The IOPC indication test is being applied to the ex-Lancashire police Chief Constable

The IOPC indication test is being applied to the ex-Lancashire police Chief Constable

After a civil claim was brought against Mr Ponting by the now ex-Chief Constable of Lancashire police (Andy Rhodes, the claimant), Mr Ponting notified the claimant, that his evidence bundle contained significant perjured evidence, material to the claim.

Perjury is a criminal offence, contrary to the Perjury Act 1911.

Criminal offences technically ‘trump’ civil cases. It is often the case that civil cases are stayed (put on hold) while criminal allegations are first investigated. But obviously not in this case, as that did not suit the police narrative and would have scuppered their claim.

After being notified of the glaring perjured evidence (pre-trial), the Chief Constable insisted the perjured evidence be ‘tested in court’, this being, the civil court!

You would think that a police force would know that criminal allegations or perjury cannot be tested in a civil court, Perjury is a criminal offence and can only be tested by a Criminal Court, no less than a Crown Court. As we know, the police make up their own rules to suit themselves and their agenda.

A complaint was made about the ex-Chief Constable’s alleged criminal behaviour to the appropriate authority, (the Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner), who, at the time was ‘crooked’ Clive Grunshaw. His minion, (Ian Dickinson), tried to brush the complaint under the carpet, refusing to record it. This was appealed to, and overturned by the IOPC directing Ian Dickinson to record and investigate the complaint.

Ian Dickinson, obviously still dead set on protecting the ex-Chief Constable said he ‘could not identify any criminality’, and referred it back to the IOPC to make an ‘indication test’. Read about this in the IOPC Focus 16 guidance of February 2020. https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/Focus/Focus_16_February2020.pdf

The indication test is a test of the substance of the complaint. The test must not consider the ‘merit’ on the complaint, nor can it consider any evidence gathered.

Ian Dickinson has therefore said he cannot see any indication of a criminal offence from a complaint substance, even though the substance of that complaint is that the Chief Constable submitted perjured evidence to legal proceedings, a criminal allegation that if proven, would result in a criminal offence.

Perjury is a serious criminal offence, said to ‘strike at the heart of the administration of justice (para 2)’, yet Ian Dickinson of the Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioners office suggests either Perjury is not a crime, or the Chief Constable should not be held to account for perjury.

The IOPC is now the decision-maker for the complaint. The IOPC initially upheld the appeal over the decision of Ian Dickinson to NFA the complaint, it will be interesting on the outcome of the IOPC indication test.