Complaints against Senior Officers

Please disclose the number and nature of complaints reported against Cheshire Police Authority's Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive between the years 2003 and 2009.

Please disclose the number and nature of complaints reported against Cheshire Police Authority Chief Executive Mark Sellwood and Deputy Chief Executive Damon Taylor between the years 2003 and 2009.

Please disclose the number of reported complaints reported against the above persons complaints that went on to be investigated by Cheshire Constabulary.

Please disclose the grounds (lawful excuse) for Cheshire Constabulary not having investigated complaints reported against the above persons.

Please disclose the number of complaints reported against Detective Superintendent Ian Wiggett between the years 2004 and 2004 alleging serious corruption pursuant to the IPCC's definition, including allegations of:-

• Perverting the course of justice
• Misconduct in public office

Please confirm the number of complaints or serious corruption reported against Detective Superintendent Wiggett that were subsequently referred to the IPCC by Cheshire Constabulary in accordance with s.17 of the Police Reform Act 2002

Please disclose the number of complaints reported against Deputy Chief Constable Graham Gerrard between the years 2003 and 2009 where it was alleged that Mr Gerrard may have committed serious corruption pursuant to the IPCC's definition, including:-

• perverting the course of public justice
• misconduct in public office

Please confirm the number of complaints subsequently referred to the IPCC by Cheshire Police Authority for further investigation in accordance with s.17 of the Police Reform Act 2002 between the years 2004 and 2009.

Please disclose the number of complaints reported against former Assistant Chief Constable David Baines between the years 2006 and 2009 where it was alleged that Mr Baines may have committed serious corruption pursuant to the IPCC's definition, including:-

• perverting the course of public justice
• misconduct in public office

Please confirm the number of complaints reported against Mr Baines subsequently referred to the IPCC by Cheshire Police Authority for further investigation in accordance with s.17 of the Police Reform Act 2002 between the years 2006 and 2009.

Please disclose the number of complaints reported against former Assistant Chief Constable Gary Shewan between the years 2006 and 2009 where it was alleged that Mr Shewan may have committed serious corruption pursuant to the IPCC's definition, including:-

• perverting the course of public justice
• misconduct in public office

Please confirm the number of complaints reported against Mr Shewan subsequently referred to the IPCC by Cheshire Police Authority for further investigation in accordance with s.17 of the Police Reform Act 2002 between the years 2006 and 2009.

Pease disclose the number of complaints reported against former Chief Constable Peter Fahy between the years 2004 and 2009 where it was alleged that Mr Fahy may have committed serious corruption pursuant to the IPCC's definition, including:-

• perverting the course of public justice
• misconduct in public office

Please confirm the number of complaints reported against Mr Fahy subsequently referred to the IPCC by Cheshire Police Authority for further investigation in accordance with s.17 of the Police Reform Act 2002 between the years 2004 and 2009.

The above requests have been amalgamated. This response is on behalf of both the Cheshire Constabulary and the Cheshire Police Authority.

Section 17(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows a public authority to issue a refusal notice, relying on a claim that section 14 applies must, within the time for complying with section 1 (1), give the applicant a notice stating that fact.

In line with the provisions of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, your request is refused as it has been deemed as a “vexatious request”.

Section 14(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

The reasons for this refusal are detailed below. In considering this refusal, I referred not only to the legislation itself, but also the Information Commissioners guidance on Vexatious and Repeated requests. This can be found at:

ICO Website

Under section 14(1), public authorities do not have to comply with vexatious requests. There is no public interest test.

Deciding whether a request is vexatious is a balancing exercise, taking into account the context and history of the request. The key question is whether the request is likely to cause unjustified distress, disruption or irritation. In particular, I will consider the following questions:

• Could the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
• Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
• Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
• Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
• Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

The Constabulary considers that the series of requests and general correspondence from you are part of a campaign to cause some or all of the effects outlined above, with a constant focus on issues surrounding a number of complaints made by you in relation to various members of the Constabulary and the Police Authority.

A summary of evidence is provided as follows: -

Since 2001 following discipline proceedings against you whilst a serving officer you have made accusations of corruption and criminality against officers and former officers of the Constabulary, executive officers of the Cheshire Police Authority, members of the IPCC and government ministers.

Your complaints and your subsequent appeals have been investigated and found to be without substance.

Your requests for information under the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act have been in pursuit of your allegations.

You currently have 30 requests under the FOI Act to the Constabulary, the Cheshire Police Authority, other constabularies and authorities, the IPCC and the Home Office all of which are in pursuit of your allegations.

The amount of correspondence received from you by the Constabulary and by the Police Authority is considerable. For example the list below is summary of correspondence regarding you and the Police Authority. It is not a complete record.

• 05/06/04 & 06/09/04 - emails received
• 01/01/05 - 16 page letter received by Constabulary re: officers involved in complaint investigation
• 14/01/05 - Letter received that Ombudsman now been contacted about complaint (Ombudsman took no further action due to lack of jurisdiction)
• 29/01/05 - further letter re: involvement of officers in case
• 22/06/06 - letter re: complaint
• 04/07/06 - further detailed letter received by PSD
• 06/07/06 - letter to PSD to confirm who investigating complaint
• 11/07/07 - further letter to PSD
• 11/11/06 - four page email sent to all Members of the Authority about complaint
• 14/11/06 - further email to all members re: related issues
• 15/12/06 - further email copied to Members alleging deception, abuses of authority and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice etc.
• 15/03/07 - eight page letter received (now implicating members of the Police Authority in the conspiracy)
• 21/03/07 - FoI request received (14 questions regarding complaint)
• 30/03/07 - further letter re: complaint
• 02/04/07 - email received
• 12/04/07 - IPCC do not uphold appeal by Tomlinson
• 23/04/07 - email
• 05/06/07 - IPCC do not uphold further appeal by Tomlinson
• 06/07/07 - email received re: unrecorded and un-investigated crimes
• 09/07/07 - email to PSD
• 10/07/07 - further email to PSD
• 30/07/07 - further email received
• 19/11/07 - seven page email received
• 19/11/07 - five page letter on same issues
• 09/01/08 - long email received
• 14/01/08 - further email
• 16/01/08 - email to PSD
• 17/01/08 - further email
• 09/06/08 - further email
• 12/06/09 - IPCC confirm allegations not proven

The Command Team offices (ACPO), Professional Standards Department and the Information Management Department (DP & FOI) all have numerous letters and emails from you in pursuit of your allegations. In very many cases you have followed up your initial requests or complaints with further correspondence which has added additional requests or further complaints.

It is my opinion that these requests clearly demonstrate your obsession. Whether you intend it or not they have the effect of harassing the Authorities. They impose a significant burden on the Authorities resources in dealing with your requests, investigating your repeated complaints and the inevitable appeals and lack any serious purpose or value

The Cheshire Constabulary and Cheshire Police Authority do not take the application of S14 of the Act lightly, as the removal of an individual’s or group’s legal right is a serious matter. If you wish to submit any more requests for information under the FOIA legislation, Cheshire Constabulary will reconsider its stance on a case-by-case basis. Provided that future requests do not cause any of the effects outlined in this letter or fulfil the Information Commissioner’s definition of vexatious, then they will be considered. If not, this letter serves as notice that you will receive no further correspondence in relation to any requests.