ANTHONY RAMSDEN ALLEGATIONS OF ASSAULT BY POLICE OFFICERS Report prepared by Robin Green of PNLD on behalf of West Yorkshire Police & Crime Commissioner The responses of Anthony Ramsden to the findings of Mr Green are highlighted in blue immediately below each numbered paragraph. 1.1 On Monday 4th March 2013, papers were forwarded to the PNLD complaints triage service relating to allegations of assault by police officers on Anthony RAMSDEN, 14, The Mount, Thornes, Wakefield, West Yorkshire in September 2011.
The first, and most obvious, question of a member of the public is what is the PNLD Complaints Triage Assessment service? Nothing on the WYOPCC website gives a clue and there is nothing in the Decision Log to record the relationship. It is noted from a reliable police source that all employees of PNLD are functionaries/employees of the WYOPCC and again there is nothing readily identifiable on either the WYOPCC or PNLD websites to highlight this fact. If the information is correct then there is, quite obviously, a complete lack of independence in any service PNLD may provide to WYOPCC. A second point is that there is no schedule listing the papers forwarded by the WYOPCC to the author, Robin Green (RG), which were used in the compilation of the report. This is the first of many fundamental weaknesses identified.

1.2 The papers included:• • • • A summary of complaint prepared by Mr. RAMSDEN on 28.11.12; First Appeal – IPCC Assessment of the Investigation; Second Appeal – IPCC Assessment of the Investigation; IPCC Defence to an application to the High Court for Judicial Review, including a letter and report relating to the investigation from West Yorkshire Police PSD; Minutes of a meeting between the Police and Crime Commissioner and Mr. RAMSDEN on 28th February 2013;
As noted in 1.1 there should have been a complete summary of material relied upon and a note of its source/provenance. For example: (a) What was date/content of letter/report from West Yorkshire Police (WYP) Professional Standards Department (PSD). To whom was it addressed and was there an inherent breach of Data Protection Act (DPA) in its disclosure? (b) Minutes of the AR/WYOPCC meeting are disputed and that is a matter of record between 1

the parties. A transcript is in evidence which proves this point. Reliance only on the WYOPCC minutes undermines RG report. (c) Where did IPCC Defence document appear from? This was not disclosed to AR by WYOPCC in the recent Subject Access request outcome and again there is the potential of a DPA breach. (d) The same remarks apply exactly to the AR photographs/schedules.

1.3 Additional papers were subsequently forwarded on Thursday 7th March including:• •

Letter from Neil WILBY to DI CARR dated 21st June 2012; Transcript of meeting at Horbury dated 20th June 2012

Release of personal information of Neil Wilby was not requested or, more crucially, permission given which, again, places WYOPCC in breach of DPA

1.4 A reading of these papers shows that Mr. RAMSDEN alleges he was assaulted on two occasions by police officers on 20th September 2011 following a football match, which took place between Leeds United Football Club and Manchester United Football Club at Elland Road, Leeds, in an area close to the ground.
There were two separate assault incidents in two completely different locations, 500 metres apart. The baton strike close to VW and the horse/rider assault near Production North. This is the first of a large number of catastrophic failings in finding of fact by RG.

1.5 The papers show that large numbers of police, including officers mounted on horses, were present in public areas after the match wearing protective equipment to respond to crowd disturbances. It is said that crowd control was carried out in accordance with accepted national practice.
There is woolliness and slack attention to detail throughout the report and the tone of those general failings is set here. It is a matter of fact that only one of the police witnesses (PC Stokes) claims in his statement that crowd control met police national standards. He had a vested interest in doing so if his account is read properly. Other witnesses refute that crowd control was even barely adequate and the judge in the High Court case – having himself attended the football match in question – preferred the accounts of those witnesses.

