~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
POLICE INVESTIGATION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It could be seen that Judge Simpson's motive, for altering the evidence of the two Police Officers was to protect them from the consequences of their obvious perjury, so I was reluctant to report Judge Simpson and Mrs. West to the Humberside Police, for the matter to be investigated by them, because Janice and myself had made official complaints against thE arresting Officers after I'd been acquitted at my trial and those Officers had been exonerated at the conclusion of that investigation, therefore, I had no confidence that the matter of the false transcripts would be thoroughly investigated as a consequence of the vested interest that the Police would have.
Under the circumstances: I couldn't really imagine that the Police would whole-heartedly investigate a corrupt act for which the motive had been their own protection.
It would have been unrealistic of me to have thought that the matter
would be thoroughly investigated, but the Police were in a far better position
than I to investigate the matter and
even although I didn't think for one second that the outcome of a Police
investigation would be favourable to me, it was really the correct thing
to do, because the allegations being of a criminal nature, it really was
a matter for the Police..
In January of I996, I did act on the advice given to me by the Criminal Operations Branch of the Chancellor's Department by sending a signed statement under the cover of a letter dated the 8th of January I996, for the matter to be investigated.
It may be of interest if I give an account of the relevant correspondence
between the Police and
myself, starting with my signed statement, to determine whether the
investigation was conducted with enthusiasm, tolerance, or downright reluctance.
My statement to the Humberside Police.
Statement of James Frederick Hulbert ,alleging fabrication of Notes
of Evidence. 8/I/96.
On the I3th of December I99I I was acquitted of two alleged offences
at Hull Crown Court.
I was not legally represented at the trial. The trial Judge was Judge
Simpson.
I was subsequently represented by Solicitors' in a Civil litigation in which transcripts of notes of evidence taken down by the trial shorthand writer: Mrs. S.M. West were obtained.
Upon my examination of the transcripts of the purported evidence given by a Police Sergeant and former Special Constable I noticed that parts of their evidence had been fabricated.
The false evidence was taken down by Mrs. West and dictated by Judge Simpson and I have sworn two affidavits to that effect dated the IOth of February I995 and 20th March I995.
A civil action is progressing in the High Court, against Judge Simpson and Mrs. West and details of the fabricated parts of the evidence are given in the Statement of Claim.
I represented myself at my trial and now believe that it is significant that the parts of the record of evidence that have been tampered with were not referred to in either my evidence, or my summing up, which are :-
(i) The Police Sergeants' evidence;
(ii) the Special Constable's evidence purporting to support the taxi driver's false statement;
(iii) the Judge's remarks - page 7,A,B,C and D of the transcript of the Special Constable's evidence about her notebook and page 25,B of the transcript of the Sergeant's evidence:
I do not believe that Mrs. West would have dared to tamper with the evidence without being influenced by Judge Simpson, nor would she have had any other reason to tamper with it.
Mrs. West would not have attributed remarks to Judge Simpson that he hadn't made without being instructed to by him.
Neither the Police, nor the Prosecution would have attempted to influence Mrs. West into writing false evidence.
Mrs. West's time in the Courtroom was spent seated near to Judge Simpson and it is quite likely that when adjournments were made she had access to quarters near to his Chambers.
I believe that Judge Simpson's motive in tampering with the evidence was to protect the Officers' from an allegation of perjury.
The only independent people in the Courtroom while the evidence was
given were the twelve Jurors and because of the unexpected and surprising
change of evidence of the Sergeant I believe that they will remember it
and it may be that the Court will release their identity at the request
of the Police to
further the investigation.
Mrs. West has consistently declined to certify her transcripts as being
a complete and correct account of the proceedings to the best of her skill
and ability as she is required by law to
do, (para. I374, Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure, (b) Volume
Eleven and the nearest she has come to certifying her transcripts
is to certify that they are a complete and correct account of her shorthand
notes, which I do not dispute, because it is her shorthand notes of the
proceedings (evidence) that are fabricated and she will not certify her
transcripts as being a complete and correct account of the proceedings,
or evidence, as given by the witnesses.
This statement, written in my own hand voluntarily, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signed J.F Hulbert.
Dated 8th January I996.
Acknowledgement of my letter of complaint came two days later from
Police Headquarters, informing me that the writer hoped to be in a position
to contact me again within the next two,
or three weeks and on the I9th of January the writer: Detective Superintendent
J.F.S. Hunter, wrote to me, requesting copies of the documents that I'd
referred to in my letter of the 8th of January, which were duly delivered
by hand to Police Headquarters.
