Free Web space and hosting from human-rights.org
Search the Web

SUSSEX POLICE AUTHORITY A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES 

S A C

SUSSEX ANTI-CORRUPTION ALLIANCE

WE ARE A NEW GROUP COVERING THE SUSSEX POLICE AREA

OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES DON'T ACT IN OUR INTERESTS

COUNCILS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

ARE A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES,

SUSSEX POLICE AUTHORITY ARE ACTING OUTSIDE OF THE LAW SUSSEX POLICE ARE TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL AND NOT ANSWERABLE OR ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OF SUSSEX A PUBLIC INQUIRY IS NEEDED NOW IN TO THEM

WE ARE LOOKING FOR COMMITTED PERSONS TO MAKE THIS GROUP GROW WE NEED --WEBSITE BUILDERS --AMATEUR JOURNALISTS-- PEOPLE WITH MEDIA EXPERIENCE-- WRITERS TYPISTS-- COMPUTER EXPERIENCED PERSONS-

SAC NEEDS YOUR INFORMATION ON ANY CORRUPTION IN SUSSEX PLEASE E-MAIL US

sac@sac.human-rights.org

CAMPAIGN FOR JAMES ASHLEY

OUR MAIN CAMPAIGN IS TO BACK THE ASHLEY FAMILIES CALL FOR A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN TO THE SHOOTING OF JAMES ASHLEY

BUT WE WANT IT TO COVER POLICING IN SUSSEX TO EXPOSE ALL POLICE & COUNCIL CORRUPTION IN SUSSEX

THIS GROUP IS NOT AFFILIATED TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR GROUP WE STAND ONLY UNDER THE

HUMAN-RIGHTS ACT & INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC OFFICE

SEE THESE SITES FOR MORE DETAILS OF SUSSEX POLICE CORRUPTION

www.justiceforjay.co.uk/  

WE FEEL SORRY FOR THE ABATANS  NIGEL YEO  PERVERTED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE OVER KATRINA TAYLOR'S MURDER ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE NIGEL YEO  WHY IS HE STILL WORKING IN SUSSEX POLICE FORCE

Sir John Hoddinotts  also roughed up one of the assistant chief constables, Nigel Yeo, against whom he said there was evidence of criminal misfeasance and falsehood over the press release; and the deputy chief constable, Mark Jordan, against whom he said there was evidence of criminal misfeasance, neglect of duty, discreditable conduct, and aiding and abetting the chief constable's false statements.

www.policecorruption.co.uk/

COUNCIL AND POLICE CORRUPTION WORKING TOGETHER

 www.wealden.org.uk/

Wealden Action Group - Investigating and lobbying against corruption

 www.mk.human-rights.org

HASTINGS LEASEHOLDERS GROUP CAMPAIGNING FOR LEASEHOLDERS LAWFUL RIGHTS PLUS CORRUPTION WITH IN SUSSEX POLICE WHY IS M. FOSTER MP DOING NOTHING OVER THE 1000S OF HIS CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES

www.bushywood.com

MAJOR SITE ON CORRUPTION IN SUSSEX

CORRUPT MP DES TURNER  WAS  INVOLVED IN THE ATTEMPTED MURDER BY SUSSEX POLICE OF MR NEILSON HE IS GUILTY PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, OVER THE MURDER OF KATRINA TAYLOR IF YOU DON’T THINK THIS IS TRUE DARE HIM TO HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF SAC AND THE MEDIA PRESENT

 CORRUPTION PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WITH SUSSEX POLICE TO HARASSMENT AND VICTIMISING MR NEILSON CORRUPTION MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE, LYING IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ATTEMPTED MURDER OF MR NEILSON BY SUSSEX POLICE MR NEILSON HAS ASKED TONY BLAIR PM FOR A INVESTIGATION IN TO DES TURNER MP

www.dr.des.turner.mp.human-rights.org/

DES TURNER MP GUILTY OF PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE OVER THE MURDER OF KATRINA TAYLOR AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION

www.katrina.taylor.murder.brighton.human-rights.org/

CAMPAIGN JUSTICE FOR KATRINA

EXPOSING SUSSEX POLICE COVER UP OF UNSOLVED MURDER

www.victim.human-rights.org/

SUSSEX POLICE AUTHORITY ACTING OUTSIDE OF THE LAW BY VICTIMISING MURDER WITNESS

www.ldc.human-rights.org

LEWES DISTRICT COUNCIL COVERING UP CORRUPTION FRAUD WITH THE HELP OF SUSSEX POLICE

CAMPAIGN JUSTICE FOR SION JENKINS

www.justiceforsionjenkins.org.uk/sxpol.html

CAMPAIGN JUSTICE FOR SION JENKINS

Justice for James Ashley Campaign

The Justice for James Ashley Campaign was launched on Saturday the 18th of August. The meeting was attended by about 200 people. James Ashley was shot dead by an Armed Response Unit (ARU) from Sussex Police in 1998. The trial at the Old Bailey was a total travesty and a the Officer responsible for shooting James, P.C Sherwood was acquitted, along with the other four officers later at a similar trial in Wolverhampton. The Judge Injustice Rafferty presided over the case; this is the same Injustice Rafferty who sent Michael Stone to Jail, Surprise Surprise. The Family and Campaign have vowed to carry on the fight for Justice for James Ashley.

IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION OVER JAMES ASHLEY'S KILLING CONTACT US

CAN YOU HELP KATRINA TAYLOR MURDER TRIAL IN 1997 DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING OF A MAN WHO SAT ON THE JURY WHO MAY HAVE DIED OR WENT MISSING IN 1999

 1_JAMES ASHLEY SHOOTING BY SUSSEX POLICE PRESS REPORTS OVER THE CASE AND THE COVER UP BY JOHN DENHAM MP AND SUSSEX POLICE AUTHORITY AND KEN JONES

2_HAVE YOU BEEN A VICTIM OR HAVE INFORMATION ON SUSSEX POLICE CONTACT US

3_HAVE YOU BEEN A VICTIM OR HAVE INFORMATION ON A COUNCIL IN SUSSEX CONTACT US_

4 PRESS STORIES ON CORRUPTION IN SUSSEX

5 JAMES ASHLEY FILE

 HAVE YOU ANY INFORMATION ON CORRUPTION IN SUSSEX PLEASE SEND IT TO US

Justice for James Ashley

Joint Committee On Human Rights Written Evidence

 

 

 

 

19.  Memorandum from Mr Tony Ashley

  I write with regard to the "call for evidence" in respect of an Inquiry into Human Rights and Deaths in custody. I am the brother of James Ashley who was killed by armed Sussex police on 15 January 1998.

  I believe that the United Kingdom should be doing more to meet its obligations under Article 2 of the European convention on human rights especially when the law fails to provide adequate safeguards against wrongdoing by the Police or other public servants by its reliance on outdated and archaic statutes such as "misfeasance".

  In our case five officers were originally charged with criminal charges—one was charged with Murder/Manslaughter and four others with "misfeasance in public office". The trial took over three years to get to court, all the while we were warned not to comment as it could prejudice proceedings, yet Sussex police were allowed to blacken my brothers' character despite not having found a shred of evidence which pointed to James having committed any offence to justify the armed raid on his flat in the first place.

  A coroner's inquest was put into abeyance whilst criminal charges were pending. Prior to the trial we attended a committal at Bow Street before a magistrate during which we endured two weeks of legal argument put forward by numerous Barristers for the defence—extensively funded by the Police Federation. When the case finally reached the Old Bailey we had to endure further seemingly endless legal arguments by the defence before we had even heard any evidence.