1.6 Mr. RAMSDEN states that he made a complaint to Police at Holbeck Police Station, Leeds about the alleged assaults on 21st September 2011. There are indications in the papers that the complaint was forwarded to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) for

investigation to be undertaken, firstly by Inspector THACKERAY a Divisional officer and, as the result of appeal to IPCC, secondly by DI CARR, PSD.

1.7 Owing to the nature of the crowd disturbances at Elland Road, it is clear that reliance was placed on ‘CCTV’ films which may have been directed on the area at the relevant time. Despite a review of available CCTV filming, no ‘footage’ has been discovered by Police investigating the incident which would clearly corroborate Mr RAMDENS’s allegations.
No credible review of CCTV has ever taken place by the police (or the IPCC) where a schedule has been produced of all camera positions/CCTV van locations/helicopter position and an analysis of available images set alongside that. The police (and the IPCC) have steadfastly refused to provide the above and it is clear that RG has seen no such schedule – or requested one. Or even seen the need for one.

1.8 No witnesses to the alleged assaults were identified during the investigations.
To state that no witnesses to the assaults were identified is preposterous and again reduces the overall worth of RG’s report to virtually zero. There were three witnesses to the assaults (Andrew Casey, whose brother is a serving WYP detective, Thomas Casey and Chloe Ramsden) and as stated in para 1.5 the judge preferred those accounts over the ones provided by the police when they were tested in Court. The IPCC’s barrister eventually conceded in Court that the police witness accounts exhibited were of no probative value and none corroborated any other: Which struck at the heart of the IPCC’s Appeal assessment and their Defence in the Judicial Review.

1.9 Following investigations undertaken, no criminal or disciplinary action has been taken in respect of any officer. The papers show that Mr. RAMSDEN is neither satisfied with the investigations nor with the appeal decisions taken by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
The RG report should, for completeness, have noted that no Regulation 14A notices, under the Police Reform Act 2002, were ever issued by the police at any stage nor was there any visible intent to do so.

1.10 At the time this report was prepared, I understand that an application to the High Court for Judicial Review of the second IPCC appeal decision has also been rejected and costs awarded against Mr. RAMSDEN.

Again a serious factual error undermines the RG report. At the time of RG signing off his report (assumed to be early April 2013) an Oral Permission (OP) hearing had been applied for, granted and a Hearing date set. At the OP hearing, permission was given to apply for a Substantive Hearing.

1.11 It would appear that Mr. RAMSDEN sought a meeting with the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) to produce new evidence in support of his allegation. This was held on 28th February and minutes were taken.
See para 1.2

1.12 At the conclusion of the meeting, the PCC gave Mr. RAMSDEN an assurance that he would:• • • Consider the information provided, Take legal advice and, Consider asking further questions of West Yorkshire Police

The inherent weakness/lack of substance that characterises the entire RG report surfaces again. (a) Consider what information precisely (b) Take legal advice from whom? (c) What questions and of whom specifically? These are questions any competent assessor/investigator would require to be answered.

1.13 This report has been prepared to set out the legal issues for the PCC regarding the undertakings given to Mr. RAMSDEN and options to take this matter forward.
What were the terms of reference for the triage assessment and by whom were they set? Is there a written record? It is clear that the email from Julie Reid to RG dated 4th March is not the whole picture as she makes no reference at all to legal issues. This again places WYOPCC in clear breach of DPA but also enhances the proposition that there is no openness or transparency in the dealings between WYOPCC and AR. In plain language, the cover-up of the worst of the misdemeanours of the Commissioner and his staff is still continuing to this day.

2 THE CRIMINAL ASSUALT ALLEGATIONS 2.1 The assault allegations by Mr. RAMSDEN relate to police conduct outside the ground after the match. In particular, a:• Police officer ‘pushed him with his baton in his back to move him on’, and,

• ‘Mounted officer was directly behind him and forced him against the mesh fencing outside the VW garage and kicked him’. The horse is said to have trodden on his foot.