At II am. on the IOth of April, which was over three months after I'd reported the matter, I was interviewed at our home by a Detective Inspector hunter, who was accompanied by a Sergeant.
I wasn't surprised at the way the interview was conducted, although I was a little disappointed at its conclusion and my disappointment can best be described by the content of the recorded delivery letter that I sent to the Superintendent who I assumed, had assigned the case to the Inspector, who had conducted the interview.
Superintendent,
Operations Support,
Divisional Support Branch,
Police Headquarters,
Hull.
I7th April I996,.
Dear Sir,
JUDGE SIMPSON & MRS. WEST
RE: MY INTERVIEW BY DET. INSPECTOR, 11.00 am. IOth APRIL I996
During the course of the above interview the Det. Inspector informed me that neither, Mrs. West's former employer, nor Judge Simpson would be interviewed to answer my allegations and this concerns me because e, with due respect, an investigation without having their version of events heard, or their statements being taken down, can not be considered to be a full and thorough one.
Civil proceedings are continuing against Judge Simpson and Mrs. West, when it may well be that either, or both parties will refer to the investigation as it is relevant and in that event it will be desirable that the investigation is thorough, with statements taken from all concerned and I ask for your assurance that the investigation will be a full and thorough one, with such statements taken down.
My statement of the 8th of January I996, does state that, Mrs. West's
former employer is aware of
her involvement, it follows that he has knowledge of Judge Simpson's
criminal conduct also and in any event, if I am wrong and her former
employer has no knowledge of their mis-conduct, it can only be used to
discredit me.
If her former employer isn't interviewed, it is possible for the adverse inference to be taken and if Judge Simpson and Mrs. West are blameless, it is in their interests that, her employer is interviewed.
I understand from the Inspector that the purpose of my interview was to obtain evidence in support of my allegations and the impression I got was that, in his opinion, there is no supporting evidence.
The Inspector accepts that the Custody Sergeant did change his evidence
after Judge Simpson informed the Jury that they could examine my Custody
Record, when the Sgt. testified that he did
write the words "Assault Police" in the "Reasons for Arrest" panel
of the record.
Since the Inspector accepts that the Sgt. did change his evidence and
since it is a fact that the transcript of the Sgt's evidence purports that
he did not change his evidence, but purports that he consistently testified
that he wrote "Assault Police", it is clear that either the transcript
is false or,
alternatively, the Inspector's acceptance that the Sergeant changed
his evidence, is wrong.
The Inspector is not wrong;: it is the transcript that is false and
again, that is evidence in support of my allegations.
I refer to the accurate transcript of Judge Simpson's Summing
Up; prepared by Mrs. West's former employer, that refers to the evidence
of the Special Constable and point out that Judge Simpson told the Jury
that the Special Constable's evidence was that she made up her notebook
at the same time as the other Officers: at 1.30 in the morning, but Mrs.
West's transcript of the Special Constable's evidence purports that the
Special Constable made up her notes at I2.30.
Obviously, both transcripts can not be accurate in that respect, but
what really concerns me is that the Inspector has stated, to me, that it
was Judge Simpson that was wrong about the time, despite my assurance that
the transcript of the Judge's Summing Up is correct and that it is Mrs.
West's transcript of the Special Constable's evidence that is false.
The Inspector has not explained his reasoning to me for saying that
the Judge's Summing Up is incorrect since, neither Judge Simpson, nor the
shorthand writer who prepared the transcript of
his Summing Up, had at that time been interviewed. It would be helpful
to me, if you will inform me, me, after conferring with the
Inspector, why he is sure that it is Judge Simpson's Summing Up and not
the transcript prepared by Mrs. West that is wrong, because, regardless
of what weight is taken from the contradictory transcripts, it is evidence
that can support my allegation.
During the course of my interview, conducted by the Inspector, I referred
to the rules governing verification of transcripts and pointed out that
Mrs. West had not complied with the rules in
her purported certification of her transcripts and I did invite him
to examine a photocopy of the rules supplied to me by a Solicitor. He declined
to look at the rules, but he did inform me that they were out of date,
so for that reason I enclose, herewith, a further copy.
I do not believe that my Solicitor would have supplied me with out of
date rules and I rely on them in the civil proceedings I have referred
to. (para. I374 (b)
I will be grateful if you will inform me if the Inspector is correct,
or not, about them being out of date.
