Page 327 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 3rd Half

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
3551,
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 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 had done nothing wrong. "[ ...]
Which is obviously ... we're in an awkward situation as well because [Data Subject] and
[Data Subject] mum is constantly ringing us up. They don't understand that obviously we are
going to take a police officer's views over obviously one of our policyholders because
obviously, a police officer's job is obviously to tell the truth and not to lie." This is the action
of most people’s view but in this case the police officer was not telling the truth my son was.
And my son was the one being made to suffer when he had not done anything wrong. But yet
people believe the police in everything they say. I know you have said PC G's current
occupation; I can assure you it would have no bearing on this matter whatsoever. Maybe I see
it another way his occupation is Head of Criminal Justice, Centre for Social Justice, can’t you
see the irony in this he is trying to find justice for people, but what he did in this case was
never justice at his own hands, the DPS never served justice for my son, yet they knew PC G
had lied in this whole case, and that PC G took it to the courts and again never told the truth
and perjury himself two times in a court of law. PC G seems to think this is acceptable he still
applied for his job roll where he is working to make sure justice is fair for all. I am sure if he