This complaint was submitted to South Yorkshire Police in July 2013. The complaint was lodged against Supt Parker who had handled this complaint
The complaint raised the issue that Supt Parker had handled the complaint in both it’s incarnations as Local Resolution(for 19 days) and further under Local Investigation. The Police Reform Act 2002 & The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 make it clear that any person who participated in the local resolution stage of the complaint cannot investigate the complaint or take part in its investigation.
In Supt Parkers investigation report, he makes a declaration that he is self-appointing as Investigator and then goes on to make this declaration under an old superceded regulation.
This should have been picked up by the Appropriate Authority. This should have been picked up by the IPCC when handling the appeal, but both organisations missed this. I raised this and many other procedural anomalies with the IPCC who then agreed to take another appeal form from me as I had clearly been misled that the complaint had only been handled as Local Resolution. What needs to be made very clear at this point is that the IPCC told me they are not re-opening the appeal so with that in mind, only the original appeal outcome is the valid and legal one.
Following this 2nd submission, the IPCC agreed that Supt Parker had not acted in line with Legislation but they didn’t feel that this had any effect on the outcome. The IPCC did communicate this as (one of many) points of learning to SYP.
Due to the many errors in the MG5 report and false allegations made against me, I decided to log a complaint with SYP about Supt Parker after first checking with the IPCC if this was a reasonable action. SYP decided at this point that my complaint was oppressive and an abuse of the complaints procedure stating that these issues were previously raised by me in my appeal to the IPCC. Remember though, these points were not in the original appeal outcome.
I appealed the non-recording decision to the IPCC who decided to agree with South Yorkshire Police stating that I had already covered these in my appeal which of course is untrue. I called the IPCC caseworker Ayaz Hassan to discuss this decision – Ayaz is one of the most arrogant people I have come across in recent times. After explaining to him that my original and only legally valid appeal did not cover these issues he still refused to accept this. I asked for his managers name as I wished to have them review the matter – his response was you’re wasting your time, he’ll agree with me.
I did report this fiasco to Cindy Butts who at the time was the IPCC Commissioner for South Yorkshire. She passed this onto John Campbell-Ricketts to look into. After many months I got a very short letter back indicating everything had already been dealt with correctly.
She confirms that Supt Parker has received management advice regarding his conduct of the investigation – so it would appear that despite SYP and IPCC refusing to record my complaint, Supt Parker has been given management advice behind closed doors – very suspicious and only prompts more questions.
She states that calls to the IPCC are not routinely recorded so the IPCC could not listen to my conversation with Ayaz Hassan. I did record this conversation so I offered Ms Butts the opportunity to listen to my copy of the conversation(with Ayaz permission of course), at this point she then wrote to me saying that she would not be communicating on the matter anymore – clearly touched a nerve.