Another catastrophic error again renders the report virtually worthless. RG has neither grasped the nature or location of the assaults on AR by the police. A point also evident throughout the reading of almost all of the police evidence and the IPCC’s appeal assessments (the IPCC engaged a London barrister at the Substantive Hearing at High Court who also failed to grasp this crucial point). For the record the first assault was a baton strike/push near the VW garage, the second assault occurred near Production North premises when a mounted officer rode her horse at AR, forced him into a fence and kicked him. If RG had troubled to even take a passing glance at the file of evidence given to the Commissioner by AR he would have grasped that immediately.

2.2 As Mr. RAMSDEN was not injured, the allegation amounts to a common assault and battery (s 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988) which is a summary offence.
Another factual error: AR reported injuries at Holbeck police station the day after the assault. He declined to make an issue of the injuries as he was simply seeking an apology from the police.

2.3 Summary offences can only be tried before a Court, if the information is laid or complaint made within six months from the time when the offence was committed (see PNLD Doc D 9344 – s 127 Magistrates Courts Act 1980). As the allegation and investigation relates to 2011, the matter is therefore ‘out of time’.
The matter of lawful prosecution of any officer in connection with the assaults is correctly assessed by RG as ‘out of time’. However, he fails to explore why: Delay and obfuscation by Inspector Thackray to achieve OOT status was always the primary aim. This is in AR’s knowledge of other complaint cases investigated by WYP and is standard practice for PSD.

2.4 It is recognised that the IPCC felt that the first investigation was not proportionate to the circumstances and upheld Mr. RAMSDEN’s first appeal.

2.5 Following the second appeal, it would appear that the requirements of the criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Code of Practice were fully complied with. The Code of Practice places a duty for the investigator ‘to pursue all lines of enquiry and retain material’.
Appear to whom? Robin Green and no-one else, including a High Court judge? It is outrageous to suggest, even on cursory reading, that CPIA 1996 was complied with. Apart from the myriad contradictions between the first and second investigation reports, the judge heavily criticised the second investigation (by DI Carr) and the report that went with it – and also the failure of the IPCC to uphold the Appeal against it. It was an atrocious and thoroughly dishonest piece of work by DI Carr and anyone reading the police witness statements could not possibly conclude otherwise.


3 COMPLAINTS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN 2011 3.1 If proven, the assault allegations would also be contrary to the Police Standards of Behaviour set out in Regulation 3, Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, relating to use of force and authority, respect and courtesy.
Incorrect. An assault on a member of public would not be investigated under Respect and Courtesy. It is inexplicable that WYOPCC would use an assessor that did not know/understand this point or did not have the basic gumption to check and find out.

3.2 The legal basis for the complaints and appeals process at that time included:• • •

Police Reform Act 2002 Schedule 3; Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, and, Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004

4 ACTION TAKEN BY THE WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE 4.1 From a reading of the papers provided, it would appear that when the complaint was made on 21st September 2011, the matter was forwarded by the officer receiving details to the PSD of the West Yorkshire Police who recorded the complaint, having determined that the Chief Officer was the ‘appropriate authority’. (Police Reform Act 2002 Schedule 3 Part 1 para 2)

4.2 Owing to the nature of the complaint, it appears that the PSD requested a Divisional Superintendent (Operations) to appoint a senior police officer to investigate. (Police Reform Act 2002 Schedule 3 Part 2 para 11(3)(b))
No evidence ever disclosed to AR of PSD requesting a Divisional Superintendent (Operations) to appoint an investigator. Who was this officer? Why did he choose Inspector Thackray when it was known by police that he was a riding member of the mounted patrol that assaulted AR and, as such, disqualified under IPCC Statutory Guidance from performing any investigative duties in connection with the incident. A point forcibly made by the judge at High Court: Much to the IPCC barrister’s discomfort.

4.3 Inspector THACKERAY, a senior Divisional Police Officer, was appointed to investigate, gathered available evidence (Police Reform Act 2002 Schedule 3 para 1 (2) (b) duty to preserve evidence relating to the complaint) and reported. Following investigation, the findings were communicated to Mr. RAMSDEN.

