Andrew Malkinson

[drfchound]

Welcome back, Syd. We've all missed you.

Let the fun and games begin.

Where is that tongue in cheek emoji.

This off-topic forum has once again got lower in status and quality than its fourth-division football team.

Amen to that BB.

[SydneyRover]

For a such serious subject where the police do not appear to have a legal leg to stand on there are some really childish comments.

[Iberian Red]

Graham Taylor and Phil Neal,Blackadder and Baldrick,Tweedle Dee and Dumb, or more appropriately, David Brent(wannabe muso) and Gareth entered the fray.
Sad men.

[Bentley Bullet]

An Englishman, an Australian and an Iberian were out fishing in a boat on a
lake together and doing very well.

This is a terrific spot for fishing,' said the Englishman. 'How will we know where this spot is next time?'

'I've thought of that,' said the Australian, 'We'll just put a mark on the side of the boat.'

'You idiot,' said the Iberian, 'how do you know we will get this boat the next time?'

[Iberian Red]

As always,the only one fishing is the Bent Bull.

[Sprotyrover]

Some silly Aussie Twit keeps posting on here, when will he realise he got the Wrong Rovers Forum?

[Iberian Red]

Some silly Aussie Twit keeps posting on here, when will he realise he got the Wrong Rovers Forum?

Certain posters don't like English folk living away,or foreigners.
 Would you be one of them?

[Sprotyrover]

Me I hate the world!

[Iberian Red]

The pin has been pulled,the grenade has been lobbed,and plop. It was a dud.
Care to comment about a miscarriage of justice that shows just how poor our system is.
Sad man

[drfchound]

Do you mean like your posts 62 64 and 66 which are obviously about Mr Malkinson.
Post 62 by the way is quite weird, even by your standards.

[Iberian Red]

Stalking again GG. .
Sad man

[drfchound]

Stalking again GG. .
Sad man

Yes, I had noticed that you were.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with your man is a prime target for you aren’t they.

[Iberian Red]

Stalking again GG. .
Sad man

Yes, I had noticed that you were.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with your man is a prime target for you aren’t they.

Your main man?
How old are you?
Don't tell me I already know.

[drfchound]

Stalking again GG. .
Sad man

Yes, I had noticed that you were.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with your man is a prime target for you aren’t they.

Your main man?
How old are you?
Don't tell me I already know.

Where did I say “main man”.

[albie]

Leaving the playground, and getting back to the serious issue....inquiry announced;
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/chalk-announces-independent-inquiry-into-malkinson-miscarriage/5117043.article

As the article says, it is non statutory.......meaning it cannot compel witnesses to appear under oath.
The powers are not strong enough, because the failings of management in the CPS need to be fully examined.

[SydneyRover]

And ............

''Case review chief was in Montenegro during Andrew Malkinson revelations
Exclusive: Helen Pitcher leads the commission that twice failed to refer Malkinson back to the court of appeal''

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/aug/25/case-review-chief-was-in-montenegro-during-andrew-malkinson-revelations

Everyone is entitled to a holiday or even remote working but when you're in a senior position ..........

[Sprotyrover]

And ............

''Case review chief was in Montenegro during Andrew Malkinson revelations
Exclusive: Helen Pitcher leads the commission that twice failed to refer Malkinson back to the court of appeal''

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/aug/25/case-review-chief-was-in-montenegro-during-andrew-malkinson-revelations

Everyone is entitled to a holiday or even remote working but when you're in a senior position ..........

You are still entitled to your holidays, I am surprised you are challenging something like this, you being a Champion of workers rights, cough cough!

[SydneyRover]

sure am sprot, just had five and half weeks in northern Europe 

[albie]

The Commission takes instruction from the CPS, so it is the CPS who needed to initiate a review.
Both need to explain their role and failure to act.

The worrying thing is that the independent inquiry announced by the government has no power to require evidence from those bodies.
This is crucial, because documents with-held could contain vital information.

Witnesses and evidence must be compelled under oath to assist the inquiry.

[SydneyRover]

The whole thing so far .........