I hope you will comment on the points raised in this letter and assure me that the investigation will be a full and thorough one, despite the Office held by Judge Simpson.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.H.
Acknowledgement of the recorded letter came from the Superintendent within three days, which simply said, "I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the I7th of April I996 and can assure that the matter is receiving attention.
It was a very brief reply from the Superintendent, to a long letter from myself, that didn't address my specific request to him, to comment on the points raised in my letter.
I don't doubt that the Superintendent will have discussed my letter with the Inspector and it is significant that in the Superintendent's reply to me he didn't dispute the fact that the Inspector had told me that it was Judge Simpson's Summing Up that was wrong, nor did he dispute the fact that the Inspector had told me that the rules governing verification of transcripts, that I'd invited him to read, were out of date and perhaps, the most important point that he didn't dispute, as that the Inspector had told me that the Sergeant had changed his evidence whilst testifying, in contrast to the purported evidence in Mrs. West's transcript.
I don't doubt either, that if the Inspector had disagreed with the points raised in my letter; the Superintendent would have been only too pleased to put me right.
Twelve weeks later, on the 9th of July and having heard no more from the Inspector about matters relating to the progress of his investigation I wrote him the following letter:
Police Headquarters,
Queens Gardens,
Hull.
9th July I996.
Dear Detective Inspector,
RE: JUDGE SIMPSON & MRS. WEST.
I refer to our telephone conversation of last Wednesday the 3rd of July, when I told you that I would send you a copy of Mrs. West's affidavit, as to the accuracy of her transcript.
I am unable to send you a copy because she and/or her Solicitor have failed to serve one.
As I believe I've told you, a High Court Judge sitting in Leeds has said that my Statement of Claim does show a cause of action however, she did grant the request made by Counsel, for an adjournment for a period of up to 6 weeks to allow Mrs. West to swear an affidavit and to provide her shorthand notes and I agreed to the adjournment because I knew that the provision of her notes would prove my case, or alternatively, if they were not provided, my case would be considerably strengthened.
I have been informed by phone, by Mrs. West's Solicitor, on the 26th of June, that I will not be sent a copy of them and this despite Counsel's plea for time for that purpose.
To tell the Court that I would be provided with the copies in order to disprove my allegations and then to renege, I believe, means that my allegations are well founded.
The shorthand notes are fundamental to my allegations and also, with respect, to your investigation, so can I have your assurance that Mrs. West's shorthand notes will be examined and also that written statements are taken from the potential witnesses and in particular from Mrs. West.
I believe that the refusal to serve the documents is significant and hope that the adverse inference that may be taken may be helpful.
Please phone me should anything in this letter need clarifying.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.H.
Exactly three weeks after having sent the letter and not having received a response to it, I sent the Inspector a further letter, dated the 3Ist of July:
Police Headquarters,
Queens Gardens,
Hull.
3Ist July I996.
Dear Inspector,
I refer to my letter to you of the 9th of July, asking for your assurance that Mrs. West's shorthand notes will be examined in connection with your investigation and that signed, written statements will be taken down from the potential witnesses and in particular from Mrs. West. I'll be grateful for an early reply, because I've been trying to contact you by phone regarding this matter, without success.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.H.
Again, there was no response to the letter and on the 8th of August I wrote to him again, because a very important piece of evidence had come to light in the form of a witness statement made by the Special Constable who's evidence had been tampered with and I believed that this letter must provoke a response from the Inspector, but in order to play it safe I also sent a copy of the witness statement to his Superintendent D/S Hunter, by recorded delivery post, on the I3th of August.
Police Headquarters,
Queens Gardens,
8th August I996.
Dear Inspector,
I have been examining the documents relating to our action against the Humberside Police, which as you know, has been resolved, to determine whether there is any documentary evidence that is relevant to the false transcript prepared by Mrs. West and I have come across a document that is relevant and is an important piece of evidence that should be considered by the CPS.
The document that I refer to is a copy of a witness statement, signed by the former Special Constable on the 4th of May I995, taken down by the Solicitor who acted for the Police, in which paragraph 26, relating to her notes, gives an entirely different account to that of her purported evidence relating to her notes in Mrs. West's transcript.
I will be grateful if you will acknowledge this letter in writing and let me know if you will forward this letter to the CPS. for them to decide its worth.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.H.
