Background to my potential candidacy as Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex
March 2023 Complaint regarding breaches of the law.
My serious complaint of criminal conduct by the Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex, Katy Bourne, was not upheld. Her transgressions are part of a repeating pattern of people in significant control of our governance and accountability systems. The breaches enabled by registering multiple identities (“unique identifiers”) in Companies House has serious implications to the safety and security of the public. Multiple identities in Companies House breaches anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism legislation and is a foundation breach of cyber-security.
It is in the public’s best interest that the breaches in systems integrity that I describe are thoroughly investigated for fraud.
As a consequence, I would like to stand for the position of Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex as an independent candidate, not beholden to any political party. I will ensure transparency. We must be tough on corporate crime because they hold tremendous powers that we assume are kept in check by auditors. However, most, decent auditors are completely unaware that its even possible to register multiple identities in Companies House, so they simply never check for them, after all, the International Standards for Auditing don’t mention this route to fraud.
I need to raise £5000 by April 5th to register as a candidate. If you are interested in supporting my campaign, it will have a national impact since other Police and Crime Commissioners also have multiple identities, please visit: Fundraiser by Alison Wright : Independent Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner (gofundme.com) https://www.gofundme.com/f/ch8ja.
Letter by email sent to:
Clerk to Sussex Police & Crime Panel
Room 102 (Cabinet Office)
1st Floor, West Wing
County Hall
Chichester
PO19 1RQ
3 March 2023
Dear Sir,
On 6 November 2022 I complained that Katie Bourne, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex, had:
Failed to declare her appointments as director of College of Policing Limited, Police Digital Service (formerly known as the Police ICT Company) and The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, in the register of interests, 6 December 2021. I alleged that this was an offence under the Companies Act 2006, Section 1831;
Obfuscated references to these interests, and omitted her appointment, in 2022, as a director of Bluelight Commercial Limited, on the SPCC website. I allege that this is evidence of deception of the electorate, to conceal interests.
Registered a duplicate identity, in Companies House, as a director to the College of Policing Limited, using her shortened name. I allege this is a false representation, as defined by the Fraud Act 2006, Section 22;
Registered a third identity, in Companies House, using a false date of birth, as director of The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. I allege this is false representation;
Concealed her interests from auditors, by her failure to declare interests (1 and 2) and concealing interests using multiple registered identities (3 and 4), causing the loss of integrity of statutory audits. I allege that this meets the definition of fraud by false representation and fraud by failing to disclose interests, Fraud Act 2006, Sections 2 and 33;
Been a director of companies which report directors' remuneration, when she has declared none. Under the Freedom of Information Act, I queried whether she is planned to be a beneficiary of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Limited pension fund?
I noted that Bluelight Commercial Limited is using e-tendering software from EU Supply Ltd, which is a privately owned company, directed by two non-British subjects only. As a qualified Systems Engineer, I allege that this represents a National security risk.
Following this complaint you wrote to the Office of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (OSPCC), on 16 November 2022, requesting views on points 1, 2 and 6, above. In my email to you, on 17 November 2022, I requested that the OSPCC be asked to respond to all of my complaints. And, your second letter to the OSPCC, on 23 November 2022, summarised my complaints 3, 4 and 5.
Thank you for providing a response from Mr Kane, Head of performance at the Office of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (OSPCC), dated 5 December 20224. I apologise for my delay in replying.
Failure to declare interests
1. The PCC has subsequently updated her register of interests, on 1 December 2022, to include the appointments which I had brought to your attention as requiring disclosure. The PCC's declaration now reads:
Non-Executive Director – The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners [24 July 2019 to present]
Non-Executive Director – BlueLight Commercial Limited [30 September 2022 to present]
Non-Executive Director – Police Digital Service [20 July 2016 to 25 July 2022]
Non-Executive Director – College of Policing Limited [28 May 2013 to 30 April 2017]
No remuneration is/was received for any of these non-executive director roles5
It is clear that the OSPCC found that this complaint had merit, and, as a result, the PCC has declared her company directorships.
The consequence of this admission of omission, is that for 9 years the PCC has failed to comply with the Companies Act 2006, Section 177, Duty to declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangement, and this is an offence under Section 183, Offence of failure to declare interest.
As a director, she has a duty to promote the success of Bluelight Commercial Limited and The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Limited, which are commercial interests. I have presented evidence that Bluelight Commercial Limited presents a national security threat, as its' procurement platform is hosted by EU Supply Limited, which is a privately owned company by two non-British citizens. This arrangement, breaches governance and assurance controls, which apply to legal procurement of public emergency services. I allege that this is evidence that the PCC has acted outside of her powers, and that the PCC can not be trusted to be acting independently and in the electorate's best interests.
2. The errors obscuring the names of these companies and the omission of Bluelight Commercial Limited, on the SPCC website, were not commented upon, and they remain unchanged. When will these corrections be made?
Multiple registered identities (see images).