Another outrageous and false assertion by RG: Inspector Thackray palpably did not gather available evidence. By common consent – and ultimately including the IPCC’s barrister at Court – it was a woefully inadequate and thoroughly dishonest investigation by an officer who had no right to undertake it in the first place. The fact that two other Chief Inspectors were involved in the compilation of the investigation merely adds to the travesty.

4.4 Mr. RAMSDEN, clearly not satisfied with the outcome of Inspector THACKERAY’s investigation, appealed the findings to the IPCC which was received on 6th February 2012. (Police Reform Act 2002 Schedule 3 Part 3 para 25)

5 APPEAL RESPONSE BY THE IPCC 5.1 On 29th May 2012, the IPCC wrote to Mr. RAMSDEN setting out their appeal decisions. In essence, the IPCC were of the view that the police investigation was not ‘appropriate and proportionate’ to the complaint (Police Reform Act 2002 Schedule 3 Part 3 para 25 (5)) 5.2 The reason given for that finding was that further officers present at the time of the disturbances needed to be interviewed and their accounts included in the investigation. 5.3 The findings of the appeal did not agree with Mr. RAMSDEN’s view that West Yorkshire Police had ‘chosen to hide the alleged assault in the CCTV footage’. 5.4 The IPCC referred their findings to the Force and required the Investigating Officer to make further enquiries. (Police Reform Act 2002 Schedule 3 Part 3 para 25 (6) and (10))
5.1 to 5.4 are all agreed

6 FURTHER INVESTIGATION BY WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE 6.1 On receipt of the appeal findings, West Yorkshire Police PSD appointed DI Damien CARR, a Professional Standards Departmental senior police officer to undertake the further work required and complete the investigation. Mr. CARR has recently retired from West Yorkshire Police.
DI Carr retired as a warranted officer in WYP on or about 28th March 2013. He commenced work as a civilian officer on the next working day. This dates RG’s report as sometime in April 2013.

6.2 Following re-investigation, DI CARR met with Mr. RAMSDEN at his place of work at Horbury and reviewed CCTV footage which appears to be at the heart of the investigation.


At that meeting, a Mr. Neil WILBY appears to have been present but it is not clear why and in what capacity Mr. WILBY was present.
Neil Wilby has been on record with WYP, IPCC, West Yorkshire Police Authority (WYPA) and, subsequently, WYOPCC since July 2012 as AR’s complaint friend. A role he fulfils for a number of other complainants against the police.

6.3 As part of an enquiry into the disorder following the match (Operation DOMINGO), a PC BARCLAY had been instructed to secure all CCTV footage which might be available. The following sources were reviewed:• • • • • • ‘Leedswatch’ Mobile CCTV Van belonging to the City Council; Production North, a commercial event production company using CCTV at the event; Richard Alexander V W Sales – a CCTV camera focusing on their forecourt; AALCO, a local metals company with a camera at the side of their premises; WYP Air Operations Helicopter fitted with CCTV camera; Police Video Van fitted with CCTV facilities.

It is questioned whether RG ever read the Operation Domingo report himself or whether he has simply relied on PSD’s version of that report. His assessment, generally, points to the latter.

6.4 It has been noted that Mr. RAMSDEN claims to have been shown CCTV footage by Inspector THACKERAY on 22nd November 2011. This consisted of a five minute CCTV from a location 200 yards away from the location of the alleged assault. This has no bearing on the investigation.
The use of the expression AR ‘claims to have been shown footage by Insp Thackray’ is odd to say the least and is taken as another indicator of RG’s mindset: Accept everything the police have said, believe nothing from AR (which resonates with the readily apparent view of the Commissioner and his staff) . It is a matter of fact, and record, that Insp Thackray met AR at his office and CCTV was viewed.