On the 14 August 1996 DI Hunter wrote to me to inform me that the police file concerning my allegations was currently being considered by the Crown Prosecution service and that he'd be happy to pass on any further evidence that i might have in order that they may take due account of it.
On the 30th of August 1996 the Inspector acknowledged receipt of my letter to his Superintendent, which had enclosed the copy witness statement and my reply to the letter was:
Dear Inspector,
6th September I996.
Thank you for your letter of the 30th of .August I996.
I am pleased that you are attempting to gain access to the original shorthand notes of Mrs. West. If you are successful in obtaining the original notes you will find alterations and deletions etc. and since I know the truth I am in a position to be able to say that if no alterations, or deletions exist on the notes, they can't be authentic and forensic examination will be advisable for dating purposes.
I shall be asking the Court to order the release of the originals for examination, in due course, if they are not released voluntarily.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.H.
After a telephone conversation with the Inspector on the I9th of September I sent him the following letter on the 25th September:
Special Investigation Section,
Priory Road Police Station,
Priory Road,
Hull. .
25th September I996.
Dear Inspector,
SIMPSON & WEST
Further to our telephone conversation last Thursday, I9th September.
I appreciate your efforts to obtain Mrs. West's original shorthand
notes and note that your request has been refused.
With the greatest of respect your reasoning, in that there is
nothing more you can do until the forthcoming hearing in the High Court,
that is not correct.
Mr. Shepheard, of the Treasury Solicitor's office does have the original
notes in his possession (phone OI7I 2I0 3000, and there is no valid, or
honest reason that can make him refuse a
request from you to provide you with a photocopy of Mrs. West's notes;
that should be a simple matter and again, with respect, I can see no reason
why you shouldn't ask for a copy.
The value to you in obtaining a copy is clear; it can be transcribed and compared with the transcript and if it is an authentic copy it, will show deletions and additions to prove my allegations, in any event that will be a reasonable thing to do, if only to test my credibility.
If your request for a copy is refused you stand to gain in the knowledge
that those representing Judge Simpson and Mrs. West must be aware that
the transcripts are false; there could be no
other reason for not providing a copy.
I would appreciate your assurance, either in writing, or by phone, that you will make the request and keep me informed of the outcome.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.H.
Two days later I sent the Inspector the following letter :
Special Investigations Section,
Priory Road Police Station,
Priory Road,
Hull.
27th September I996
Dear Inspector,
SIMPSON & WEST
Further to my letter of the 25th of September regarding a copy of Mrs. West's shorthand Notes.
I apologize for troubling you once again, however my allegations are of such a serious nature that I believe that every piece of potential evidence is vital and should be considered by the CPS.
I have been examining the Pleadings in the civil action and would like
to draw your attention to the Defendants' reply to my questions that are
stated in their Further and Better Particulars.
The reply I refer to is, - (quote) - "The Defendants' refuse to answer
any questions, or requests, the answers to which would tend to expose them
to criminal penalties." - (unquote) - They don't say could tend
to ...... etc. they
say would tend to ...... etc. and of course that is true.
So the Defendants' didn't answer the questions, the inference is that they would tend to expose themselves to criminal proceedings and it seems to me that the reply is tantamount to an admission.
I do bear in mind that you are/were of the opinion that there isn't evidence enough to warrant criminal proceedings, but in any event I'll be grateful if you'll bring the inference to the attention of the CPS. for their consideration. I do have an extra copy of the document if you require it for consideration.
Yours sincerely,
J. F. Hulbert.
This letter brought a response from the Inspector dated 2 October 1996, surprisingly within one week, to my offer to provide him with a copy of the Further and Better Particulars - "At this stage nothing further is being referred back to the Crown Prosecution Service. The sentence couched in legal jargon which you refer to is nothing more than the legal advisors of Mrs. West and Judge Simpson keeping their powder dry."
"Keeping their powder dry"? The truth of the matter was that there was
no powder to keep dry, because the legal advisors' were simply stating
the truth; the answers to the questions if
given, would tend to expose them to criminal penalties and if they
actually had reasonable answers to the allegations, they certainly wouldn't
have stated that the answers would tend to expose them.
After I'd examined Mrs. West's notes in her original shorthand books I informed the Inspector in writing, of their whereabouts:
5th November I996.
Dear Inspector,
Thank you for your letter dated 2nd October.
