Page 510 - tmp

companies.

In the Crown Court Appeal in went a lot deeper my son had a barrister and he knew what to ask.

When PC G got into trouble after the audio tapes was played and the judge got really upset due to
knowing that PC G had not told the truth the Judge asked for all documents the police office had replied
on in this case. PC G passed a statement to the judge he had in his hand that he had been using in
court. The judge was not happy with the statement as there was no date and timed marked, PC G said
to the Judge that the statement he was using was a copy, it was my son barrister said there seemed to
be a time on the back. My son's barrister had also PC G about the ticket issues and PC G said he did
not have it in court, the judge stated at the start of the hearing he was on the understanding the
notebook had been used.

The judge was really not happy and told PC G to leave the court room but not the court building, and
that he wanted all the original document in court for him to see regarding this case.

The judges heard the summing up and went out to decide. The CPS went outside in this time I believe
to speak to PC G. As when the Judges came back in and said my son had won his appeal and that he
was not happy with what had gone on in this case, the CPS stated to the judge this was a paper based
file case and things get mislaid in this sort of files. The judge asked if the audio could be kept and
placed on file in case it needed to be used later. Which we agreed to, and we then left the court.

It was not until we got the 1st report from the DPS and the notebook was in there that it was confirmed
there was in fact a notebook all a long so why did PC G lie to us and the judges saying it was only a
proformer and the statement he wrote when he got back to the police station.

Until we got the DPS report the only word we had that PC G used his notebook on that day was my
son.

And I am sorry but it does not cut it that PC G could get away with saying his arrest was needed due to
uncertainty as to the address provided. When a person is stopped or spoken to the police like my son
was a radio check would be carried out to check to see if the person was wanted or anything else. The
police have my son's address on there system so the address my son gave would have been checked
and shown as correct on the police system.

My son did not need to lie he give PC G his insurance cert with no problem he had done nothing
wrong, so would have had no need to give a wrong address as he would know it would have shown on
the police system, why would my son say he was homeless? It was not my son that lied it was PC G
and I believe that has already been proven.

I believe 3 weeks is enough time for PC G to come forward and is acceptable.

If the inspector had done his job when he come to the road side when my son asked if one could have
been called this could have all been avoided, but instead he just went with what the police officer said
and did not brother to check what my son was saying.

Something always come to mind here and that is what was written in the subject access request I got
back from my son's insurance company, This was after the time we spent trying to stop the insurance
company cancelling my son's insurance and going to courts. When I saw this it hurt as we knew the
police had not told the truth and in the subject access request there was nothing to say my son was not
in the wrong. There was no sorry there was nothing and this is just wrong. My son was the one that
had the bad mark against his name for a long time until it was proven in the appeal court, not the police
officer and this is still the case to this day the police officer has done nothing wrong in everyone's eyes
when he did do wrong. He has been allowed to move on in his life, my son was the one spending all
the time to clear his name not the police officer when my son had done nothing wrong.

"[ ... ] Which is obviously ... we're in an awkward situation as well because [Data Subject] and
[Data Subject] mum are constantly ringing us up. They don't understand that obviously we
are going to take a police officer's views over obviously one of our policyholders because
obviously a police officer's job is obviously to tell the truth and not to lie."

3488