  My primary objection is that the trial Judge—the inappropriately named Justice Rafferty—split the trial in two between a Murder trial—and a second trial centering on the misfeasance aspect. Somewhat conveniently once the trials were split the Judge placed a ban on the press from reporting the trial evidence under the argument that publicity could adversely affect the second trial. I believe this legal manoeuvre obstructed real justice and did not allow for any genuine public scrutiny of the serious misbehaviour undertaken by the officers involved.

  The next thing we knew, the judge threw out the case before the defendant in the Murder case—PC Sherwood had even provided testimony, thus robbing us of any chance to hear an explanation of the events from those principally involved and therefore any sense of emotional closure. The fact that a jury were prevented from deliberating on the evidence by the cynical actions of the judge exacerbated the growing sense of injustice. The second trial also collapsed because the Judge decided to rule that there had been "Corporate Failure" on behalf of Sussex Police rather than wilful misconduct by individuals. As far as we were concerned this was a completely unsatisfactory outcome and a mockery of justice.

  I believe that the failure of both the criminal cases to actually determine responsibility, other than by vague notions of "corporate failure", led to the eventual watering down of disciplinary action taken by Sussex Police against those involved. What also then materialised was the farcical situation whereby the former Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse actually promoted two of the officers involved. Similarly the Deputy Assistant Chief Constable, Mark Jordan, was somehow allowed to retire on the grounds of ill health. Jordan—who apparently now lectures on human rights—thus avoided disciplinary action. This is despite promises by the present government to end this disgraceful practice of serving officers being allowed to retire prematurely without censure.

  All avenues of legal redress having dwindled, the family made concerted representations to the Home Secretary on the basis that a full public inquiry was called for in this case. After deliberation by the Minister John Denham, we were informed that an inquiry would not be the best way forward for the following reasons:

(1)  Pending disciplinary action would be halted if a public inquiry was granted.

(2)  The Coroners Inquest was due to resume.

(3)  The Sussex Police Authority would be formally requested to prepare a report on the events of the killing and how it had responded to its obligations in the aftermath. We were also promised access to the (Wilding report) written by Kent Police and the (Hoddinott) report into the state of the Sussex Police force which had been prepared by Hampshire Police.

  In reality, disciplinary procedures against the remaining officers were gradually downgraded and sidelined once the initial bad publicity against Sussex had subsided. The Sussex coroner refused to re-open the inquest stating that it would amount to a re-trial and finally, Sussex Police Authority, who "owned" the Kent and Hampshire reports refused to release them publicly. Instead, they produced a report supposedly specifically for the family which was little more than a rehash of what the Judge had said at the aborted trials.

  In summary then, our attempts to gain justice have been thwarted at every turn by the authorities, British Law fails to provide any modern or contemporary statute to counter wrongdoing by the police. Misfeasance cannot be deemed appropriate in the circumstances of this case and there certainly needs to be a new and serious appraisal of the law in this regard. Not only are police officers overly protected by judges but civil proceedings initiated by the victims families are completely out of the question due to the cost—victims families simply do not have the required funds to challenge legal decisions, the financial strains placed on victims relatives fighting for justice simply make matters worse, especially when faced with the "money no object" emphasis of the Police Federation or unsympathetic elements of the criminal justice system.

10 September 2003

Prepared 26 January 2004

 

 

NOW READ THE JAY ABATAN CASE SOUNDS LIKE THE SAME COVER UP BY SUSSEX POLICE AUTHORITY

 

http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/april/ha000018.html

 

By Harmit Athwal

29 April 2004, 5:00pm

The family of Jay Abatan, a Black man who was murdered in Brighton in 1999, are still waiting to see the report into Sussex Police's failed investigation into his death.

On 17 May 2004, Peter Bottomley MP, Jay's family and lawyers will meet representatives of the new Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to discuss the findings of an Avon and Somerset police investigation. Yet, after five years of campaigning by the family, they will not be allowed to have a copy of the full 300-page report. Although Sussex police have publicly apologised to Jay's family for their failings and promised to be 'open' to the family they are now refusing to release the full report explaining what actually went wrong.

