Page 582 - tmp

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."
This is the action of most peoples view but in this case the police officer was not telling the
truth my son was. And my son was the one being made to suffer when he had not done
anything wrong. But yet people believe the police in everything they say.
I know you have said PC G's current occupation; I can assure you it would have no
bearing on this matter whatsoever.
Maybe I see it another way his occupation is Head of Criminal Justice, Centre for Social
Justice, cant you see the irony in this he is trying to find justice for people, but what he did
3560