Conduct Complaint against Chief Superintendent Clive Wain and civilian officer Susan Durham engaged with Information

Services Department of West Yorkshire Police and based at the new Featherstone Police Station. Made on behalf of: Stephen Bradbury the complainant! on "#th March "$%&

1. Events giving rise to the complaint

a. 'he complainant has long(r)nning and well(rehearsed complaint iss)es with West Yorkshire Police concerning a n)mber of violent and )nprovoked assa)lts on him b* officers that have occ)rred in +)ddersfield twice! and Wakefield three times!. 'hese have )s)all* been followed b* the )nlawf)l arrest of the complainant. b. +e has been repeatedl* obstr)cted b* the Force in his search for the tr)th and appropriate remed*, lied to repeatedl* b* Professional Standards and other investigating officers, evidence pertaining to those assa)lts tampered with and a legal )ndertaking breached b* a senior officer in disclosing material belonging to the complainant when e-pressl* restrained from so doing.. c. +aving e-ha)sted all reasonable approaches to the Force . and in almost ever* case been reb)ffed ( part of the complainant/s search for the tr)th and appropriate remed* has involved him seeking to identif* his police assailants, photograph them and then compile a composite video for p)blic broadcast on the internet. +e is lawf)ll* entitled to do this and feels it is his p)blic d)t* to make widel* known the behavio)r of these th)gs, mas0)erading as warranted police officers. d. 'he complainant when in attendance o)tside +)ddersfield police station, Wood Street police station or Force +1 alwa*s attempts to cond)ct himself in a co)rteo)s and reasonable manner. +e is small in stat)re, aged 2" and not at all aggressive in an* wa*. e. 'here have been five different occasions when assa)lts have been visited on the complainant. 3n one occasion involving eight officers against a compliant member of the p)blic. f. In Ma* September and 3ctober "$%4 meetings took place between the complainant and 56S)pt 7attle in order to tr* and resolve iss)es between the parties. 3n the latest occasion Mr Percival, the Force 8egal Services Manager was present.

g. 56S)pt 7attle made a n)mber of representations on behalf of the Force and one of those was that the complainant/s Subject Access e!uest S9:! made )nder the Data Protection 9ct on 4$th December "$%" wo)ld be f)lfilled. In a letter to the complainant of #th 3ctober "$%4 56S)pt 7attle )ndertook on behalf of the Force to liaise with 56S)pt Wain and Ms D)rham and ens)re that this wo)ld be effected on or before 4%st 3ctober "$%4. 'his f)lfilment did not happen b)t an anon*mo)s letter was sent from ;Data Protection< sa*ing ;f)ll disclos)re wo)ld be made within " to 4 weeks<. 'hat, demonstrabl*, did not happen, either. Ms +elen 5rossland has steadfastl* ref)sed to identif* the a)thor of that letter and, 1

indeed, according to Ms 5rossland has been instr)cted b* Ms D)rham not to do so. 'he sending of anon*mo)s letters with what is believed to be a deliberatel* forged signat)re! is an abhorrent practice for a police force. h. 9t the date of this complaint, it is asserted that there is still m)ch more material to be disclosed than the amo)nt alread* given to the complainant. :ealisticall*, the ratio is in the order of "#= disclosed >#= )ndisclosed. 'his forms the first part of the complaint as both 56S)pt Wain and Ms D)rham have demonstrabl* failed to e-ec)te their lawf)l d)t* and responsibilities )nder the 9ct. 'he breach of lawf)l d)t* is aggravated b* the plain facts of the dela* in completing the S9:, which is some %4.# months overd)e at the date of this complaint. It is f)rther aggravated b* 56S)pt Wain setting o)t in a 0)ite deliberate and dishonest ?oint enterprise with Ms D)rham to fr)strate disclos)re )nder DP9. 'he rationale being that s)ch disclos)re wo)ld harm the Force and reveal f)rther miscond)ct and, conversel*, assist the complainant in f)rthering his iss)es against those officers. 'hat forms the second part of this complaint. i. 7oth 56S)pt Wain and Ms D)rham have ignored man* telephone calls and re0)ests for meetings with the complainant and treated him generall* in a dismissive, disrespectf)l and disco)rteo)s manner. 'he* have also recentl* instr)cted Ms +elen 5rossland not to have the long(planned meeting with the complainant concerning the non(disclos)re. Ms 5rossland is )nable to provide an* rationale for that decision. 'hat forms the third part of this complaint. 9t that meeting referred to above in para g, and later confirmed in writing, a witho)t pre?)dice offer was made to the complainant of @4,#$$ as compensation for e-cessive force, wrongf)l arrest and )nlawf)l detention of the complainant. 'he offer also re0)ired the complainant to drop all complaint matters against officers engaged with Force. It also invited a co)nter(proposal.

