Dear Anne Tolley,
The Power of the Police to Refuse to Investigate (follow-up)
As I informed you in my letter of 12 November 2013, in October 2012,
I was assaulted and phoned 111. Because I could hear the people around
me (most of whom appeared to know each other) telling a story which
was radically different from the true facts, I told the Police that
there was a conspiracy to commit perjury.
The Police refused to investigate my allegation, and arrested me and
charged me with Disorderly Behaviour and Assault, on the basis of the
story that these other people were telling. Such objective evidence
as is available fits in with my version of events, rather than theirs.
The Independent Police Complaints Authority tell me that they have no
jurisdiction to compel the Police to investigate a matter. Since then,
I have been convicted and sentenced in this matter, but I am considering
an appeal or judicial review.
You passed my letter of 12 November 2013 on to the Police, but it
was not until about nine phone calls on my part and almost three months'
waiting that I received a phone call from Inspector Gordon Crawley,
who said he was looking into the matter. I provided him with what I
hoped was helpful information.
On 3rd March 2014, I asked him what his terms of reference were, and
he answered that they were my letter to you. However, on that same day,
when I asked him if he was investigating my claim of a conspiracy, he
smothered a laugh and said "Not so much a conspiracy." It
turned out that he had just assigned a Senior Sergeant to conduct an
ordinary review of the case (such as has to be done anyway), and had
to all intents and purposes ignored my letter.
I enclose a copy of his letter to me dated 11 March
2013. The Senior Sergeant could find nothing in the evidence already
to hand which indicated collusion (a conspiracy). In fact, there is
such evidence, but the point is that the main aim of any such conspiracy
would have been to CONCEAL the fact that there had been a conspiracy.
That is why I wanted the police actively to investigate my claim of
a conspiracy. They have not done that.
A "conspiracy" (Concise Oxford Dictionary) is "a secret
plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." Inspector
Crawley seems to be afraid of the word "conspiracy" and prefers
the word "collusion", but you -- as a politician -- are certainly
aware that politics is an arena which is full of actual or suspected
conspiracies. I suppose Inspector Crawley thinks that 9/11 was an accident!
As soon as the second airplane crashed into the second tower (and I
was watching it live), everyone knew that it was a conspiracy. Of course,
in 9/11, the conspirators had no intention of keeping the fact of the
conspiracy secret after it had happened. My case is different, since
the matter was destined for a courtroom.
There are so many women's groups in New Zealand that the Ministry
of Women's Affairs had to publish a booklet simply listing them. It
is simply lunatic to assume that none of these groups have the legal
knowledge to convince police officers etc. that some colluding witnesses
have not, in fact, colluded. For example, there is an organisation called
"Women In Law" (which may or may not be listed in the above-mentioned
booklet).
I request that you intervene in this case of obvious negligence by
the police, who are not intellectually competent simply to write off
one avenue of investigation on the grounds that there is no such thing
as a conspiracy. |
