IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL APPEAL: EA/2017/00XX

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(INFORMATION RIGHTS)

BETWEEN:

Appellant
and

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

EXHIBIT 1
Pages 5-8 Commissioners Response to Tribunal EA/2017/0062
(Background)
C. Background

17. The Commissioner understands the following incidents to have prompted the requests
that are the subject of this appeal:

Allegations of Council Tax Fraud and Perjury

18. On 11 May 2011 the Appellant received a summons for the non-payment of council tax
and was requested to appear before Grimsby Magistrates Court on Thursday 2 June
2011. The Appellant was concerned about the increase in the Councils costs
(including the fees for Rossendale bailiffs which were sought to be recovered), and the
Magistrates ability to monitor and check the large volumes of applications considered.

19. On 2 August 2011 the Appellant submitted a complaint to Humberside Police relating
to the Magistrate Courts process for handling and considering large volumes of
applications for liability orders from the Council. Humberside Police referred the
complaint to its Legal Services Unit and on 23 April 2012 confirmed that the procedure
used by the Council was legitimate and the summons had been properly issued.
Humberside Police confirmed that the matter was not an issue for the police to
investigate and that if he wished to pursue the issue he ought to pursue the matter in
the court.

20. The Appellant subsequently submitted allegations to Humberside Police that the
Council and its bailiffs (Rossendale bailiffs) had committed fraud in relation to the
collection and enforcement of council tax.

21. On 4 February 2014 Humberside Police informed the Appellant that it would only
investigate matters in circumstances where there are good grounds to believe that a
criminal offence has been committed, and bearing in mind resource availability,
government and local priorities, and competing priorities of other ongoing
investigations. The decision on whether or not to investigate an allegation of fraud, and
the resources to be devoted to any such investigation was a matter for the police to
decide. Humberside Police had conducted enquiries with the Councils tax department
and their counterparts at Hull City Council. However, having done so, Humberside
Police did not consider the Appellants allegations to be of a criminal nature, and
confirmed that it would not be conducting an investigation for the same reasons that
had also been previously set out in a letter to the Appellant on 9 November 2013.

5
22. The Appellant submitted an appeal to the IPCC on 5 March 2014 on the basis that
Humberside Police had incorrectly recorded the complaint as an organisational matter.
The IPCC concluded that Humberside Police ought to have classified the complaint as
a conduct matter, and notified the police force accordingly.

23. Subsequently the Council applied for a Council Tax liability order against the Appellant
in the 2015/16 tax year. The Appellant submits that sufficient payments were made to
meet the demand notices so the account was never in arrears, but the Council had
allocated the payment of the monies incorrectly to a previous debt so as to result in
non-payment. The Appellant alleged that a Council employee had signed a false
statement in support of the application. A liability order was granted by Grimsby
Magistrates Court in October 2015 and the Appellant alleges that the judge presiding
over the matter was therefore complicit in the alleged perjury.

24. The Appellant invited Humberside Police to investigate the allegations of perjury but
the police force declined.

25. The Appellant wrote to Grimsby Magistrates Court on 15 January 2016 to ask the
Court to confirm that the Council had in fact produced a false witness statement, and
inform Humberside Police so that they could commence an investigation. The Court
replied on 26 January 2016 stating that it would not be taking any action regarding the
allegations.

26. The Appellant appealed against Humberside Polices decision not to pursue the matter
on 25 January 2016, and subsequently applied to commence criminal proceedings
against Humberside Police by issue of a summons for failing to exercise its powers
under s.26(5) and (6) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The court
considered the application on 26 April 2016 and refused to issue a summons on the
basis that the application and grievance was concerned with the October 2015 order
and the evidence of the Council which he had had an opportunity to appeal but chose
not to do so. It was the courts view that the Appellant was using the application as a
further means to pursue his grievance.

6
 Allegations of False Conviction and Perjury

27. On 27 August 2015 the Appellant was involved in an incident which led to him being
arrested by PC Thomas Blake and charged with an offence under s.5 of the Public
Order Act 1986. Two members of the public provided witness statements for the
purposes of the criminal proceedings. The Appellant believes that PC Thomas Blake
had incited at least one of the witnesses to make a false statement and that both
witnesses had made false statements therefore committing perjury before the court.

28. A hearing in relation to this offence took place on 30 September 2015. The Appellant
attended and pleaded not guilty. The court directed that the Appellant was prohibited
from cross-examining the witness in person and arrangements were made for a
solicitor to do so at a further hearing listed for 15 December 2015.

29. The Appellant submitted a complaint to Humberside Police on 8 November 2015

regarding PC Thomas Blake, alleging that he had incited the witnesses to commit
perjury. On 2 December 2015 the Appellant wrote to Humberside Police and
requested that it also investigate his allegations that the two members of the public
had made false statements before the court.

30. In response Humberside Police explained on 3 December 2015 that his complaint was
to be held sub judice at the time as there were outstanding criminal proceedings which
were the correct forum to challenge such matters. Humberside Police explained that it
is not the practice to investigate such allegations unless the magistrates or judge
makes comment about the evidence and recommends that the police force
investigates the matter, unless there are aggravating circumstances. In the Appellants
case Humberside Police did not consider that he had provided any evidence, other
than his opinion, which suggested that it was necessary to carry out an investigation.
Humberside Police therefore recommended that he challenge the witness evidence
through the court system.

31. The Appellant subsequently forwarded his complaint regarding PC Thomas Blake to
the Court on 11 December 2015, together with an account stating that two members of
the public had both made untrue witness statements.

7
32. The Appellant did not attend the hearing on 15 December 2015 as he did not consider
the presiding judge to be a fit and proper person to hear the case. This was on the
basis that the judge presiding over the matter was the same judge who had presided
over the above mentioned Council tax proceedings, and who had accepted the Council
employees statement which the Appellant also believed to be false. The Appellant
was convicted of the offence under s.5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and sentenced on
22 December 2015.

33. The Appellant wrote to Humberside Police on 1 February 2016 and confirmed that the
relevant Magistrates court had refused to reopen the case and he was receiving no
co-operation from the court regarding its decision. In that correspondence the
Appellant indicated that he has for the foreseeable future decided against appealing
but would like an update on the police forces investigation into his complaint regarding
PC Thomas Blake, and otherwise sought confirmation that the allegations of the two
false witness statements had been recorded as crimes.

34. Humberside Police responded on 11 and 24 March 2016, after a further exchange of
emails, and reiterated that the police force does not investigate allegations of perjury
unless a request to do so comes from the court, and that as perjury is not a victim
based crime the allegations had not been recorded as a crime.

35. The Appellant subsequently appealed the Magistrates decision to the Crown Court on
12 April 2016. However the appeal was out of time and leave to appeal was refused on
15 April 2016 on the basis that the Appellant had absented himself from the trial and
had not provided an adequate reason for appealing out of time.

D. The Requests & the Decision Notice

36. The Appellant submitted the following requests for information to Humberside Police
via the WhatDoTheyKnow website under the pseudonym fFraudWatch UK:

37. 3 December 2015 (Humberside Police Fraud Unit FS50622654):

A letter sent presumably towards the end of 2013 (see above link) but with
almost certainty after 8 November 2013, deals with a response from the force's
Economic Crime Unit's refusing to act on evidence of North East Lincolnshire