I write to inform you that Mrs. West's notebooks numbered 667 and 668 are now in Hull, in the custody of the Solicitor acting as agent for the Treasury Solicitor.
You may wish to take this opportunity to examine them while they are in Hull.
I examined the books yesterday, 4th of November and the books themselves contain conclusive evidence that they have been tampered with in the following respects :-
I. The Solicitor for the Defendants' has checked and agreed that
book 667 contains 78 sheets, that is to say, 56 pages.
The front cover states that the book contained I60 pages, it seems
that 2 sheets, or 4 pages are missing.
2. Damage to sheets at the top of the book can clearly be seen
in the book and in the photocopies that I have in my possession.
The damaged pages are the front cover and pages 02I, I24, I50,
I5I and I52, due to the removal of the wire coil and its replacement after
pages with the false evidence had been inserted. The pages are damaged
at their tops, there may be many more. After examination of book 668, it
seems that a third Police witnesses evidence may also have been tampered
with, because the book itself certainly has in the following respects.
I. As the photocopy of the front cover shows, as does the book,
the left end of the wire coil shows above the book. I've purchased two
Lairgate books from Lairgate in Beverley, because Mrs. West's books are
Lairgate books, that demonstrate that the left end of the wire coil is
tucked back inside
itself for safety reasons.
2. There is damage to the tops of pages on book 668, which are, the front cover, the first page, the 2nd page and pages 2 and 3 and there may be more.
3. It is agreed, with the Solicitor, that book 668 contains 79 sheets and if, as the book states, it contained I60 pages, then one sheet, or two pages are missing.
I'll be grateful if you'll confirm receipt of this notification of evidence.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.H.
Although I had specifically requested confirmation of receipt of my notification of the evidence of Mrs. West's shorthand books, confirmation didn't come so I became concerned and consequently, on the 11th of December, I phoned the Inspector, hoping to get confirmation from him of its receipt, but he was unable to give that confirmation, so on the I9th of December I sent him a recorded delivery letter, which was sent over six weeks after having notified him of the availability of the evidence. I sent the recorded delivery letter to him care of the Superintendent in command of the Police Station at which the Inspector was based, to be passed on to him.
19 December 1996,
Dear DI. Hunter,
Further to our telephone conversation on the 11th of December, during which you told me that you had been away on a murder enquiry and that therefore you were unable to confirm receipt of my letter of the 5th of November as you had a backlog of mail to catch up with. I have difficulty in believing that incoming mail isn't logged and is left unattended for a period of up to six weeks, particularly one containing notification of evidence relating allegations of serious criminal misconduct, but I accept that if you haven't been in your office for that period of time you may not have been kept up to date.
The evidence referred to in the letter as you know, are the original shorthand books of Mrs. West that have been tampered with, that were at the offices her Solicitor - photocopies of same, retained by myself - an original letter from a Solicitor to myself confirming the number of pages in each book, demonstrating that pages have been removed from them.
Your comment over the phone 'that even if you had taken the opportunity to have a sight of the original shorthand books they would have to be examined' is with due respect, nonsense.
There is no dispute about the number of pages in the books. The front covers of the books state that they contained I60 pages. It is evident without forensic examination, that pages have been damaged at their tops and that the wire page holder has been tampered with on one of the books, pages are missing and that is evidence
I have been doing my best to furnish you with material as evidence to assist you with your investigation and in all honesty, I'm less than happy about the manner in which you have responded.
Your failure for whatever reason, to acknowledge my letter of the 5th of November, or to act upon it, has prompted me to send any further correspondence and/or evidence by recorded delivery post, with a further precaution.
As you know, I have expressed dissatisfaction on the way that you have poured cold water over previous evidence that I've submitted to you; Mrs. West's certification and the rules that govern the verification of transcripts that you wrongly told me were out of date.
I appreciate that the way you conduct the investigation is a matter for you. but I can and do criticize your intention of not providing further evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service until you know the outcome of the civil action, because the investigation is supposedly independent of that action and the evidence has been made available to you.
I suggest that you can't be unaware that if I am successful in the litigation against Judge Simpson, our previous action against the Humberside Police will have to be investigated and no opportunity should be given for it to be said that your delaying tactics are designed to find out whether, or not, I am successful so that you can then decide how thoroughly you investigate the matter and/or what evidence to present to the CPS. and bearing in mind that a thorough investigation with available evidence presented could be detrimental to the interests of your force.
