#WhistleblowerKids FASCINATING PRECEDENT: #Compensation from #MetPolice for Not Investigating Sexual Assault

15 05 20 Ruby PaulRuby Paul is a professional harpist. She wrote this remarkable Witness Statement in response to Mrs Justice Pauffley’s Judgement, making these excellent points:

  1. Court of Public Interest
  2. Satanic Abuse Explained
  3. Satanic Abuse and The Establishment
  4. Fact-Finding Case Short on Facts
  5. The Press Spout the Judgement Verbatim
  6. Poor Attention to Facts
  7. Claims of “A Full and Thorough Investigation”
  8. Falsification of Truth
  9. Intimidation of the Public
  10. Failure to Follow Judicial Precedent
  11. Unsubstantiated Claims of “Mental Torture”
  12. Perversion of Justice and Breach of Oath.

The Judicial Precedent that she refers to is Mr Justice Green’s judgement which is 129 pages long and relates to a serial rapist. His two victims complained about the Met not having believed them and not having investigated properly. Hence they were awarded compensation. The ‘quantum’, i.e. how much, you’d have to google for.

The case was published by:

The analysis of the ‘authorities’ (other precedent cases) covers

The duty on police to investigate torture and degrading and inhuman treatment committed by third parties where the police are not complicit in the perpetration of the treatment.

Paras 211 – 225 cover the PRINCIPLES laid down in Case law, e.g.:

First, Article 3 of the Convention imposes a duty upon the police to investigate which covers the entire span of a case from investigation to trial. The purpose behind this duty is to secure confidence in the rule of law in a democratic society, to demonstrate that the State is not colluding with or consenting to criminality, and, to provide learning to the police with a view to increasing future detection levels and preventing future crime.

Para 216:

…the police must investigate in an efficient and reasonable manner which is capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the perpetrator(s)...

Para 217:

the police will be in breach of Article 3 if the conduct (the means) of the inquiry falls below the requisite standard.

Para 229:

First, the authorities from the Strasbourg Court set out in extenso above demonstrate that the duty on the State to investigate under Article 3 the conduct of private parties which amount to torture or degrading or inhuman treatment is established in a long line of consistent case law stretching back well over a decade. The principle is not a stray or maverick line of thought which having briefly emerged has been (and should Page 102 MR JUSTICE GREEN DSD & NBV v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis Approved Judgment be) forgotten. On the contrary, it represents clear, consistent and established principle which has evolved and solidified over many years and which has received approval from a very large cohort of Strasbourg Judges, including qua President, Sir Nicholas Bratza. I would be disregarding my duty under Section 2 Human Rights Act to “take account” of this case law if I was to attach no weight to it.

Para 230 asserts:

(ii) Domestic law has long acknowledged an equivalent duty

… the above conclusion is not heretical to the common law. The duty on the police to investigate effectively is a bare minimum safeguard in any civilised State. … “they would further include the duty to detect crime and to bring offenders to justice”.

I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, as it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or not suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought. But in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone”.

Para 239 says:

There is hence a recognised duty of the State “in the absence of State complicity” to investigate and prosecute criminal wrongs.

Will these words be music to the ears of Ella’s lawyers?

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “#WhistleblowerKids FASCINATING PRECEDENT: #Compensation from #MetPolice for Not Investigating Sexual Assault

  1. Ruby Paul’s Witness Statement is excellent. Who is it being submitted to, and will you publish the response please, Sabine? Thank you to everyone, like Ruby, who are doing what they can to help those amazing and courageous children.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. This is a most impressive assessment of the Hampstead case – factual, rational, objective, convincing. It manages to be succinct and comprehensive at the same time. It is an exemplar of a critical review. The reference to the Worby Case relevant and compelling showing not only did Pauffley betray her oath and produce a shameful judgement, but also blatantly ignored the legal precedent that should have bound her. This summary deserves to be circulated as widely as possible and should be sent to all national MSM networks as well as all MP’s and Government officials. One small typing error (?) should be corrected in point 10. The Human Rights Act was in fact 1998 not 1988 as stated.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. It is quite apparent that the Pauffley treatment of the case is a travesty of justice and stain on the whole British legal, investigative and social services set-up. The big question is whether the courts as established, to which an appeal is unavoidable if the kids are to be ‘released’, have the guts to reverse the decision. Nothing short of the children being returned to the mother or grand parents, a stinging rebuke to the judge and a recommendation that proper police resources are committed to the issue, even at this late stage, can start to compensate for the additional pain and distress imposed on the children and family. In the context of the wider scandalous revelations concerning the abuse of children, and the news that the latest much delayed government enquiry is expected to take eight years to complete(!) it is not the mother and and step-father on trial here but THE WHOLE BRITISH JUSTICE SYSTEM as it relates to children. If fully informed, the fair-minded British public could expect no less.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. It may be worth reproducing a paragraph from Mr Justice Green’s judgement in the ‘Worboys Case’ in respect of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) investigation. Applying it to the Hampstead Case, how many of the criticisms can be seen to be evident? I will leave you to decide but I think we can reasonably ask, “Does the MPS ever learn from its mistakes or is it hide-bound to its errors and incompetence?

