

I telephoned Whaites former chambers a second time to ask the clerk if she could somehow have forgot to claim the days’ expenses. He gave a laughing hoot and said “If that young lady had worked a single hour on your case without leaving these chambers she would have claimed it. If she did not claim for the meeting in Brighton, she was not there”.

Court Admin ― Mr. Freeborn suggests it may be a forgery. This appears to be more of an allegation against Ms King however and not a police matter. In any respect, I feel the fact that Dl May has confirmed that the signature on the seal is his, satisfactorily verifies that the meeting took place. Any further efforts to investigate this particular complaint would seem disproportionate given the lack of cogent evidence presented by Mr. Freeborn in this particular matter.

Refutation: ― This is nonsense, if the meeting did not take place it destroys the police story about why the master tape was removed from the master tape stores and why the seal was broken. The police would have records of their own setting out details of such a meeting with defence lawyers to “disclose evidence”. They refuse to produce those records. The copy letters on page 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90 in the complaints folder give further confirmation from Vicky King that no such meeting ever took place. If the meeting did not take place, the pink note must be a forgery.

Everyone knows how scrupulous (if that is the correct word) lawyers are in collecting fees and expenses. The idea that two lawyers would travel from London to Brighton and meet with the police from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm and neither claim a penny of fares, travel time, attendance time etc. is laughable.

Court Admin ― This matter was 'not upheld' by the IPCC on 27 May 2009; the Commission stated that DI May had confirmed that the signature was genuine and this verified that the meeting with Ms King did take place. Accordingly, Sussex Police do not require permission to discontinue the complaint as the matter has already been concluded.

Refutation: ― The matter is clearly not concluded. I note Oliver Carr says “May confirmed the signature was genuine” (singular). I believe it is possible the signature on the letter agreeing to meet King is genuine but: 1. this does not prove that the meeting took place, nor 2. that the letter was not done six years after the date on the letter. I do not believe May confirmed the signature on the pink note was his. I believe this is a forgery done by Carol Pople.

Court Admin ― (x) Sussex Police refuse to explain why the make of the tape that records the discussion between Ms Bond and the ambulance service is not a make of tape that is used by Sussex Police.

Mr. Freeborn states that the tape which contains the recording of the 999 call from his neighbour to the police is not a make of tape that has ever been used by Sussex Police; therefore Mr. Freeborn believes the tape to be a forgery. This issue has been fully investigated by the CCRC and that investigation is outlined in paragraphs 122 - 128 of their report. They state that 'Ablex' tapes were supplied to Sussex Police up until March 1996. Two employees of Ablex have further stated that they remember "they recycled a number of interview cassettes for a police force that they believe to be Sussex Police". Therefore it seems reasonable to deduce that the tape in question was indeed produced shortly after 1998, and not a counterfeit created in 2002 as alleged by Mr. Freeborn.

Refutation: ― What Mr. Carr has stated above is pure fabrication. The CCRC contacted DOCdata and received the E-Mail (see Tab 7 in the bundle) which is their sole evidence on the matter. As you will see it does not say that cassette tapes were supplied to Sussex police. The claim that Sussex police appear in their “debtor records” proves nothing. They may have been placed in the records by Ablex in anticipation of getting business from them. Supplying blank cassette tapes was a very small part of Ablex’s business, their principal business was making music audio cassettes and video cassettes of films. They also made training films on video cassettes. It is not known what, if anything, was ever supplied to Sussex police.

On pages 91 and 92 of the complaints folder I explain how the complaint arose. I would like to elaborate on what I said in paragraph 4 on page 91.

The friend referred to is Mr. Terrence McCarthy – Fox. He was in charge of all printing for British Caledonian Airways at their printing shop at Gatwick. When they were taken over by BA he was appointed to be in charge of the new larger operation but would have had to commute to Heathrow. He lives in Worthing and did not want to do this. Sussex police were – due to a retirement – looking for someone to take charge of their printing department. Because he was well known in the trade they invited him to apply and he got the job.

From early 1988 to the end of 1998 he was in charge of all printing for Sussex police at their HQ at Lewes. He also had certain other duties. One of these duties was to keep the “out stations” supplied with audio cassette tapes and to order more when his supplies got low. He states that during the 10+ years that he worked for Sussex police they never had Ablex tapes. All tapes supplied during the time he worked for Sussex police were supplied by Quest.

He advised me that there would be plenty of evidence to show if any purchases had been made from Ablex: 1. the police purchasing committee would have to go through and record the process of tendering, stating what supplier was chosen and why. 2. the police would then have to submit this information with their proposed purchase to the Sussex Police Authority for approval and funding. 3. the purchasing branch would then be authorized to make the purchase and pay for the cassettes – formal records of the purchase order would be kept – and amounts paid out and to whom would be recorded by the accounts department. The CCRC were well aware of all the above but refused to contact Mr. McCarthy – Fox and refused to check whether the records referred to above contained anything about Ablex.

Court Admin ― This matter has been fully investigated by the CCRC and to examine the complaint again under the police complaints regime would amount to an abuse of process, and as such, the complaint should be discontinued.

Refutation: ― In view of what I have said above this statement by Mr. Carr amounts to lies and evasion and is blatant abuse of his position, if not conspiracy to pervert justice. In the second letter to Oliver Carr in Tab 2, I say I refused to give DS Parrott copies of the CCRC report because I was certain that he would twist everything for his own purposes. Carr attempted to obtain a copy of the report himself in 2007 and was refused. Having been told the law said he was not entitled to a copy, so what was his purpose in making further contact with the CCRC? I think he was attempting some scheming trick to get hold of it anyway. In any case clearly he has done exactly what I said Parrott would do if he got hold of it. Carr’s report is an abuse of procedure, dishonest, evasive, and so extremely biased in the police favour that it must be considered collusion.