I am certain that, if asked, you would say that this factor plays no
part in the manner of your investigation, but no one would expect you to
say otherwise. Please therefore, continue with the investigation by showing
an interest in the evidence referred to in para. 3 of this letter, the
photocopies of the books and the conclusive evidence that I have, that
the books do not now contain the full complement of pages, because that
evidence will not change, regardless of the
outcome of the civil action and that evidence must be given to the
CPS. along with your report, in any event.
If you can't give me your assurance that every piece of evidence that I've given you will be forwarded to the CPS. I shall infer the worst from my point of view and you won't be surprised to know that if I think I have enough evidence I shall go as far as I can with criminal proceedings against Judge Simpson on my own account.
Judge Simpson, despite his office, is not above the law, as you know and a serious allegation has been made against him, perhaps the most serious, yet despite this, you refuse to put the question to him and that can't be right. because you have my signed statement and the evidence that I've provided. I can only infer that you are afraid that my allegations are true.
Despite what one might think about failing memory caused by the passage
of time, have you considered the possibility that the Jurors' at my trial
and the CPS. Law Clerk who assisted the
Prosecution, may assist your enquiry one way, or another?
I'm entitled to have the matter thoroughly investigated and if you disagree please be forthright with me by saying so. I will then know for certain where you stand.
I look forward to and request a substantive reply to this letter.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.H.
A one sentence reply came from the Inspector. It came on the IOth of January - "I write to acknowledge your letter of the I9th December I996 and I will be replying to this letter at a later date when I can formulate a suitable reply." I took that to mean that there was no reasonable explanation as to why the allegations were not being conducted in a proper manner and that time was needed to come up with something that may explain the reluctance of the Inspector to investigate the matter, or to interview Judge Simpson. There is, of course, the fact, as I've always believed, that Judge Simpson and Mrs. West, having made their corruption known to the Lord Chancellor's Department and to the Treasury Solicitor, there simply was no explanation that the Inspector could come up with, given all the time in the world, to formulate a suitable reply.
The Lord Justices' had dismissed my application for leave to appeal so I thought it prudent to take steps to preserve Mrs. West's shorthand books, because I didn't want them to be mislaid, or destroyed and with that in mind, I sent the Inspector yet another recorded delivery letter, on the 6th of March, which was the day after my application had been dismissed.
I think it can be assumed that I wouldn't have been so keen to preserve
the books if I'd thought there was any chance of them putting paid to my
credibility, because if I hadn't been sincere I would naturally have wanted
them to be destroyed and if the books could have proved my allegations
false, surely Mrs. West would have been desperate to use them as ammunition
to take civil action against me, but she knows just as well as I, that
Judge Simpson dictated false evidence. I wanted and want those books preserved
for forensic examination, so I wrote the letter to the Inspector:
C/0 Superintendent,
Priory Road Police Station,
Hull.
6th March I997
Dear DI Hunter,
RE: MRS. WEST
As you may know, it is the practice for shorthand Court Reporters' to keep their shorthand notes (books) for a period of not less than five years (should have been six) and the notes taken by Mrs. West were made in I99I. Please therefore, take the precaution of putting Mrs. West and her Solicitor on notice that her books numbered 668 and 667, are required by you to further your investigation and should not be destroyed, or mis-laid.
I concede that at this stage it is unlikely that you will be able
to get direct evidence to implicate Judge Simpson in conspiracy, but I
believe there is ample evidence of corruption by Mrs. West
for you to pass on to the CPS; which includes the books and the further
evidence that may come to light through forensic examination and in particular
the Esda test.
Mrs. West has sworn an affidavit stating that she has no objection to the books being examined by a suitably qualified examiner.
Please assure me that you have put Mrs. West and her Solicitor on notice to retain the books and to make them available to you.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.H.
With no response to my letter asking for Mrs. West to be put on notice to retain her books, I wrote to the Inspector again on the I8th of March 1997, by recorded delivery, asking him to acknowledge its safe receipt and I enclosed the affidavit sworn by Mrs. West.
In a letter dated the I7th of March the Inspector acknowledged receipt of my letter dated the 6th of March, but he didn't acknowledge my recorded delivery letter of the I8th of March, which would make sense if he had written the letter, as it is dated, on the I7th of March, but strangely the postal date on its envelope, which I've retained, is the 20th of March and was received by me on the 22nd of March and its a true fact that the GPO, confirmed that my recorded letter to him was delivered and signed for on the I9th of March, so obviously, he could, if he had wished, acknowledged the recorded delivery letter to him of the I8th of March, even if he had written the letter on the I7th and kept it in his out tray for three days.