?.

k. 'his offer was not acceptable to the complainant and he made a perfectl* reasonable co)nter(offer to the Force. 'his prod)ced no cogent response. l. 'he first of the complaints contemplated at the time of the meeting with Messrs 7attle6Percival, referred to above, was made on 4%st December "$%4 against Insp :ichard 5lare! and, s)bse0)entl*, other complaints against 56S)pt 7attle, S)pt 7aker, D5I 7ottomle*, 'he Aideo Aan 'hree from So)th Birkb* PS have been made. 'hese present complaints against 56S)pt Wain and Ms D)rham are the last of the complaints in that series. In effect, all these complaints are the ones that Mr Percival was tr*ing to ;b)* off<.

m. D)ring the process of recording and ;investigating< the complaint against Insp 5lare it has been necessar* to raise f)rther complaints against 56Insp ')rton and Insp MoiCer. n. D)ring the co)rse of recording the complaints concerning 'he Aideo Aan 'hree it has been necessar* to also make f)rther allegations against Insp :ichard 5lose, Insp Deoff 5arter, Sarah Morris and P5 :)ss Eoon of ;covering )p< the identities of 'he Aideo Aan 'hree. o. Fver* single complaint mentioned in paras ?, k and l. has been mis(recorded and6or referred to an inappropriate investigating )nit6officer. 9ll have been referred to the IP55 b* wa* of 9ppeal. 2

p. 'he persistent non(disclos)re of materials to which the complainant is lawf)ll* entitled )nder the Data Protection 9ct is pre?)dicial against his interests in the p)rs)it of the complaints referred to above.

". #rounds for complaint

a. Gnder Sched)le % of the Police 5ond)ct! :eg)lations "$$H all police officers are re0)ired to perform to the highest personal and professional standards as set o)t in Standards of Professional Behaviour b. In this complaint, matters are aggravated b* the fact that the police officer complained abo)t is of ver* high managerial rank engaged as a +ead of Department and, as s)ch, entr)sted b* the Force in maintaining those ver* Standards and disciplining those that fall below them. c. 'his complaint alleges the following breaches of those Standards. d. $ailure of Duty and esponsibilities: 'here is prima facie evidence of both 56S)pt Wain and Ms S)e D)rham being derelict in their d)ties in not dealing with the claimant/s S)b?ect 9ccess :e0)est in a timel* or e-peditio)s manner. 'he S9: is c)rrentl* %4.# months overd)e and it is estimated that it is still >#= incomplete. 'he "#= so far disclosed has been provided in two b)ndles that were neither paginated nor inde-ed nor tabbed. P)t shortl*, it fell far below the standards e-pected of an* p)blic bod*. e. %ncivility: 'here is prima facie evidence of incivilit* in not responding to reasonable and pertinent comm)nications from the complainant. f. &artiality: 'here is prima facie evidence of both 56S)pt Wain and Ms S)e D)rham partialit* and pre?)dice in their dealings with the complainant. 'here has been no ob?ective approach to the S)b?ect 9ccess :e0)est made and instead the complainant has been s)b?ected to a campaign in which, it is s)bmitted, both named officers have set o)t to vario)sl* obstr)ct, ve- and anno* the complainant and enco)rage others within their Department to ?oin in that behavio)r.

g. 'onesty and %ntegrity: It is s)bmitted b* the complainant that 56S)pt Wain is the prime mover, in ?oint enterprise with other senior officers in the Force, to dishonestl* and fra)d)lentl* conceal materials that wo)ld both damage the rep)tational and financial interests of West Yorkshire Police ( and conceal f)rther serio)s miscond)ct b* its officers. 'his is aggravated b* the sheer scale and t*pe of the materials so far )ndisclosed . and the areas selected for redaction which on the face of the matter bear no relation to the Data Protection 9ct ( as set o)t in the Sched)le attached to this complaint.

