CPS guilty of "o'er vaulting ambition"

and comes a cropper

After losing the original complaint, GMP took altogether nine months to answer the complaint that I had made agains the corrupt officers. Yet when faced with certain perjury from one of the officers the best defence that the Professional Standards Branch could come up with was that PC Paul Blackburn was ignorant of the complaints generated on his patch. The Branch embellished it a little by saying that the CPS was satisfied with the testimony.

That claim begged the question "did the CPS actually check the veracity of the testimony"? To see what dduties and responsibilities I sought out the CPS Code of Conduct, and it was clear that CPS had a duty to check the evidence. So I sent off a letter to the CPS reminding them of their responsibility and asking exactly what steps were taken to satisfy themselves as to the veracity of the testimony.

It was obvious that they did not expect to be held to account because instead of giving me a straight answer they relied on weasel words. I offer their reply here. As evasive as they were they fell foul of the IPCC who criticsized them for going ahead with the prosecution.

There was very little sincerity about the CPS person. They had not checked the veraciity of Blackburn's testimony, otherwise they would have known that his denial of what turned out to be the facts was utterly false. The manner of their answer this civilised question will come to haunt them I have no doubt of that.

In the light of the findings of the IPCC I shall ask CPS the same question again and report their response in this web site. It should make a very interesting exercise. I must thank the Professional Standards Branch for enlightening me to this issue.

As the browser may see there is a solid and lengthy list of everything that CPS are obliged to do.

Click here to return to the front page.