TruthWars Community

Police => UK Police => Topic started by: the leveller on August 30, 2017, 03:53:57 PM

Title: Letter to Cressida Dick from Albert Burgess
Post by: the leveller on August 30, 2017, 03:53:57 PM
Cressida Dick                                                               Albert Burgess
Commissioner of the Metropolis                                     15 Parliament Road
New Scotland Yard                                                       Thame
Victoria Embankment                                                    South Oxfordshire
London                                                                         OX9 3TE
SW1A 2JL 27th August 2017
Policy decisions
Dear Cressida
I understand your deputy Craig Mackey said the following.
Thinner blue line: deputy commissioner Craig Mackey says the force will have to assess victims according to vulnerability.
Victims of crime in London could be denied a personal visit from police unless they are judged to be sufficiently “vulnerable”, one of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers has warned.
Deputy commissioner Craig Mackey said the “absolutely feasible” change would see the Met assessing the level of risk faced by a caller when deciding whether to send officers for a “face to face service”.
He said members of the public who might be prioritised in future included people with learning difficulties, the elderly and people who did not speak English as their first language.
This constitutes a policy decision, I would refer you to Regina vs The Commissioner of the Metrpolis ex parte Blackburn 1968. The three eminent High Court Judges in this case might have had Mackey in mind with their ruling when they said
In Lord Denning‘s comments, he makes a distinction between policy decisions where the law will not interfere and those where it will. He says that it is for the Commissioner of Police or the chief constable as the case may be, to decide in any particular case whether enquiries should be pursued, or whether an arrest should be made, or a prosecution brought it must be for him to decide on the disposition of his force and the concentration of his resources on any particular crime or area. He then says that the Commissioner can make policy decisions and give effect to them, as, for instance was often done when prosecutions were not brought for attempted suicide. He goes on to say that there are some policy decisions where the courts can interfere. Suppose a Chief Constable were to issue a directive to his men that no person should be prosecuted for stealing any goods less than £100 in value. He says he should have thought that the court could countermand it. Thus, the distinction is between the individual case and a more general policy. Given the number of allegations of treason that have been made and the response we have received, it appears to us that the Commissioner is failing in his duty to enforce the common law of England.
(A) There were two other judgments of the court we submit that these form the majority of the Court Salmon LJ says (at 771):
“In my judgment the police owe the public a clear legal duty to enforce the law a duty which I have no doubt they recognise and which generally they perform most conscientiously and efficiently. In the extremely unlikely event, however, of the police failing or refusing to carry out their duty, the court would not be powerless to intervene. For example if, as is quite unthinkable, the chief officer in any district were to issue an instruction that as a matter of policy the police would take no steps to prosecute any house-breaker, l have little doubt but that any householder in that district would be able to obtain an order of mandamus for the instruction to be withdrawn. Of course, the police have a wide discretion whether or not they will prosecute in any particular case. In my judgment, however, the action which l have postulated would be a clear breach of duty. It would be so improper that it could not amount to an exercise of discretion. Counsel for the commissioner has argued that the discretion is absolute and can in no circumstances be challenged in the courts. He instances the policy decision not to prosecute, save in exceptional circumstances, young teenage boys who have had sexual intercourse with girls just under the age of sixteen: but this, in my view, is an entirely different and perfectly proper exercise of discretion. The object of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which made it a criminal offence to have sexual intercourse with girls under sixteen, was passed in order to protect young girls against seduction. Unfortunately, in many of the cases today in which teenage boys are concerned, it is they rather than the girls who are in need of protection. These are not the sort of cases which the legislature had in mind when the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, was passed. Moreover, experience has shown that if young boys are prosecuted in such circumstances, the courts usually take the humane and sensible course of imposing no penalty. The object of the statute which made housebreaking a crime was quite simply to prevent housebreaking in the interests of society. Similarly, the object of s 32 to s 40 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963,
and the corresponding provisions of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, which the Act of 1963 replaced, was quite simply to protect society against the evils which would necessarily follow were it possible to build up large fortunes by the exploitation of gaming. The Acts of 1960 and 1963 were designed to prevent such exploitation and would have been entirety effective to do so had they been enforced. Regrettably they have not been property enforced. As a result, and entirely contrary to the intention or contemplation of Parliament, an immense gaming industry, particularly in London, has been allowed to grow up during the past seven years.“
The English constitution is a vital matter to every citizen. Our freedoms depend upon it. Put another way, it may be fairly said that the discretion of the Commissioner over prosecution and enforcement of the statutory criminal law must be so exercised as to give effect to the true intention of Parliament appearing in and from the circumstances of the relevant statute.
(C) The third Judge, Edmund Davies LJ said:
“In this context counsel for the commissioner has addressed to the court an elaborate and learned argument in support of the bald and startling proposition that the law enforcement officers of this country owe no duty to the public to enforce the law. Carried to its logical limit, such a submission would mean that, however brazen the failure of the police to enforce the law, the pubic be wholly without a remedy and would simply have to await some practical expression of the court's displeasure, in particular, it would follow that the commissioner would be under no duty to prosecute anyone for breaches of the Gaming Acts, no matter now flagrantly and persistently they were defined. Can that be right? Is our much-vaunted legal system in truth so anaemic that, in the last resort, it would be powerless against those who, having been appointed to enforce it, merely cocked a snook at it? The very idea is as repugnant as it is startling, and I consider it regrettable that it was ever advanced. How ill it affords with the seventeenth century assertion of ‘Thomas Fuller that, “Be you never so high, the law is above you” The applicant is right in his assertion that its effect would be to place the police above the law. l should indeed regret to have to assent to the proposition thus advanced on behalf of the commissioner, and, for the reasons already given by my lords, I do not regard it as well founded. On the contrary, I agree with them in holding that the law enforcement officers of this country certainly owe a legal duty to the public to perform those functions which are the raison d‘etre of their existence. This was taken from a previous letter to you and deals with treason however the courts comments are quite clear you can decide not to prosecute in one case but you cannot take a policy decision to exclude a particular group because of their ethnicity or physical condition or whether they speak the language properly or not. This proposed change from fully investigating all reasonable allegations of crime to one where a working physically fit indigenous subject of her Majesty’s is excluded from the protections granted to all people of whatever ethnicity or physical condition or the ability to speak English properly, is entirely contrary to our common law concept of the duties of the holder of the office of Constable. And I submit is not a decision you are authorised to make. Not to mention, not one her Majesty would agree with. I understand you feel this is forced upon you by government withdrawing funds necessitating the loss of 4000 constables of all ranks. I submit your correct action is to arrest the Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer for the offence of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty to detect offences by removing the forces funding. Unless you take the jury from an asylum you will get a conviction.
Respectfully submitted
Albert Burgess