DPS twisting the truth


Lewisham police maliciously arrested me in September 2011 – after I had suffered and reported around 60 incidents since December 2009 – and I was forced out of my home (where I’d lived for nearly twenty years) for around two months because of bail conditions imposed because of their lies.

I made a complaint on 10 October 2011, the DPS ‘investigator’ told me she could not start investigating until after the trial which was at the end of October 2011.

At the trial the prosecution had arranged five police witnesses against me, I had to represent myself.

The outcome was that half-way through the prosecution case the District Judge stopped the trial – technically the prosecutor does this but the court notes prove the DJ’s interventions – and ruled I had “No case to answer“.

After the trial it transpired that DPS ‘investigator’ had attended the trial so she had seen all this.

However,  she refused to meet with me to see my evidence and completed her ‘investigation’ without  giving me the opportunity to discuss my complaint and show her my evidence, which I clearly stated I wanted to show her.  Her refusal to meet with me was not only completely unreasonable and unjust but also against the IPCC Statutory Guidelines.

Her Outcome report was full of entirely false information and she just completely ignored crucial evidence that the arrest was malicious.  Inexplicably, the IPCC refused my Appeal.

This is what the DPS ‘investigator’ stated in her Outcome report re the trial –

At court you were found not guilty…The District Judge found that the matter could not be proved against you beyond reasonable doubt.”

In fact though, as confirmed in a letter to me from the CPS –

the court…determined that there were inconsistencies that could not be reconciled and that this conflict of evidence meant that there was no case for you to answer”.”

There is, of course, a world of difference between a case not being proven beyond a reasonable doubt and there not even being any case to answer due to inconsistencies/conflicting police evidence.

The DPS ‘investigator’ attended the trial so she knew full well what had happened and the true outcome – this twisting of the truth is absolutely typical of the rest of her Outcome letter and how I have been treated throughout years of suffering and reporting incidents to Lewisham police and Lewisham Council.

Below is the relevant extract from the CPS letter –




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: