Page 594 - tmp

'Setting the bar and upholding standards without fear or favour’

From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 07 August 2017 17:31
To: Newman Jamie M ‐ HQ Directorate of Professional Standards
<Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: RE: Our meeting today.

Dear Jamie

Thank you for the update reply.

Due to never seeing PC G statement written after what happened on the day, and never
having access to any documents since, I rely on what was said in court from PC G and
also the 1st report after the 1st investigation that the DPS did, which you are now redoing
due to what the IPCC said.

PC G stated there was no notebook in court; he stated Mr Cordell was arrested due to him
not giving his details so they could be confirmed he stated Mr Cordell had said he was
homeless. But Mr Cordell knew there was a notebook he saw PC G writing in it on the day
he was arrested, and knew he had given his details as if he had not how would PC G have
been able to speak to the insurance 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

3572