I addressed a letter to the Chief Constable in an effort to obtain acknowledgement of safe receipt of Mrs. West's affidavit, Judgement Orders and a fresh complaint of perjury against Mrs.West.
Chief Constable,
Police Headquarters,
Queens Gardens,
Hull.
28th March I997.
Dear Sir,
RE: COMPLAINT OF PERJURY AGAINST MRS. WEST
On the I8th of March, I sent, by recorded delivery, an affidavit and two Judgement Orders, being evidence in support of a complaint of perjury against Mrs. West, to the Inspector at Priory Road Police Station. asking for acknowledgement of receipt of the evidence.
The letter containing the evidence has been confirmed by the GP0. as having been delivered and signed for on the I9th March.
Upon receiving a letter from the Inspector on the 22nd of March that
made no mention of my letter to him with the evidence, I wrote to him again
on the 24th of March, requesting acknowledgement of the letter of complaint
and the supporting evidence and asking for assurance that the matter would
be investigated with his report passed on to the CPS. and today, 28th of
March I received an unsigned post card that acknowledged my communication
dated 24th of March that states that the matter is
receiving attention.
Because I have twice specifically requested the Inspector to acknowledge
receipt of the above mentioned evidence and because he apparently, doesn't
intend to do so, I hereby respectfully
ask for your assistance by making the same request again. I simply
require written confirmation that the Inspector has received the evidence
of the copies of the affidavit and two Judgement Orders, because the postcard,
acknowledging my communication, is not confirmation that he has acknowledged
the evidence that I sent to him.
Yours sincerely,
J.F.H.
On the 7th of April, 1997, which was I0 days after my letter to the Chief Constable, asking for written confirmation that, the Inspector had received copies of Mrs. West's affidavit and the Judgement Orders, I received from the Inspector written acknowledgement of receipt of my letter of the I8th of March, with its enclosed evidence. I took it for granted that it must have been my letter to the Chief Constable that had encouraged the Inspector to eventually acknowledge receipt of the evidence and I'm still sure that it was, but I noticed that his letter had been dated 27th of March, giving the impression that it had been written one day before I'd written to the Chief Constable for his assistance.
I knew that the Inspector's acknowledgement of the evidence couldn't have been written before I'd written to the Chief Constable, so I inspected the envelope, which I've retained and sure enough, the postal date confirmed that it had been posted on 4th of April 1997. Either the Inspector had written the letter and pre-dated it, the 27th of March, or he had kept it in his out tray, but this time for a period of eight days before having it posted and to me the implication was apparent.
As stated, I never thought for a moment that, my complaints would be investigated with much enthusiasm and that is because an outcome favourable to me might not be as favourable to the force responsible for investigating the complaints. A thorough investigation by the Humberside Police would inevitably lead to my earlier action against that very force, being investigated.
Having lost faith in DI Hunter to investigate my complaints in a thorough manner and at the conclusion of my civil action against Mrs. West: it having been struck out as disclosing no cause of action, i wrote to the Chief Constable, on the 31 January 1999, expressing my discontent with Inspector hunter and informing him that it was appropriate for me to provide him with an affidavit sworn by Mrs. West's Solicitor stateing categorically, that there was a triable issue, asking him to ensure that it was included, with all of the other documentary evidence for consideration by the CPS. The letter goes on to request that Inspector Hunter should not answer the letter for him.
On the 11 August 1999 I received a letter from Det/Superintendent Quentin Dowse, informing me that should i choose to continue to write letters to the Humberside Police on this matter in the future they would not be responded to.
I strongly suspected that the investigation was nothing less than a sham and that Inspector Hunter and others had got together to obstruct justice, but I had no solid evidence to institute further proceedings against the Humberside Police at that time, but despite Det. Inspector Dowse's assurance that further correspondence would not be responded to, further orrespondence did make me aware, later, that Inspector Hunter and others had in fact, to my mind, obstructed justice.
On the 12 December 2001 I made application to the court for disclosure before proceedings start of Mrs. West's shorthand books and the purported document Forensic Examiner's report, together with all other documents relating to the police investigation of my complaint against her and Judge Simson, naming the Chief Constable of Humberside as the respondent.
.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Chapter Thirteen
~~~~~~~~~~~