Miss O’Donovan said discussions included “the rape of a 14-year-old” and other chats about the “blackmail of a girl for indecent images of herself”. Andrew Oliver, mitigating, said Ince’s activity on the site happened at a time when his mental health was poor. The process of testing is necessary not only because the Court of Appeal can sometimes be rough on a Home Secretary who has made a premature referral but because such a referral can be prejudicial to the man himself. The barred list as a whole is not published and it is not otherwise available for the public to view.

The appeal was heard "explicitly on the basis that (Davis) has no expectation of compensation or other recognition. I assume that the term 'accelerated' refers to the duration between you becoming aware of his activities and the date of the hearing (and not the time taken for the actual hearing to conclude).When this campaign started 18 months ago I was completely on my own and, if the truth were known, I was probably being labelled as a well meaning nut case, even in East London with no friends at all that I could seriously talk to about Davis’s case… I value UPAL’S help a great deal … I thought that I must find other people and that if I make sacrifices then sooner or later others would join the fight…. Please provide all information held on how a decision is taken to hold an accelerated misconduct hearing of an officer. A statement was made a few weeks ago by a man named Sims, who is serving a sentence for his part in the Mountnessing robbery, and who says, quite frankly, "I was involved in the robbery. I am sorry that there is so much similarity in the names, but I shall not get them mixed up: My hon. According to a BBC Radio 4 documentary, [10] although Davis was released because his conviction was deemed to be "unsafe" by the Home Secretary he extraordinarily held that Davis was not held to be "innocent".

Figures from 31 police forces obtained by RADAR under the Freedom of Information Act reveal at least 750 accusations were made against officers between 2016 and 2020. Friend is going to say that the article is not true, let me bring out one point in the Sills report.In May 1976, despite a then-recent Court of Appeal decision (11 December 1975) not to overturn Davis's criminal conviction, the Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, on partial completion of a police review of the case, agreed to recommend the release of Davis without further referral back to the Court of Appeal. One of the judges, Lord Justice Hughes, said that the conviction, based on dubious identification evidence, was unsafe but that the court was not able positively to exonerate Davis.

That is a nice, discreet, polite, diplomatic way of saying that the Essex police picked out the bits of evidence that suited them and ignored the bits that did not suit them—in other words, that they were not carrying out their duty of seeking the truth. I can only assume that the intention behind the article is to force publication of the real Sills report. Judge Bate said: “These offences taken together are simply too serious for anything other than immediate custody today.Due to the current volume of work, we are unable to provide individual responses regarding updates on requests.

Friend that it is clear from the article in The Guardian, as I read it, that whatever document The Guardian thinks it has seen, it is not the Sills report.Carol Johnson, that he could reopen the Confait case only on fresh evidence or fresh facts relating to the issues. LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Even where there is a public inquiry it is often necessary to check with people who have given evidence as to whether they agree that the particular proposal should be published. The report takes the form of an investigation of complaints against policemen in the case—an investigation commissioned by the Chief Constable of the Essex police.