(.

e!uested )utcome

a. Ms D)rham to receive management advice and removed from p)blic facing role b. Diven the serio)sness of the allegations, the p)blic interest in this iss)e there is to be a 5hannel & doc)mentar* screened in I)ne "$%& on Mr 7radb)r*/s iss)es with the police and co)ncil! 56S)pt Wain to be placed on restricted d)ties forthwith and face a miscond)ct hearing on gross miscond)ct charges and be removed from his post as +ead of In formation Services c. F)ll and complete disclos)re, in accordance with the complainants S9: made 4$th December "$%" and s)bse0)ent contact with the Force and , more partic)larl* the Sched)le attached hereto, to be effected on or before 4$th 9pril "$%& d. S)ch disclos)re to be properl* tabbed, inde-ed and paginated. e. 'he complainant to be recompensed for all losses and e-penses accr)ed as a res)lt of the fail)re of the Force to deal with the S9: lawf)ll*

*. &rocess

a. It is a specific re0)irement that the complainant re0)ires the complaint to be recorded e-actl* in the wa* it has been set o)t above. Fail)re to do so will lead to an 9ppeal being made to the Independent Police 5omplaints 5ommission IP55!. b. 'his matter which involves allegations of serio)s and instit)tional corr)ption sho)ld, in accordance with Stat)tor* D)idance, be referred b* West Yorkshire Police to the IP55 for a Method of Investigation decision. c. It is preferable that, once appointed, the investigator and complainant comm)nicate b* email so that there is an appropriate and specific a)dit trail of each and ever* contact. If telephone calls or meetings become necessar*, or )sef)l, then the* will be a)dio recorded. It wo)ld be open to the investigator to do the same and he6she wo)ld be enco)raged to do so. d. 9 5I9 statement will be s)bmitted b* the claimant in s)pport of the complaints. 'his can either be taken b* the investigator or s)bmitted independentl*, having been taken b* a retired detective of )nimpeachable standing.

#,

Sched)le of Gndisclosed Materials 4

Data Protection Act 1998 Section 7: Subject Access Request Application made b !r Stephen Bradbury on 3"t# December 2"13 Sc#edule o$ !aterials %no&n to be still undisclosed as at 24t# !arc# 2"13 'ustod lo(s)detention records S*+R! lo( entries ,-'./ database entries '/,*0R-+, database entries P,' printout 1to establis# t#at D,A2 $in(erprints2 p#oto(rap#s #a3e been remo3ed4 5rie$in( notes)meetin( notes)minutes o$ meetin(1s4 #eld bet&een 67P)67PA 1or +P''4)8ir%lees 'ouncil /9ternal emails bet&een :orce o$$icers and -P''2 67PA 1+P''42 8ir%lees 'ouncil Anni3ersar card submitted to Police .; on 1st Anni3ersar o$ SAR All &itness accounts relied upon b t#e in3esti(atin( o$$icer in producin( in3esti(ation outcomes to complaints raised b !r 5radbur $ollo&in( t#e assaults on #im in .udders$ield 1t&ice4 and 6a%e$ield 1t#ree times4 'opies o$ all P,5 entries concernin( !r 5radbur made b t#e o$$icers in3ol3ed in t#e assaults on !r 5radbur All memoranda2 emails2 brie$in( notes2 minutes2 correspondence concernin( !r 5radbur and aut#ored b t#e o$$icers named belo& and2 so $ar2 undisclosed: !ar% <ilmore Sir ,orman 5ettison =o#n Par%inson Step#en .ardin( Da3id !ason =o#n Robins =ustine Plumb .elen 5rear >ic%i 6#ite Ric#ard 'lose Ric#ard 'lare +sman 8#an *re3or 8in(sman Andre& ?oc%&ood @

/d '#esters <ar 5a%er And 5attle Damian 'arr =ac%ie *urton !artin !oiAer Russ ,oon '#ris Rab S#aun .urd Simon 5ottomle Sara# !orris PSD /nquiries Stuart Rae Sall 'ourt <eo$$re 'arter 'li3e 6ain Susan Dur#am .elen 'rossland !i%e Perci3al 1&#ere suc# material is not protected b le(al pri3ile(e4 *#is sc#edule is not to be read2 or in$erred2 as limitin( !r 5radbur Bs ri(#ts in an &a under DPA or pre3entin( disclosure o$ all materials still bein( unreasonabl and unla&$ull &it##eld b 6est 7or%s#ire PoliceC *#is Sc#edule is intended as a (uide and2 lar(el 2 con$irms t#e contents o$ t#e man telep#one con3ersations bet&een !r 5radbur and .elen 'rosslandC *#e reasonable interpolation is t#at t#ere is2 in all probabilit as least as muc# material not sc#eduled abo3e t#at is et to be disclosed and about &#ic# !r 5radbur is2 so $ar2 una&areC 6#ere material is supplied in redacted $orm2 an e9planation s#ould be (i3en as to t#e reason $or t#e redactionC