''Andy Malkinson's battle for justice: What happens next?''

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66619858

[turnbull for england]

The bit highlighting the issues around the "witnesses" is scary

[ravenrover]

Malkinson 17 years, a mere nothing compared to this guy 47years!
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1699210804820590689?t=f1QETSSMJcHyG5d6LFlZnA&s=19

[SydneyRover]

It's a tragedy but at least braverman is going to try and sort some of it out and hopefully reduce the chances of a repeat.

''Police chiefs will chair independent public hearings responsible for removing corrupt officers from their force under new plans to strengthen the police dismissals process announced today (Thursday 31 August).

In a move to ensure the public are getting the high level of professionalism and service they deserve from our police, speed up the process of removing rogue officers, and to restore confidence in forces, the government has unveiled a raft of changes to the rules governing officers’ disciplinary, vetting and performance processes.

The law will be changed to ensure all officers must be appropriately vetted during their service and to enable officers who fail a re-vetting test whilst in post to be sacked.

Under the new system, a finding of gross misconduct will automatically result in a police officer’s dismissal, unless exceptional circumstances apply, speeding up the removal of officers not fit to serve.

Chief constables (or other senior officers) will also be given greater responsibilities to decide whether officers should be sacked, increasing their accountability for their forces, and will now chair independent misconduct panels. An independent lawyer will continue to sit on the panel, providing independent advice and helping to maintain rigour, but in a supporting legally qualified person (LQP) position. The outcome will be determined by a majority panel decision, as it is now, and hearings will continue to be held in public to maintain transparency.

Police chiefs will also be given a right to challenge decisions and there will be a presumption for former officers and special constables’ cases to be heard under fast-track procedures chaired by senior officers, cutting bureaucracy and saving taxpayers’ money, while making sure those failing to uphold standards are removed more swiftly.

The reforms follow a comprehensive review of the police disciplinary system launched following the conviction of David Carrick, who is spending 30 years behind bars for numerous serious sexual offences committed whilst he was a serving police officer.

We will also explore with police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and other stakeholders extending rights of challenge to PCCs, to allow democratically elected commissioners to hold those making dismissals decisions to account.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman said:

Corrupt police officers and those who behave poorly or fail vetting must be kicked out of our forces. For too long our police chiefs have not had the powers they need to root out those who have no place wearing the uniform.

Now they can take swift and robust action to sack officers who should not be serving our communities.

The public must have confidence that their officers are the best of the best, like the vast majority of brave men and women wearing the badge, and that’s why those who disgrace the uniform must have no place to hide.

Policing Minister Chris Philp said:

Public trust must be restored – this is an important step to ensure we are ridding forces of rogue officers, for the sake of communities and for those officers who are dedicated, hardworking and brave.

Confidence in our police forces has been rocked recently.

These changes will ensure that police chiefs will have the ability to act fast to remove officers guilty of serious misconduct or who are poorly performing.

Other measures announced today include:

working with the sector to create a list of criminal offences which would automatically amount to gross misconduct upon conviction
streamlining of the performance system to ensure it’s effective at removing officers who demonstrate a serious inability or failure to perform their duties
issuing new guidance to all forces to support the effective discharge of under-performing probationary officers using Regulation 13 powers
improving data collection on performance and dismissals across all forces, including data on protected characteristics; and
speeding up the system by allowing chief constables to delegate their responsibilities to other senior officers
These reforms build on wider work underway to transform the culture within policing and raise standards across the board. Last month, the College of Policing strengthened vetting standards, introducing a requirement for officers to be re-vetted following the conclusion of misconduct proceedings that do not end in a dismissal and making clear that checks must be carried out to identify any officers who have been barred from serving to ensure they cannot re-join the police.

The government also established the Angiolini Inquiry following the murder of Sarah Everard to understand how a serving police officer was able to carry out such a horrendous crime and to uncover any systemic issues in policing, such as vetting, recruitment and culture, as well as the safety of women in public spaces. It is also looking at David Carrick’s criminal behaviour and the decision making around his police vetting.

