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

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
3438,3439,3440,3441,3442,

3
LEMMYS Index I received on the 25/06/2018
Defence statement / New 2 Injunction / Indexed
/ Page Numbers: 304-305-306

CLAIM NUMBER: D02EDO73

IN THE EDMONTON COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN:

{CLAIMANT}