Page 602 - tmp

Subject: RE: Our meeting today.
Hello Lorraine,
Many apologies again for my delayed reply, it’s been a busy week or so.
I’ve had no response from PC G, the letter was sent recorded delivery. So far,
there’s nothing to say he no longer resides at the address etc. I’ll keep you updated
on that front. As it stands, should PC G choose to not assist then presently there is
little we could do to compel him to provide an account in the furtherance of the
investigation.
I note all of your comments in your email, I can assure you they will be taken into
account when I come to write my report.
Re PC G’s current occupation, I note your views. All I can say is that my review of
the evidence will be objective and governed by the information available to me.
If you’ve any questions for me at this stage, as ever, please do put them to me.
Kind regards
Jamie Newman | Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit (SMIU) | Directorate of
Professional Standards |
MetPhone 786675 | Telephone 0207 161 6675 | Email
Jamie.newman@met.pnn.police.uk
Address Empress State Building, 22nd Floor, Lillie Road, London, SW6 1TR
'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
3580