6.5 As part of his second investigation, DI CARR reviewed the CCTV footage. The results were as follows:• • AALCO failed to download within the requisite timeframe. One camera had the potential to view persons walking past the premises; Richard Alexander VW Car Dealers only covered the garage forecourt;


• • Production North footage lacked clarity and was too grainy to provide any useful information. Mr. RAMSDEN and the incident was not identified in it; The footage from Mobile CCTV vehicle was reviewed by DI CARR in the presence of Mr. RAMSDEN and Mr. WILBY. (see the taped transcript produced by Mr. RAMSDEN. It is said that the film from Leedswatch hadn’t been seen by Mr. RAMSDEN during the first investigation(; Footage from the WYP helicopter did not provide any footage relating to Mr. RAMSDEN; Police Video van CCTV was not in operation.

• •

Another dreadful factual mish-mash again renders the RG report almost entirely worthless. (a) There are two relevant cameras at Production North. WYP only ever disclosed existence of one. (b) There are two relevant cameras at Alexandra VW. The one not disclosed by WYP covers the precise location of the first assault on AR. The police claimed throughout both investigations that there was only one camera. AR demonstrated at the meeting with the Commissioner that there were two. (c) It has been claimed in Op Domingo (see para 6.3) that film from CCTV vans was reviewed yet, here, RG counter-intuitively states they are not working. Which is correct? Why did RG not seek to clarify this point? (d) AALCO owners told AR on the morning after the match, when he visited their premises, that the police had been there before him and already seized the CCTV film from the previous evening. That is at odds with the police account: An account over which doubt has been cast again and again. Film from AALCO is also noted in Op Domingo report as having been viewed yet RG says it doesn’t exist. Which is correct? Why did RG not seek to clarify this point? (e) DI Carr claimed in the meeting at AR’s office on 20th June 2012 that Leedswatch mobile CCTV ‘was not working’ so it would be extremely difficult for him to subsequently claim that the footage viewed at that meeting was from the Leedswatch vehicle. Another point missed by RG. (f) DI Carr claimed at the same meeting that the police helicopter (Call sign X-Ray 99 at that time) was not in attendance at the match. When it was proved to him by AR that it was, DI Carr then claimed that there was no footage of the key disorder incidents at the football match: Which is, at best, far-fetched. NPAS, the current operators of the WYP helicopter (NPAS31) have subsequently confirmed that on-board cameras can pick up fine detail such as the logo on a baseball cap.

6.6 At the conclusion of DI CARR’s investigation, the papers show that a letter was sent by DCI Osman KHAN, West Yorkshire Police PSD to Mr. RAMSDEN. The letter set out the further investigation findings and that Mr. RAMSDEN’s complaints would not be upheld owing to the absence of CCTV, witness or other supporting evidence. This letter dated 10th August 2012 is amongst the papers provided and attached to the file marked IPCC Defence. Agreed 7 SECOND APPEAL TO THE IPCC

7.1 Following receipt of DCI KHAN’s letter, it appears, from a file marked IPCC second appeal that Mr. RAMSDEN appealed against the findings to the IPCC which was received on 5th September 2012. 7.2 Thirteen appeal points were considered by the IPCC. In summary, none of the appeal points were upheld. No further action was required by West Yorkshire Police. 7.3 A letter was sent by the IPCC notifying Mr RAMSDEN of the appeal findings on 29th October 2012.
7.1 to 7.3 are all agreed