Furthermore, police forces have now completed the data washing exercise to check all officers and staff against national police databases, and are now manually analysing the information to identify leads for follow up.

National Police Chiefs’ Council Chair, Chief Constable Gavin Stephens said:

We welcome the change that will ensure any officer guilty of gross misconduct is automatically dismissed, and that any officer who fails vetting can be sacked.

It is also right that chief constables take the lead on the misconduct process. We are resolute in our commitment to rid policing of those not fit to serve the public and the changes in the dismissals process announced today significantly strengthens our ability to do so.

Chief constables are the employers and so it is right they should lead the process with support from independent legally qualified panel member/s. Not only will this streamline the process, but it will ensure the swift and effective removal of anyone who does not meet the high standards our communities deserve.

Misconduct proceedings are rightly open, fair and balanced, operating under detailed guidance which protects both our officers and the public we serve. Today’s announcement further supports this and our determination to root out the abusers and corrupt individuals who blight our service.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said:

I’m grateful to the government for recognising the need for substantial change that will empower chief officers in our fight to uphold the highest standards and restore confidence in policing.

The flaws in the existing regulations have contributed to our inability to fully address the systemic issues of poor standards and misconduct.

Chief officers are held to account for the service we deliver and for the standards we uphold which is why I have been persistent in calling for us to have the powers to act decisively and without bureaucratic delays when we identify those who have no place in policing.

In addition to these measures to tackle corrupt police officers, the Home Office is also launching a consultation on a new national framework for how police powers – including stop and search and use of force – are scrutinised at a local level. This delivers on a commitment made by government in its response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report.

The Community Scrutiny Framework aims to assist PCCs and police forces to establish and maintain effective community scrutiny panels in their local area and ensure a consistent approach nationally.

Community scrutiny panels allow members of the community to review individual police interactions with the public and provide observations and feedback via local police and crime commissioners and the police. This can support police officers to use their powers more confidently with the backing of their communities and aid public understanding of how and why police powers are used.

Today’s announcement is also supported by publication of a review examining public perceptions of policing. The review establishes police visibility, availability, and attendance at incidents as critical to public perceptions of policing, and efforts to improve trust and confidence.

Chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, Donna Jones, said:

Police and crime commissioners are committed to ensuring police officers who commit criminal acts or are proved to have acted in a corrupt way, are not only removed from operational duties as a matter of urgency, but that they are dismissed from police forces as quickly as possible. For this to happen the process to remove police officers must be one that is expedited with minimal barriers that cause delay.

Therefore I welcome the minsters announcement today to speed up the process enabling Chief Constables to sack corrupt police officers quicker.

The Home Secretary has also made clear that strong leadership at all ranks is essential to drive a positive culture and improve standards in policing.

The College of Policing has launched its new professional framework, which sets new consistent national standards for leadership, which will be delivered to all ranks through training by the College’s National Centre for Police Leadership. A new two-year development programme will also enable the most talented serving police inspectors to advance to superintendent more quickly.

Police entry routes will also be streamlined, including a new non-degree entry route which will be rolled out in the Autumn, with successful candidates beginning their training in Spring 2024.

Chief Constable Andy Marsh, CEO at the College of Policing, said:

There is no place in policing for anyone who behaves in a way that damages the public’s trust in us to keep them safe. I welcome today’s announcement which means chiefs officers can swiftly root out those who are damaging policing and falling far short of our commitment to public service.

I was a chief constable in two police forces and I know first-hand the frustration of having to keep officers that I would have otherwise sacked. Last year I began asking for this to change to take place and it means chief officers will be in control of who walks the streets in their uniform.

I know from more than 30 years in policing that the vast majority of officers are dedicated public servants who work hard every day to keep people safe. They do not wish to work alongside officers who commit crimes or impact the trust people have in us. The process will be fair but those who commit serious misconduct can expect to be sacked''

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-make-it-easier-to-sack-rogue-police-officers

If this is all they do before they go, at least it's something.

[Sprotyrover]

It's a tragedy but at least braverman is going to try and sort some of it out and hopefully reduce the chances of a repeat.

