Page 627 - tmp

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 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

3605