8 APPLICATION TO THE HIGH COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 8.1 In email instructions to his legal representative Mike LENNON at 8.35am on 1st November 2012, it is apparent that Mr. RAMSDEN intended to seek leave before the Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court for Judicial Review of the IPCC’s second appeal decisions. Agreed 8.2 Indeed, there is the copy of an application to the High Court in the papers naming the defendants as the IPCC and West Yorkshire Police dated 18th January (incorrectly dated 2012 when it should have been 2013.) Agreed 8.3 Attached to the papers is an IPCC ‘defence’ to the claim. It is pertinent that the IPCC submitted in the defence that the:1. IPCC’s decision was a reasonable one in all the circumstances of the case; 2. Claimant seeks to rely on evidence that was not before the decision maker; 3. Claimant’s statement of grounds is largely based on errors of fact. In essence, the claimants challenge is that the IPCC did not prefer his version of the facts. The IPCC had made reasonable findings which are supported by evidence. As a consequence, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court is not warranted.
Apart from the falling into line with the partiality and superficial nature of the rest of the triage assessment it is difficult fathom the rationale of RG as to why the IPCC’s defence was any more ‘pertinent’ than AR’s application/claim. The IPCC have a high profile, and consistent, track record of deceiving the public, in plain sight, following nationally reported incidents. In those circumstances, why would RG note attach a note of caution when assessing anything the IPCC had to say? The fact is they were prepared to go to the lengths of deceiving a High Court judge in order to perpetuate this cover-up. (1) The concept of the ‘reasonableness’ of IPCC’s Appeal decision was destroyed at Court in the Substantive Hearing. (2) RG fails to note or even realise that this complaint case, from its 10

outset, is characterised by refusal to reasonably disclose. Even at the date of this analysis (27th October 2013) AR is still uncovering material denied to him for almost two years. Each and every item makes the scope and extent of the organised and institutional cover-up ever more apparent. WYOPCC are now at the heart of that cover-up. (3) Another catastrophic assertion by RG: It was proven in High Court beyond any reasonable doubt that the IPCC did not rely on any probative evidence in their Appeal findings. Quite the opposite. The evidence was all before them to dispute the police accounts and question the scope/nature/extent of the second police investigation. It is worth pausing at this point to reflect on the point that RG has not exerted himself in any way whatsoever to validate any of his own findings. Instead, he has exclusively relied on police/IPCC versions throughout. That may have been his brief from WYOPCC but it renders the assessment a complete waste of time and money.

8.4 It is understood that the High Court rejected Mr. RAMSDEN’s application. Costs were awarded against him.
See para 1.10

8.5 From these papers, it is clear that ‘the evidence’ in para 8.3 above which was not produced to the IPCC or the Court was the:• • Transcript of the recorded meeting between DI CARR and Mr. RAMSDEN, and, Statement of Mr. WILBY.

The claimant made no application to submit either of these documents and the Court was asked to disregard the material.
This paragraph makes no sense. AR has never placed any great weight on the DI Carr transcript other than it proves Carr – again – to be an accomplished liar. This was, most certainly, not the new evidence that persuaded the High Court to grant a Substantive Hearing. It was never raised at Court as an issue.

8.6 It is significant that these documents were not produced tp the Court, yet have been produced to the Police and Crime Commissioner.
If RG can see the significance of why the transcript was not produced to the Court he should have explained what it was. AR certainly cannot. It is a matter of record that the Carr transcript/Wilby letter was not produced to the Commissioner at the meeting. They were requested by WYOPCC on 5th March 2013 and produced the following day.

9 THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE IPCC AND HIGH COURT DECISIONS 9.1 It is clear from the papers that the legal requirements for dealing with complaints were adheared to by West Yorkshire Police PSD and the IPCC.
Clear to whom? Certainly not AR or the High Court.


9.2 The role of the IPCC is to review the investigation, not to re-investigate it. When an appeal process to IPCC was completed, there are no further avenues of appeal. That is the process parliament intended. Agreed 9.3 That does not prevent a complainant making application to the High Court for Judicial Review. The grounds for leave by Mr. RAMSDEN were subsequently rejected by the High Court.
Agreed. Grounds for leave rejected on the papers by High Court. Permission granted for Substantive Hearing at Oral Permission hearing where the full extent of the police/IPCC/WYOPCC cover up became more and more apparent under questioning by the judge of the IPCC’s barrister.