Background

Jay Abatan, a 42-year-old Black man and father of two, died five days after being attacked by a gang outside the Ocean Rooms nightclub in Brighton on 24 January 1999. Jay had been out with his brother and a friend celebrating a job promotion as a senior tax specialist at Price Waterhouse Coopers. They left the club and were getting into a cab when they were attacked by a group of white men. Jay did not even have the chance to take his hands out of his pockets before he was punched and kicked to the ground. He suffered severe brain damage and was pronounced dead after five days on a life support machine.

After his death, Sussex police launched an investigation and, within 24 hours, two men were arrested and charged with manslaughter. However, by the time of the trial in May 2000, the men, Graham Curtis and Peter Bell, were charged only with affray and actual bodily harm to Jay's brother, Michael, on which they were ultimately cleared. The jury was not told that Jay had died as a result of injuries sustained during the same attack because the Judge thought it might influence the verdict.

Failed investigations

Jay's family believe that the initial investigation into his murder by Sussex police failed to explore a racial motive for the attack and that other fundamental errors were made. This investigation was the subject of an inquiry by Essex police after Jay's family voiced their concern publicly. The Essex police began its review for Sussex police in July 1999 and completed its report at the beginning of December 2000. Sussex police refused to disclose the full report although extracts were leaked to the press which revealed that Essex police did in fact catalogue fifty-seven failings and inconsistencies in the original investigation into Jay's murder. These included the failure to interview or record the details of potential witnesses. Sussex police met Jay's family and publicly apologised for not doing 'a good job'. At the time Jay's family asked Sussex police what had actually gone wrong and were told that they should wait for a PCA investigation to be concluded. For then, a full report would be given to the family.

In December 2000, as a result of Essex police inquiry, the original investigating team in Sussex was replaced by another team. The new head, detective superintendent Ken Probert, announced that the murder was being treated as a 'racist killing' - two years after it took place. And Sussex police asked the PCA to review the investigation to see whether there were grounds to discipline any of the original officers involved. Mr. Ken Jones from Avon and Somerset police was called in by the PCA to undertake this investigation. Jay's family were also asked to add to the complaint, which they did. Jay's family met Ken Jones in London and declined to sign a form undertaking not to disclose any confidential information. Subsequently, Ken Jones was made Chief Constable of Sussex police and another officer was assigned the task to continue the complaint investigation. On Jones taking up his new post, he met Jay's family again and promised that Sussex police would be 'open' with the family. But, says the family this, unfortunately has not been the case. And Sussex police are now refusing to release a full copy of the findings by Avon and Somerset to Jay's family. 'We strongly feel that Sussex police are trying to suppress the full extent of failings in Operation Hurling.'.

IPCC position

David Petch, the IPCC Commissioner overseeing the investigation told IRR news that he was still waiting for a formal answer from Sussex police to a request for disclosure but added that Sussex police 'were not minded to hand it over' and that the IPCC had no powers to make them publish the report. He added that disclosure could jeopardise [possible] future disciplinary proceedings.

The family of Jay Abatan, however, feel that it is absolutely vital that the report is released in order that lessons be learnt. Michael Abatan describes the last few years as an uphill struggle and told IRR News that Jay's murder had been the 'final nail in the coffin' for his father, who died eleven months after Jay was murdered. Michael promises to continue fighting for justice for his older brother. He hopes to bring together the families of those who 'have not got justice or have had to fight for justice' in order to lobby the government and put the issue of unsolved racial crimes back on the agenda. He strongly feels that lessons from Stephen Lawrence inquiry have yet to be effectively implemented by the criminal justice system.

For further information please see the Justice for Jay website or e-mail Michael Abatan: abatanm@hotmail.com
The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

 

This Website is published under the protection of the Human Rights Act 1998
and Article 10(1) of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms