Full report and background of case on Richie Allen show
Kent Police officers have been arrested for manipulating crime figures, are they still “Crime Farming?” Mark Windows .with Chuck O Chelli (above) .
Kent Police regularly uploaded pictures to Crimestoppers “Most Wanted”. This case resulted in their entire Crimestoppers “Most Wanted” gallery being taken down. PCs’ Wood and Chase of Medway Police assaulted and battered a defence witness. destroyed evidence and perverted the course of justice and there is much more to expose the disgraceful tactics and contempt for the public by Kent Police in this exposure of Kents Cime Farmers!
Here is the full story: The CPS and Kent Police Exposed in this full length show from Windows on the World
Kent Police assaulted a witness, blocked evidence, perverted the course of justice, destroyed evidence and failed to supply essential defence evidence. They breached the human rights of the lady they arrested and deprived her of essential medication. She was under duress and not competent during her interview in custody at Medway Police station. Although her first language is Hindi she was deprived of an interpreter. After two years we finally have the custody interview and it varies much from the transcript. Essential defence evidence was left out and Kent Police failed to comply with their obligations, the lady in custody clearly did not understand PACE and reported that she was instructed by the Duty Solicitor that she could not say “No Comment” and should answer questions. There is time missing from the transcript and many other anomalies. (Kent police refused to supply the audio of the interview requested formerly on 15/11/2015 and many times following this.) The lies and obsfucation in this case were presented to Alan Pughsley the Chief Constable of Kent but he has refused to respond. We will print the correspondence shortly.
MORE CRIME FARMING NEWS
SOME OF MUCH CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE MATTER
Corespondence regarding lies told by Legal Department of Kent Police to MP Gordon Henderson
Your Ref: GH1358/JM
Mr. Cacciarro ref: 17/1916/GC/C
Dear Mr. Henderson,
I have noted MrGiovanni Cacciacarro’s response to you on 29/11/17 and wish to inform you of the following:
Mr. Cacciacarro states in his letter that the matter was allocated to him in personam, unfortunately he has misinformed you and failed to address the matter.
His statement that the audio was requested by “a third party with no entitlement” is false.There was no request to Kent Legal Services Department for an audio recording of Miss Rai Mr. Frith.
Mr. Frith as an independent third party requested information on the obligations of the Legal Department to which Mr. Cacciacarro sent the following response on 12/9/17 re their duty of disclosure (which Kent Police have failed to comply with since 15/11/2015). This was his only correspondence in the matter.
Dear Mr Frith,
I refer to your email dated 12 September 2017 at 4.38pm addressed to Inspector West and copied to the Chief Constable which has been allocated to me. I apologise for the delay in responding.
The police service and the Crown Prosecution Service have disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996; in particular, there is a duty to disclose material obtained during the course of an investigation which is capable of undermining the case for the prosecution or assisting the case of the defence, subject to public interest immunity. The following guidelines published by the Attorney General are also relevant. (full e mail available and online)
Mr Giovanni Cacciacarro
Legal Services Department
(As we have previously stated the audio was requested by Saunders solicitors and Miss Rai, I followed up the matter and the other important issues as my evidence had been blocked, I had been assaulted and Kent police had perverted the course of justice and destroyed evidence. I also have written authority from Miss Rai to act on her behalf. I also pointed out the libel against Miss Rai by Kent police and their agents including the prejudice of her trial. This resulted in their entire Crimestoppers “Most Wanted” gallery being removed)
We have the full record of all correspondence and a record of all phone calls to the Legal Department.
Mr. Cacciacarro also claims that “Kent police Criminal Justice Department provided a copy of the defendants custody record and interview disc to The Crown Prosecution Service on 5 May 2016 ..”
The question remains as to why Kent Police Legal services failed to comply with their own legal obligations to supply Miss Rai and her legal defence with the audio which, as stated (in his only) earlier response is the legal duty and the obligation of Kent Police Legal Services Dept and indeed himself.
The letter also states that “Criminal proceedings are not yet concluded”, the reason for this is entirely the fault of Kent Police, as Alan Pughsley the Chief Constable is fully aware.
One of the many excuses for not supplying the audio to Miss Rai and her defence was that there was an appeal in progress which, was untrue as it was Kent Police holding up any chance of appeal by not fulfilling their legal requirements of disclosure, which as they are aware is needed for any future appeal.
This latest letter is part of a chain of evidence which proves that Kent Police Legal services dept and Professional Standards have as we previously stated given a number of derisory excuses but have failed to fulfill their legal obligations
The most recent was from Sonya Gransden who stated that on the 10th November I had been told by Legal Services that the request was “Out of time parameters”, this was an out and out lie as I have a full record of the call and it is now in the public domain. The excuse was also without standing as the audio had been requested since 15/11/2015.
As I stated in the call to Kent Legal Services on the 10th that if there was no response to the request by 13th Nov the matter would be made public by their tacit agreement, the agent for Kent Police Legal Services “Sara” agreed to these terms.
Miss Rai has had her case prejudiced by Kent Police, she has been libeled by them and their third party agents through Crimestoppers and Kent Online,
I was the only defence witness, and the only actual witness to the alleged assault on the female complainant.
We have already reported on the fact the the police and CPS were found to have withheld defence evidence in 55.5 percent of examined cases in the recent HMIC and The CPS Inspectorate report.
When I offered my evidence I was assaulted by two Officers of Kent police, I had my evidence blocked twice and Kent Police further perverted the course of justice by destroying defence evidence with the complicity of the desk sergeant on 8/11/2015. All chain of evidence procedure was broken by these officers.
As stated the interview transcript of Miss Rai has many anomalies and no audio ref. number. Miss Rai was also denied her essential medication and pleads for her medication as she is uncontrollably shaking but this request was ignored by PC 9994 Fowler Wright and duty solicitor Margaret Hyde, neither of who stopped the interview and carried on with leading questions in a bullying manner which is clearly not properly understood by Miss Rai whos first language is Hindi.
The taking down of the entire Kent “Most Wanted “ gallery after the intervention of Lord Ashcroft, Crimestoppers Chair of Trustees proves that Miss Rai should never have been placed upon the site or libeled with a headline supplied by their agents, Kent Online that states she was wanted for “robbery, rape, people smuggling and more”. There is no evidence that this did not prejudice her trial as it was online at least six months before the trial along with being on the “Most Wanted” gallery both nationally and in Kent.
Solicitor Richard Parry at Saunders has been sent the letter which was sent by Mr. Cacciacarro to yourself and we now need to know if this statement is correct re: disclosure to the CPS. Mr. Parry will investigate this.
The actions of Kent Police and my evidence against them is in the public domain and a matter of national interest as they have recently been exposed for manipulating crime figures and there is no evidence that this has ceased after the
investigation by HMIC which resulted in the arrest of several Kent Police Officers.
Chief Constable Alan Pughsley has accepted all these facts.
I trust you will address these very serious issues on behalf of myself, Miss Rai and your constituents.
Previous correspondence Re: Lies of Kent Police
Alan Pughsley, Chief Constable of Kent Police failed to respond to all correspondence.
Notice to Alan Pughsley in personam
Following our recent correspondence this is a now public interest matter in the public domain:
You accept that the removal of Miss Aelina Rai from Kent Crimestoppers “Most Wanted” gallery following our complaint to Lord Ashcroft about the treatment of Miss Rai and the libelling of her through your third party agents resulted in the entire Kent Police “Most Wanted” Crimestoppers gallery being removed by yourself.
You accept that you have have branded hundreds of people as “Most Wanted” through your Wanted Persons Bureau and placed them on The Crimestoppers website and you now admit by their removal that this was not only unneccessary but grossly misleading to the public and extremely detrimental to the people you unneccessarily placed on the site.
You admit personnal and professional liability under the indemnity of Kent Police for future claims and Class Action which will be brought by those you have libelled.
There is no evidence that Kent Police did not uneccessarily prejudice trials, pervert the course of justice and abuse the Crimestoppers “Most Wanted” gallery and it is believed that none exists
You accept that you have failed to respond at all to the serious allegations brought to your attention regarding the conduct of your officers and staff dating back to 8/11/15 and most recently on 29/10/17 and 7/11/17.
You accept that your Legal Services Department, Professional Standards and the IPCC have all failed to supply evidence which they have a legal duty to supply.
You accept that these organizations were given a final chance to remedy on 10/11/17
Both Professional Standards and your Legal Department have accepted they were complicit in perverting the course of justice and withholding evidence on your behalf and under your full public and professional liability and the full indemity of Kent Police.
The audio recording of Miss Rai’s police interview was formally requested from the Legal Department by recorded delivery 0n 15th November 2015 by Miss Rai and also Saunders solicitors using the information supplied to her by Kent Police.
On 23/10/17 Rose Tonbridge in your Professional Standards Dept not only obsfuscated but also failed to answer calls following an entirely dishonest response she had sent from the IPCC. (This was confirmed by Christopher Wright in the Wanted Persons Bureau and also the Kent Police switchboard.)
You accept that your own Legal Department, Professional Standards and The IPCC acting for Kent Police have blocked crucial defence evidence which they were obliged to supply.
This was confirmed on your behalf by Mr, Giovanni Cacciacarro from your Legal Department on 22/9/17. He stated on your behalf and your own personnal and professional liabilty under full indemity of Kent Police that:
“The police service and the Crown Prosecution Service have disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996; in particular, there is a duty to disclose material obtained during the course of an investigation which is capable of undermining the case for the prosecution or assisting the case of the defence, subject to public interest immunity.”
You accept that officers of Medway Police assaulted a defence witness to block evidence, destroyed evidence and further perverted the course of justice with the complicity of the Desk Sergeant who participated in perverting the course of justice by breaking all chain of evidence procedure on 8/11/2015
You accept that Medway Police further blocked defence evidence by refusing to take a witness statement from the only defence witness and telling him to leave the station on 8/11/2015 upon the orders of the Desk Sergeant.
You accept that you and your agents have failed and now refuse to supply the audio recording of Miss Rai’s interview ever since it was first requested from legal services by recorded delivery on 15/11/2015
You accept our allegations that the interview transcript contains phrases not known by Miss Rai (and the many further anomalies and omissions we reported) thus indicating strongly that Kent Police have further perverted the course of justice.
There is no evidence that officers of Kent police did not knowingly and with malice pervert the course of justice and it is believed that none exists.
You accept that Miss Rai was in custody for 19 hours and denied her essential medication during the interview (which was in the posession of the interviewing officer) and was in a state of extreme anxiety and distress and that PC 9994 Fowler Wright and Duty solicitor Margaret Hyde conducted the interview whilst Miss Rai was under extreme duress and not comepetent.
You accept that Miss Rai was not offered an interpreter (her first language is Hindi) when it is clear her understanding of the officers bullying approach and leading questions could not be properly understood by Miss Rai.
There is no evidence that Kent Police were not involved in conspiring against Miss Rai, denying her human rights, breaking lawful procedure and participating in physical and psychological torture of Miss Rai in breach of her human rights and it is believed that none exists.
You accept that the arresting officers untrue testimony further perverted the course of justice.
We hereby accept that all the above testimony and that previously sent to you and acknowledged by yourself has now been accepted by yourself and is a public interest matter and in the public domain.
We will therefore be asking publicly for your resignation along with the Officers who perverted the course of justice and all those who conspired with them to do so, including, but not limited to: The Legal Dept. Professional Standards and IPCC.
Previous correspondence: Re Lord Ashcroft and Crimestoppers Charitable Trust
20th Oct 2017:
To: Lord Ashcroft and board of Trustees
Crimestoppers Charitable Trust
Please Take Notice:
As Chair of Board of Trustees this e mail is for the attention of Lord Ashcroft only.
I wish to bring to your attention some very serious issues regarding the Crimestoppers website and the criteria for uploading peoples photographs to “Most Wanted” by the Police.
The e mails below make it absolutely clear that in this case (and possibly many more) the person whose life has been ruined and trial has been prejudiced should never have been placed on Crimestoppers “Most Wanted”, as at the time she was placed on the site and paraded like a dangerous criminal she was in fact visiting her grandmother in Nepal.
Miss Rai was placed on the site in March 2016, her trial had no date set and was eventually heard in her absense in June 2017. The whole process is now under investigation.
As you will see below Miss Rai remains on page 6 of Crimestoppers Most Wanted.
As Chair of Trustees I am requesting your urgent response to this matter.
There was no evidence against Miss Rai and witness evidence was blocked and evidence withheld and destroyed by Kent police.
Miss Rai was also paraded as “Most Wanted” by Kent Online with their libellous Heading (which they created) ”Wanted for rape, robbery, people smuggling and more”.
This is just one of many other issues in this case which is now under investigation.
As chair I request that you honour your position as Trusteee and act accordingly, any response such as “it is all down to the police” is not acceptable. I am holding you and the board of Trustees to your Oath and Duty.
This matter is in the public interest and follows the framing of an inncocent man by two malicious and lying PCSO officers who uploaded his picture to Crimestoppers and stated he was wanted for a hit and run offence earlier this year. The two are now in prison.
As recorded above.
Notice to Alan Pughsley in Personam
Accepted by tacit agreement.
Following my e mail to Lord Ashcroft and the removal of Miss Aelina Rai from the Kent Police “Most Wanted” gallery I need now to inform you of the other serious issues surrounding this case. I have tried for two years to get important matters disclosed in relation to this case.
The audio recording of Miss Rais’ police interview was formally requested in November 2015 by Saunders solicitors. A litany of unsatisfactory and derisory excuses have been produced as to why the audio has not been provided. These excuses reflect very badly on the integrity of Medway police. The Legal department, Professional Standards, Forces Control Room and the IPCC have treated myself and legal counsel with contempt.
Two officers from Kent Police attended my property in the early hours of 8/11/2015.
Miss Rai had been accused by a very drunk woman of an assault. I asked the officers to come into my property, my exact words were “Come in, I will tell you what happened”.
Officer 1 pushed me forcefully in the chest against the door whilst officer 2 grabbed my right arm and attempted to twist it.
Miss Rai had picked up a tablet and shouted ”Don’t do that ”, as she was recording the officers assaulting me. I was so shocked by their actions that I told them to leave.
Officer 1 then grabbed Miss Rai forcefully by the wrists and stated “That’s you nicked”.
Miss Rai and the tablet were taken into custody at Medway Police station.
Miss Rai spent some 19 hours in custody, during which time she did not have access to her essential medication, which she requires 4 times per day as treatment for severe hyperthyroidism. Without her medication she becomes extremely anxious and shakes uncontrollably.
In the transcript of her police interview, it is recorded that Miss Rai requests her medication and states that she can’t stop shaking, but she is told that she can have it after the interview is concluded. (it was in possession of the station staff)
When Miss Rai was finally released from custody she was given the tablet in an evidence bag which was blank and ripped open. There had been no chain of evidence record. When we checked the tablet, the files of the assault on me had been erased.
The desk sergeant who handed the evidence bag to Miss Rai before she left the station must have been aware that the bag was blank and ripped open.
The transcript of Miss Rai’s interview has some disturbing elements. There are several phrases attributed to Miss Rai which she does not know. Her first language is Hindi. She has since denied saying that she was drunk, as per the transcript and does not recognise some of what is attributed to her. I can confirm that Miss Rai was not drunk.
Miss Rai,’s solicitor stated to Spencer Duffy at Tasking and Warrants that she should not have been placed on Crimestoppers “Most Wanted” as she was visiting her dying grandmother in Nepal in early 2016. Her only bail conditions were that she should not speak to prosecution witnesses, so being in Nepal fitted those conditions. There was no trial date set. The trial took place in her absence in June 2017 and Miss Rai had pleaded not guilty and intended to attend trial.
The result of being paraded on Crimestoppers as a “Most Wanted” criminal and also being libelled by “Kent Live” with her picture prominently displayed with the headline “Wanted for Rape, Robbery, People Trafficking and more” traumatized her to the extent she sought psychiatric treatment in Nepal. Her extreme anxiety caused her severe mental health problems and she became too ill and terrified to return.
Miss Rai was severely beaten in a racial attack in 2014 at her business in Gillingham. She was also sexually assaulted on her own business premises and was fearful of the police as they had failed to properly investigate these attacks. Miss Rai is from a Gurkha family and had Gurkha friends in Chatham.
The disastrous effect this has had on the life of Miss Rai and also on me in seeking justice began with the actions of the two arresting officers, who I believe were referred to in testimony as PC’s Wood and Chase, but subsequently the actions of Medway Police exacerbated a bad situation.
In summary Mis Rai, a vulnerable person was kept in custody for 19 hours, denied her prescription medication, was not offered an interpreter although her English language skills are inadequate, subsequently denied, to this day, an audio copy of her police interview and further traumatised by being paraded on Crimestoppers.
It needs to be asked if either of the two arresting officers knew the alleged victim Collete Gibson or her son Samuel, as their actions make absolutely no sense unless there was some bias against Miss Rai. If this is not the case there may be a racist element to their actions as no due process was followed.
I was the only person present during the whole time of the alleged assault. The alleged victim’s son Samuel stated that he did not see an assault although he was never more than three feet from his mother. Despite my obvious value as a witness, no statement was taken from me and when I asked to make a statement I was told to leave the police station.
Collette Gibson had been asked to leave my property by Miss Rai because she was drunk and abusive. She had tripped over a swing on the decking of the property and forced her way back inside stating she had been assaulted. She was at the time about to go into a series of epileptic fits which would have wiped out her short term memory. This whilst also having been drinking for at least six hours and on three types of medication should have thrown doubt on her allegation. If my statement had been taken by the officers it is my view and that of legal counsel that the matter would not have got into court.
Regarding the Crimestoppers issue, please find below the emails from Miss Rais’ solicitor Richard Parry to Hunter Thorborn at Crimestoppers and PC Spencer Duffy at Kent Warrants and Tasking.
I now look to you to investigate this appalling issue in which Medway Police have ridden roughshod over the rule of law. There is something very wrong at Medway Police Station when officers are able to assault a member of the public, destroy evidence of that assault, ignore proper procedure for treatment of detained persons, and then abuse the Crime Stoppers process.
I hope this matter can be dealt with and the points raised responded to by yourself as a matter of urgency,
CORRESPONDENCE: KENT POLICE WARRANTS AND TASKING, LEGAL COUNSEL AND CRIMESTOPPERS:
Sent: 24 May 2016 16:52
To: Hunter Thorburn
Subject: Aelina Madsu Rai
Dear Mr Thorburn,
We write in relation to our above-named client Ms Rai who appears on your website as one of Kent’s “Most Wanted.”
We are slightly surprised at this, as it was explained in open court at Maidstone that Ms Rai is in Nepal, her home country where she is looking after her 95 year old grandmother.
It is not clear therefore why the Kent Police have decided to pass you her details. She is a woman of good character who has pleaded not guilty and a trial date has been set in January 2017.
We are a little concerned that the presentation of her as a MOST WANTED criminal may prejudice her case in front of the jury.
Perhaps you could inform us as to how her details appeared on your website, and whether you can now give some consideration to taking this down now that we have supplied you with the information above.
From Tasking and Warrants Kent Police:
Dear Mr Perry,
The information we have is that your client has failed to attend court for a Category ‘A’ serious offence and therefore fits the criteria for Crime Stoppers.
Our team are unaware of any court attendance and no revocation of the Warrant has been issued.
Our relentless pursuit policy means that Ms Rai will remain on the Crime Stoppers list until she is brought before the court.
Protecting and serving the people of Kent.
Sent: 03 June 2016 11:20
To: Spencer Duffy PS 46009213
Subject: RE: Aelina Madsu Rai
Dear PS Duffy, thanks for your reply,
Can you tell me the list of Cat A offences?
Also, do you have any policy in place that deals with possible prejudice in relation to jury trials, as potential jurors may have seen the website in question?
Would it make a difference if the warrant was backed for bail?
Although the offence may be on your Cat A list, is any account taken of the circumstances before placing somebody on the Most Wanted list?
Trusting that you can answer my questions,
Date: 6 June 2016 12:23:30 BST
To: ‘Richard Parry’
Subject: RE: Aelina Madsu Rai
If you require any further information please contact the freedom of information unit by visiting the Kent Police Website.
The Lies from Kent police never stopped and the video of the police interview with Miss Rai was obtained from The Criminal Justice Unit. As stated above there is essential defence evidence omitted from the transcript and much more which indicates intentional withholding of defence evidence.