''Police chiefs will chair independent public hearings responsible for removing corrupt officers from their force under new plans to strengthen the police dismissals process announced today (Thursday 31 August).

In a move to ensure the public are getting the high level of professionalism and service they deserve from our police, speed up the process of removing rogue officers, and to restore confidence in forces, the government has unveiled a raft of changes to the rules governing officers’ disciplinary, vetting and performance processes.

The law will be changed to ensure all officers must be appropriately vetted during their service and to enable officers who fail a re-vetting test whilst in post to be sacked.

Under the new system, a finding of gross misconduct will automatically result in a police officer’s dismissal, unless exceptional circumstances apply, speeding up the removal of officers not fit to serve.

Chief constables (or other senior officers) will also be given greater responsibilities to decide whether officers should be sacked, increasing their accountability for their forces, and will now chair independent misconduct panels. An independent lawyer will continue to sit on the panel, providing independent advice and helping to maintain rigour, but in a supporting legally qualified person (LQP) position. The outcome will be determined by a majority panel decision, as it is now, and hearings will continue to be held in public to maintain transparency.

Police chiefs will also be given a right to challenge decisions and there will be a presumption for former officers and special constables’ cases to be heard under fast-track procedures chaired by senior officers, cutting bureaucracy and saving taxpayers’ money, while making sure those failing to uphold standards are removed more swiftly.

The reforms follow a comprehensive review of the police disciplinary system launched following the conviction of David Carrick, who is spending 30 years behind bars for numerous serious sexual offences committed whilst he was a serving police officer.

We will also explore with police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and other stakeholders extending rights of challenge to PCCs, to allow democratically elected commissioners to hold those making dismissals decisions to account.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman said:

Corrupt police officers and those who behave poorly or fail vetting must be kicked out of our forces. For too long our police chiefs have not had the powers they need to root out those who have no place wearing the uniform.

Now they can take swift and robust action to sack officers who should not be serving our communities.

The public must have confidence that their officers are the best of the best, like the vast majority of brave men and women wearing the badge, and that’s why those who disgrace the uniform must have no place to hide.

Policing Minister Chris Philp said:

Public trust must be restored – this is an important step to ensure we are ridding forces of rogue officers, for the sake of communities and for those officers who are dedicated, hardworking and brave.

Confidence in our police forces has been rocked recently.

These changes will ensure that police chiefs will have the ability to act fast to remove officers guilty of serious misconduct or who are poorly performing.

Other measures announced today include:

working with the sector to create a list of criminal offences which would automatically amount to gross misconduct upon conviction
streamlining of the performance system to ensure it’s effective at removing officers who demonstrate a serious inability or failure to perform their duties
issuing new guidance to all forces to support the effective discharge of under-performing probationary officers using Regulation 13 powers
improving data collection on performance and dismissals across all forces, including data on protected characteristics; and
speeding up the system by allowing chief constables to delegate their responsibilities to other senior officers
These reforms build on wider work underway to transform the culture within policing and raise standards across the board. Last month, the College of Policing strengthened vetting standards, introducing a requirement for officers to be re-vetted following the conclusion of misconduct proceedings that do not end in a dismissal and making clear that checks must be carried out to identify any officers who have been barred from serving to ensure they cannot re-join the police.

The government also established the Angiolini Inquiry following the murder of Sarah Everard to understand how a serving police officer was able to carry out such a horrendous crime and to uncover any systemic issues in policing, such as vetting, recruitment and culture, as well as the safety of women in public spaces. It is also looking at David Carrick’s criminal behaviour and the decision making around his police vetting.

Furthermore, police forces have now completed the data washing exercise to check all officers and staff against national police databases, and are now manually analysing the information to identify leads for follow up.

National Police Chiefs’ Council Chair, Chief Constable Gavin Stephens said:

We welcome the change that will ensure any officer guilty of gross misconduct is automatically dismissed, and that any officer who fails vetting can be sacked.

It is also right that chief constables take the lead on the misconduct process. We are resolute in our commitment to rid policing of those not fit to serve the public and the changes in the dismissals process announced today significantly strengthens our ability to do so.

