You are on page 1of 3

This is an Appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) against

a local resolution decision dated to 15th January 2016 in respect of a complaint


PSD/PC/226/15 made against T/Force Solicitor Jane Wintermeyer of North Yorkshire
Police (NYP) on 18th December, 2015
Grounds for Appeal
1. The information provided by Ms Joanna Carter, the PCCs Chief Executive, in
her decision letter or, moreover, the almost complete lack of it, appears to be
a naked attempt to trivialise the complaint against Mrs Wintermeyer.
2. It is plainly apparent that NYP did not want to record the complaint. I was told
they had done so only after an appeal to the IPCC was submitted on 8th
January, 2015.
3. Ms Carter asserts, in a letter to me dated 12th January, 2015, that the
complaint was recorded against Mrs Wintermeyer on 29th December, 2015.
Taking all the other correspondence between NYP and myself into account it
appears inconceivable that Ms Carter recorded the complaint at any time
before 12th January, 2016. Based on my previous interactions with Ms Carter,
and others in her office (including the PCC), it is more likely than not that she
is being untruthful.
4. Ms Carter also asserts in her letter dated 12th January that she is the
Appropriate Authority for dealing with the complaint against Mrs Wintermeyer.
There is no such Scheme of Delegation published on the either the police, or
PCCs, website that supports such a claim by Ms Carter. The relevant link
can be found here: http://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/takingaction/making-decisions/joint-corporate-scheme-of-delegation-consent/2/
5. NYP was made aware by email on 6th January 2016 (See attached PDF of
email trail between myself and T/Supt Maria Taylor) that a further
complainable matter had arisen against Mrs Wintermeyer concerning her
honesty and integrity. This centres on her claims that two emails and two
letters sent via Royal Mail had all been intercepted by NYP thus preventing
her replying.
6. My view on such a claim was also put directly to Mrs Wintermeyer on 5th
January, 2016 (see attached PDF of email trail between the two of us)
7. It is clear, on any reasonable view of the available evidence, that the
complaints have not been investigated appropriately or proportionately. There
are allegations of a solicitor lying or, alternatively, emails sent to a .pnn.police
network and letters sent via Royal Mail being subject to interference. These
are not trivial matters. If Mrs Wintermeyer is telling the truth (which, for the
record and based on prior knowledge, I very much doubt) then the email
interference potentially discloses a criminal offence under S1 Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act, 2000 and the interference with my letters an
offence under S84 Postal Services Act, 2000. Ms Carter and NYP cannot
have it both ways.

8. In addition to the suspicion of criminal offences committed by persons at


present unknown, if Mrs Wintermeyer is found to be telling the truth, the
activities of NYP and NYPCC throughout my interaction with her clearly
engage my convention rights under Article 8: Right to private life and respect
for correspondence.
9. The decision letter from Ms Carter scrupulously avoids any reference to these
matters set out in paras 7 and 8 above.
10. I have twice requested in writing, once to T/Supt Taylor and once to Mrs
Wintermeyer, sight of the technical evidence that may support her contention
that she did not receive my emails, sent on 25th November and 15th
December, until 24th December, 2015. Those requests were ignored.
11. Ms Carter makes no reference in her decision letter to a report on this subject
that was commissioned by her (referred to in T/Supt Taylors email to me
dated 5th January, 2016).

12. Ms Carter also makes no reference at all about the missing letters sent to Mrs
Wintermeyer as a follow-up to the emails on 25th November and 15th
December, 2015.
13. Quite apart from the evidence of the unsatisfactory nature of the
investigation, there is, clearly, no hierarchal or institutional independence
evident in the appointment of the investigator. Mrs Wintermeyer is, I am
given to understand, the closest working colleague of Ms Carter in NYP and
NYPCC.
14. For the reasons set out above I disagree with the decision given by Ms
Carter.

What the IPCC should consider in their assessment of this appeal


15. Did the investigation follow Statutory Guidance? The answer to that is
emphatically no. Indeed, this was a master-class in how not to conduct a
complaint resolution.
16. Was information withheld? The outcome letter provided by Ms Carter is a
minimalist affair that simply comprises of uncorroborated, or opinion,
evidence from the subject of the complaint. Where a police force provides a
decision or outcome, in a case such as this, then it is incumbent upon the
investigator to provide her rationale and disclose their working papers. That is
the very least a complainant can expect if the investigator doesnt take the
trouble to obtain accounts from the complainant or other witnesses (for
example; myself, the ICT specialist or the person responsible for
logging/distributing inbound letters at the PCCs office). When determining
this Appeal, the IPCC should also be mindful of the comments of Deputy
Judge Morris in R (on the application of Ramsden) v IPCC and others [2013]

EWHC 3969 (Admin) regarding the withholding of witness accounts, and


other probative material, by the police (and IPCC) during investigations and
appeal assessments. Deputy Judge Morris also made the point, forcefully,
about the unsatisfactory nature of complaint investigations where accounts
are taken only from the police side and not from the complainant.
17. Was the investigation proportionate? No. A proportionate and well-founded
investigation could not be undertaken if the complaint was not properly
recorded or understood. That is to set aside the proposition that the
investigation in this case had only one overriding purpose: To attempt to get
rid of a complaint that the force finds very uncomfortable and did not want to
record in the first place.
18. Whether sufficient evidence was gathered? Again, emphatically no for the
reasons outlined above. No witness evidence has been adduced that was
likely to be favourable to the complainants case.
19. Is proposed action by police based on sound assessment of evidence? It
follows from para 17 that the as the collection of evidence was so deficient,
flawed and one-sided then so must be its assessment.

Conclusion
20. This is an Appeal where the issues are straightforward: (i) Complainant
largely ignored by the police officer involved (T/Supt Taylor) and the selfappointed investigator (Joanna Carter) (ii) Statutory Guidance not followed
(iii) an investigator appointed who has no hierarchal or institutional
independence (iv) information improperly withheld (v) a partial investigation
where (vii) evidence that would harm the police case not collected or
assessed and (viii) an outcome that is, on the balance of probabilities,
perverse and irrational.
Accordingly, there can be no other conceivable outcome other than an
upholding of this Appeal. Accordingly, I urge the IPCC to direct that
Appropriate Authority has this matter re-investigated appropriately, and
proportionately, by an investigator with the requisite hierarchal and
institutional independence.

Submitted by: Neil Wilby on 18th January 2016