    “In this case I have identified a series of systemic failings which went to the heart of
    the failure of the police to apprehend Worboys and cut short his 5-6 year spree of
    violent attacks. These failures include: (i) a substantial failure on the part of the MPS
    to train relevant officers in the intricacies of sexual assaults and in particular drug
    facilitated sexual assaults; (ii) serious failures on the ground by senior officers
    properly to supervise investigations by more junior officers and to ensure that they
    were conducting investigations in accordance with the standard procedure mandated
    for DFSA and as set out in MPS operating procedures; (iii) serious failures in the
    collection and use of intelligence sources to cross-check complaints to see if there
    were linkages between them; (iv) a failure to maintain the confidence of victims in the
    integrity of the investigative process and thereby to a consequential failure to create
    an environment where victims were incentivised to the maximum degree to bring their
    complaints to the police; (v) failures to allocate proper resources to sexual assaults
    including pressure from Borough management to focus resources on other allegations
    (of a non-sexual nature) that were easier to clear up and a resultant pressure on
    officers to reject complaints of sexual assault. In addition to these systemic failures
    there were numerous individual omissions in the specific cases of DSD and NBV
    which reflect the wider systemic failings but which, when viewed in isolation, can
    also be said to be of sufficient seriousness such that had they not occurred the MPS
    would have been capable of capturing Worboys at a much earlier point in time. These
    failings included such matters as: failures to interview vital witnesses, failures to
    collect key evidence, failures to follow up on CCTV, failures to prepare properly for
    interviews with the suspect, etc. It is important that I should record that the MPS has,
    itself, recognised these same systemic and operational failings in its numerous
    reviews into the Worboys case. It has indicated that it has now introduced remedial
    measures. No part of this trial has concerned these remedial steps. As I have stated the
    end point of my analysis is 2009.

    Like

  5. Here’s another relevant paragraph from the Worboys case:

    “308. Interview failures: Ms Kaufmann QC in her cross examination of the officers in the
    NBV case was scathing of their interview techniques. It suffices for me to record that
    the IPCC found that the interviews were premature in that they should not have been
    conducted until after proper investigative steps had been taken and that Worboys
    should have been re-interviewed (see paragraph [128(xiv)] above). In my view the
    interview with Worboys should have occurred (i) after a section 18 search had been
    conducted (ii) after a full statement from NBV had been taken and (iii) after the
    CCTV had been thoroughly reviewed since it threw up a range of possible
    inconsistencies with the answers that Worboys later gave in interview. At the very
    least he should have been re-interviewed. Had the officers been fully and
    comprehensively prepared this would have equipped them with considerable
    additional ammunition for the interview. An analysis of the interview transcript
    reveals the conclusions of officers who were ill-prepared to conduct the interview:
    that Worboys was a good chap; that a black cab driver would not do that sort of thing;
    and, that NBV’s behaviour was inconsistent with her allegations. Had a proper
    approach to the interview been conducted then: the numerous cracks and flaws in
    Worboys account of events might well have become very apparent; he might have
    been arrested; someone might have conducted a proper intelligence check; links might
    have been identified with past complaints; and, the multiple rapes that he committed
    in the days and weeks following his interview when he was free once again to cruise
    the streets of London seeking out victims would in all likelihood not have occurred at
    all. Indeed if the officers had waited for Worboys to return home thereby enabling
    him to be arrested and his home and vehicles searched when they did seek to execute
    a Section 18 warrant then there is a good chance they would have found his rape kit.
    The interview would have had a different complexion had this been the case. “

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s