Chief constables are the employers and so it is right they should lead the process with support from independent legally qualified panel member/s. Not only will this streamline the process, but it will ensure the swift and effective removal of anyone who does not meet the high standards our communities deserve.

Misconduct proceedings are rightly open, fair and balanced, operating under detailed guidance which protects both our officers and the public we serve. Today’s announcement further supports this and our determination to root out the abusers and corrupt individuals who blight our service.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said:

I’m grateful to the government for recognising the need for substantial change that will empower chief officers in our fight to uphold the highest standards and restore confidence in policing.

The flaws in the existing regulations have contributed to our inability to fully address the systemic issues of poor standards and misconduct.

Chief officers are held to account for the service we deliver and for the standards we uphold which is why I have been persistent in calling for us to have the powers to act decisively and without bureaucratic delays when we identify those who have no place in policing.

In addition to these measures to tackle corrupt police officers, the Home Office is also launching a consultation on a new national framework for how police powers – including stop and search and use of force – are scrutinised at a local level. This delivers on a commitment made by government in its response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report.

The Community Scrutiny Framework aims to assist PCCs and police forces to establish and maintain effective community scrutiny panels in their local area and ensure a consistent approach nationally.

Community scrutiny panels allow members of the community to review individual police interactions with the public and provide observations and feedback via local police and crime commissioners and the police. This can support police officers to use their powers more confidently with the backing of their communities and aid public understanding of how and why police powers are used.

Today’s announcement is also supported by publication of a review examining public perceptions of policing. The review establishes police visibility, availability, and attendance at incidents as critical to public perceptions of policing, and efforts to improve trust and confidence.

Chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, Donna Jones, said:

Police and crime commissioners are committed to ensuring police officers who commit criminal acts or are proved to have acted in a corrupt way, are not only removed from operational duties as a matter of urgency, but that they are dismissed from police forces as quickly as possible. For this to happen the process to remove police officers must be one that is expedited with minimal barriers that cause delay.

Therefore I welcome the minsters announcement today to speed up the process enabling Chief Constables to sack corrupt police officers quicker.

The Home Secretary has also made clear that strong leadership at all ranks is essential to drive a positive culture and improve standards in policing.

The College of Policing has launched its new professional framework, which sets new consistent national standards for leadership, which will be delivered to all ranks through training by the College’s National Centre for Police Leadership. A new two-year development programme will also enable the most talented serving police inspectors to advance to superintendent more quickly.

Police entry routes will also be streamlined, including a new non-degree entry route which will be rolled out in the Autumn, with successful candidates beginning their training in Spring 2024.

Chief Constable Andy Marsh, CEO at the College of Policing, said:

There is no place in policing for anyone who behaves in a way that damages the public’s trust in us to keep them safe. I welcome today’s announcement which means chiefs officers can swiftly root out those who are damaging policing and falling far short of our commitment to public service.

I was a chief constable in two police forces and I know first-hand the frustration of having to keep officers that I would have otherwise sacked. Last year I began asking for this to change to take place and it means chief officers will be in control of who walks the streets in their uniform.

I know from more than 30 years in policing that the vast majority of officers are dedicated public servants who work hard every day to keep people safe. They do not wish to work alongside officers who commit crimes or impact the trust people have in us. The process will be fair but those who commit serious misconduct can expect to be sacked''

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-make-it-easier-to-sack-rogue-police-officers

If this is all they do before they go, at least it's something.

that excellent Sydders but what has it got to do with the OP? The Malkinson issue has nothing to do with Police Misconduct.

[SydneyRover]

Who said anything about misconduct sprot, the idea with the changes are the the good coppers can get on with their jobs without fear or favour, the last para of the link is what good coppers should want no?

There is an inquiry into the Malikson case and hopefully that should sort out what went seriously wrong.

Read the last para of the link.

[Sprotyrover]

Who said anything about misconduct sprot, the idea with the changes are the the good coppers can get on with their jobs without fear or favour, the last para of the link is what good coppers should want no?

There is an inquiry into the Malikson case and hopefully that should sort out what went seriously wrong.

