Page 736 - tmp

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

3714