10 MEETING WITH THE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER WEST YORKSHIRE 10.1 From the minutes of the meeting provided and at his request, Mr. RAMSDEN met with the PCC on 28th February 2013. It is not clear in the notes why he was accompanied by Mr. CHRISTIE.
Cedric Christie attended the meeting as complaint friend/witness of AR after WYOPCC refused (without explanation) for Mr Wilby to attend.

10.2 It is said that Mr. RAMSDEN wished to provide new evidence to support his complaint (of assault) to the PCC. This is the reason for the PCC agreeing to meet Mr. RAMSDEN.
Meeting was not arranged on the premise RG sets out. Where/who is the source of that misinformation?

10.3 However, no new ‘evidence’ to corroborate an assault by police officers upon Mr. RAMSDEN was produced at the meeting.
Another false and incredulous assertion by RG. A complete analysis of relevant camera positions was produced by AR together with a schedule of ‘missing’ CCTV.

10.4 Mr. RAMSDEN when viewing the CCTV footage with the PCC stated that he had not seen this footage before. However, Mr. RAMSDEN may be mistaken as it relates to the footage from the Leedswatch van which he had seen before when shown to him by DI CARR in the presence of Mr. WILBY.
It is a matter of fact, not conjecture, that this was the third different piece of film viewed by AR when the claim by WYP is persisted with. AR has lived and breathed this case for two years and it stretches credibility that he would mistake one piece of film for another. DI Carr lied throughout this case – as he has done in a number of others – and he lied to the Commissioner when producing this latest piece of film. Any right-minded, independent person could not fail to conclude otherwise.


10.5 The IPCC independently ‘did not agree with Mr. RAMSDEN that West Yorkshire Police had chosen to hide the alleged assault in the CCTV footage’. (See para 5.3 of this report and the First Appeal assessment)

10.6 Mr. RAMSDEN provided the notes of the meeting between himself and DI CARR with Mr. WILBY present. A reading of those minutes does not produce any evidence which would corroborate the assaults. The notes of the meeting recorded by Mr. RAMSDEN and Mr. WILBY, if accurate, represent a further challenge to the findings of the investigation.
This assertion by RG is reminiscent of the now infamous interchange between the ‘Plebgate’ Warwickshire Police sergeant and the Home Affairs Select Committee when he challenged the veracity of a tape recording transcript. They were not ‘minutes’, as falsely asserted by RG. RG’s observation that AR’s notes recorded a further challenge to Inspector Thackray’s investigation is accepted.

10.7 The letter dated 21st June 2012 addressed to DI CARR by Mr. WILBY is, at best, irrelevant.
In the context of DI Carr’s integrity and his overall approach to AR a truly independent observer might conclude that Mr Wilby’s letter did have some role to play. The matters complained of are now subject of separate investigation/appeal. They may even end up before the same Administrative Court in Leeds.

10.8 Mr. RAMSDEN stated that the force and the IPCC had refused to release the CCTV footage to him. There is no legal basis for the Force or IPCC to do so. There are legal processes available for him to do so.
AR followed legal processes which led to IPCC’s barrister deceiving High Court over what had been disclosed to AR and what had not. Her explanation to the judge was that she had ‘made a mistake’ in not disclosing the requested schedule of material. She was warned by the judge of the dangers to her professional career in deceiving a High Court. In any event, the IPCC’s Statutory Guidance dictates that evidence relied on in police investigations should be disclosed unless there is a good reason not to (eg harm test). RG also refers to ‘natural justice’ being the Commissioner’s motivation for agreeing to meet AR. Where is the natural justice in unreasonably withholding probative evidence?

11 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PCC 11.1 In general terms, there was no legal basis for Mr. RAMSDEN to require a meeting with the PCC. The matter had already been fully investigated in compliance with the Police Reform Act 2002. The PCC decision to meet Mr. RAMSDEN on 28th February was on grounds of ‘natural justice’ and in accordance with the general policy philosophy of ‘Putting Things Right’.

