Page 525 - 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table All

To: 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 proforma 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 their 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
3380,
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