Read the last para of the link.

What has this got to do with the OP?

[BillyStubbsTears]

There's lots of eindication of police misconduct in the Malkinson case.

The case relied heavily on the word of a smack addict that the police had arrested for theft. He identified Malkinson, and the police dropped charges against him.

Then there is the fact that the victim picked out Malkinson at an ID parade, even though he looked nothing like the photofit image the police had drawn up from her description. Malkinson's legal team are suggesting there was pressure put on her to pick him out.

[Sprotyrover]

There's lots of eindication of police misconduct in the Malkinson case.

The case relied heavily on the word of a smack addict that the police had arrested for theft. He identified Malkinson, and the police dropped charges against him.

Then there is the fact that the victim picked out Malkinson at an ID parade, even though he looked nothing like the photofit image the police had drawn up from her description. Malkinson's legal team are suggesting there was pressure put on her to pick him out.

I posted the link to the entire transcript of the appeal hearing , having read it, the Male witness had a conviction for Shoplifting in 1994,that was his last Criminal Conviction, prior to 1996 he had a run of convictions for minor acquisitive crime, which is typical of someone funding a Heroin addiction, he was dealt with at Magistrates court Harshly for his Driving document offences, there is no mention from the Judge about Police misconduct, at the trial The defence questioned the witness about his character whilst he was giving evidence! The case focused on the non disclosure of his convictions to the Defence by CPS, but this was not 'misconduct ' the disclosure laws came in sometime fire the case was dealt with 19 years ago.
Read what the judge said and quote from his notes not from Lefty Comics!

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Malkinson-v-the-King-070823-judgment2.pdf

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sproty.

I suggest you haven't read the document you posted.

Paragraph 43 for example.

Hand up from me. I was wrong. Seward was under arrest for motoring and drugs offences, not theft, when he suddenly remembered that he'd seen Malkinson on the night in question. He was let off with cautions and small fines which was a very lenient penalty. The police didn't disclose that. The judge said, had the Defence known, they would have had a case that Seward wasn't trustworthy. Remember, the entire prosecution rested on supposed identification of Malkinson. Then there was the other witness who picked out someone else at the ID parade, but then changed her mind afterwards and said she was certain it was Malkinson. I wonder what was said to her by the coppers in the intervening time - I guess we'll never know.

And I couldn't give a damn about the legal status of disclosure. There's a moral requirement for the police to not stitch up an innocent man. And there's plenty of evidence that that is exactly what they did in this case.

[Sprotyrover]

Sproty.

I suggest you haven't read the document you posted.

Paragraph 43 for example.

Hand up from me. I was wrong. Seward was under arrest for motoring and drugs offences, not theft, when he suddenly remembered that he'd seen Malkinson on the night in question. He was let off with cautions and small fines which was a very lenient penalty. The police didn't disclose that. The judge said, had the Defence known, they would have had a case that Seward wasn't trustworthy. Remember, the entire prosecution rested on supposed identification of Malkinson. Then there was the other witness who picked out someone else at the ID parade, but then changed her mind afterwards and said she was certain it was Malkinson. I wonder what was said to her by the coppers in the intervening time - I guess we'll never know.

And I couldn't give a damn about the legal status of disclosure. There's a moral requirement for the police to not stitch up an innocent man. And there's plenty of evidence that that is exactly what they did in this case.

Show me the evidence.? You don’t get arrested for the offence of Drive Motor vehicle on a Road with no Insurance, unless you tell the officers you name is Mickey Mouse or VLAD Putin, in which case they can arrest you under the Police and Criminal evidence Act . If they arrested Seward he would have been taken to a Custody suite and Finger printed, on Livescan and as he had been fingerprinted on numerous occasions up to 1994, he would have been identified, the Police would then have had to release him from Custody unless they suspected he would fail to attend court or interfere with evidence, highly unlikely , even if they did keep him he would have merely been kept and put before the next available court and then dealt with and released, maximum of 8 points on your licence and a fine!
By the way where in para 43 did the Judge say he was under arrest for motoring offences???
I await your humble apology!