It is agreed that there is no legal device available to the public to force a meeting with a Police and Crime Commissioner. However, RG’s assertion that the matter had been fully investigated was plainly false. It is a matter of public record that it fell well short of the legal requirements under the Police Reform Act. It is known to AR – and indeed a much wider public -that the Commissioner and WYOPCC has no appetite for putting things right but merely swallows whole everything the police tells him. Never more publicly evident than in the shameful Jimmy Savile Operation Newgreen report which was universally condemned as a dreadful whitewash job. The Commissioner saw nothing wrong with the fact and , in fact, “welcomed” it on the day of publication. Operation Douglas is another nationally known and scandalous police cover-up in which the Commissioner has been personally involved for ten years.

11.2 If any new evidence worthy of further investigation had been produced, it is open for the PCC to refer these matters to the Force in accordance with his statutory functions. (s 1 (7) Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 – holding the Chief Constable to account for the exercise of the functions of persons under the direction and control of the Chief Constable.)
New evidence was produced at the PCC meeting with AR. It was either not understood or came just too close to exposing the nature/extent of the police cover-up.

11.3 Conversely, the PCC is entitled to reject any submission made by Mr. RAMSDEN during that meeting. There are no legal or policy ‘avenues’ for Mr. RAMSDEN to appeal against the PCC’s decision.
This paragraph, as much as any other, gives a clear clue as to the purpose/intent of RG’s report: Close of any further avenues for AR at WYOPCC and with his High Court action having, to RG’s eyes, failed then there was nowhere else for AR to go. The police/IPCC/WYOPCC cover up was then hidden from view forever.

12 REVIEW BY THE PNLD TRIAGE 12.1 The Triage assessor is of the view that Mr. RAMSDEN has not produced any additional evidence to the PCC which would merit further investigation by the West Yorkshire Police.
RG has formed his views without any reference to AR, his file of evidence or the OP grounds.

12.2 The matter has been fully investigated, appeals dealt with in accordance with law and his application for Judicial Review rejected.
As well rehearsed in many of the above paragraphs RG is - for the umpteenth time - wrong, wrong and wrong again.

12.3 It is always open for Mr. RAMSDEN to take proceedings in the civil courts. He would be required to prove on the balance of probabilities that the assaults took place.

RG again makes another false legal assertion. Civil proceedings by AR would be barred under Civil Procedure Rules (De minimis non curat lex)

12.4 To secure CCTV and other evidence, it would be open to Mr. RAMSDEN to ask the Court to make an order for ‘discovery’ (disclosure) of the material.
See para 10.8

12.5 The PNLD Triage assessor has found no evidence in support of any conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by any officer within the papers nor is there any complaint about the manner in which Mr. RAMSDEN was ejected from Wood Street Police Station.
AR makes the general point that RG would have difficulty finding anything if he was so determined (or directed by WYOPCC) not to look for it.

13 PAPER SUBMITTED FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE PCC 13.1 This paper is submitted for the information of the PCC.
It is noted that this was an assessment prepared by Robin Green solely for the Commissioner, but both the author and the recipient must both have been aware that it would eventually reach the eyes of Anthony Ramsden. It’s general tone, content and outcome was therefore always likely to become a point of contention.

Robin GREEN PNLD Manager and Triage Assessor


The Robin Green PNLD Triage paper and this analysis will be placed in the public domain at the earliest opportunity. It is important that the precept payer is aware of how their funds are squandered in this way. This was a lazy - and quite shameful - piece of work by RG, self-evidently produced to a pre-determined agenda. It is riddled with factual errors, unsubstantiated and often wild assertions and, from a qualified lawyer, glaring misinterpretations of statute. Until sight is gained of his terms of reference (ToR’s) it is difficult to assess the full extent of RG’s culpability and professional negligence and any action that may arise from it.

In the meantime, the inescapable conclusion it is that any findings made as a result of reliance on the RG report should be completely disregarded. 15