Identity 1
Identity 2
Identity 3
Mr Kane, summarised the issues of multiple registered identities as:
3. a duplicate record exists for the non-executive director role at the College of Policing Limited under the name of Mrs Katy Bourne, with the same date recorded for both the appointment and resignation
4. a discrepancy exists in relation the the date of birth recorded for Mrs Katy Bourne in her non-executive director role with The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners
He accepted that the representations are erroneous, when he wrote, I have contacted Companies House and asked that both the inaccurate date of birth and the duplicated entry listed under the shorter name are amended on their website for exactness. I conclude that he found that these two complaints had merit and has taken steps to correct the record.
I note that the Companies House record has updated on 28 February 2023, with;
Katy Bourne's identity, registered with date of birth October 1979, deleted.
A second filing made appointing the PCC's second identity to The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.
The officer details do not record this amendment. Corrections of an identity's details, in Companies House, is normally shown as amendment, on the subject search page. Does deleting a record, so it appears as if it never existed, and associating another identity, for the officer appointment, follow due process? From my understanding of Companies House, changes to a director's particulars, are referenced on the subject search page. Whilst there is a record of the change within the filing history, it is not explanatory and this amendment to an incorrect date of birth is not traceable. Investigation of whether political influence has facilitated non-standard amendments to Companies House processes, may be indicated.
The following summarises Katy Bourne's current registered identities. The subtle errors that enabled the duplicate record, are highlighted in bold.
Identity 1
Katy BOURNE
Total number of appointments 1
Date of birth October 1964
COLLEGE OF POLICING LIMITED (08235199) Active
Sackville House, Brooks Close, Lewes, East Sussex, England, BN7 2FZ
RESIGNED Director
Appointed on 28 May 2013
Resigned on 28 May 2013
Occupation
Sussex Police And Crime Commissioner6
Identity 2
Katy Elizabeth BOURNE
Total number of appointments 4
Date of birth October 1964
BLUELIGHT COMMERCIAL LIMITED (12517649) Active
Office Of The Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner, Brooks Close, Sackville House, Lewes, England, BN7 2FZ
ACTIVE Director Appointed on 30 September 2022
Occupation Police And Crime Commissioner For Sussex
POLICE DIGITAL SERVICE (08113293) Active
Office Of The Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner, Sackville House, Brooks Close, Lewes, East Sussex, United Kingdom, BN7 2FZ
RESIGNED Director Appointed on 20 July 2016
Resigned on 25 July 2022
Occupation Police And Crime Commissioner
COLLEGE OF POLICING LIMITED (08235199) Active
Sackville House, Brooks Close, Lewes, East Sussex, United Kingdom, BN7 2FZ
RESIGNED Director
Appointed on 28 May 2013
Resigned on 30 April 2017
Occupation Police & Crime Commissioner7
THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONERS (05214716) Active
Office Of The Sussex Police And Crime Commissioner, Sackville House, Brooks Close, Lewes, England, BN7 2FZ
ACTIVE Director Appointed on 24 July 2019
Occupation Police And Crime Commissioner8
I anticipate that, soon, the PCC's first identity will be linked to her second, with this change, and the birthdate correction, noted on the search page, as is standard procedure when the particulars of a director are amended. The PCC, by not notifying the Registrar that these identities are linked, is in breach of Section 167, Duty to notifying the registrar within 14 days of any change in its register of directors or of directors' residential addresses9, since 28 May 2013.
5. Mr Kane characterised the PCC's misstatements as “minor anomalies” and failed to acknowledge that they resulted in the material gain of two additional registered identities and, fenced-off business interests, in Companies House. Mr Kane refuted my allegation that these anomalies were an attempt to mislead and/or deceive members of the public, and claimed that they would not compromise an audit or search, without providing any evidence for his assertions. Yet, in my complaint I had presented a detailed explanation of how these multiple identities are deceptive, by obscuring sight of all the business interests from auditors, the Panel and public awareness. This complaint was not addressed and requires confirmation from the auditors involved in each of these companies, whether, or not, her non-disclosure had a material impact on previous audits, covering each of the relevant years.
6. In the PCC's new Disclosure of Interests, she declares No remuneration is/was received for any of these non-executive director roles. However, she has failed to confirm that no remuneration “is planned to be” received, which I had specifically questioned. Is the PCC a member of any pension fund, or other remuneration displacement scheme, held by The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, or other company, since she was elected in 2012?
7. This complaint was not addressed and remains outstanding.
8. The Quarterly Report of Complaints, records my complaint, as:
(3.1.3) Serious Complaints (allegations of criminal conduct)
One person contacted the Panel to raise issues regarding the Commissioner’s interests. As part of the initial handling role, the Clerk to the Panel was able to undertake basic enquiries with the OSPCC, which established that there was no basis for a complaint. During the course of these enquiries, it transpired that the PCC’s published register of interests needed to be updated, and that minor inconsistencies with information held by Companies House needed to be corrected. The online record has now been updated, and we are advised that Companies House has been notified of the subject amendments.
The second sentence which established that there was no basis for the complaint is contradicted by the findings given in the third sentence, that the published register of interest needed to be updated, and that Companies House needed to be corrected. The outcome should record that the PCC has updated her register of interests, including the detail of the companies she has declared, and that Companies House has been notified to make amendments. The second sentence can be corrected by removing “no”.
This statement focusses on my complaints 1-4, but fails to address complaint 5 and 6, which are outstanding. I recognise that you may consider that complaint 7 is outside of your control, however, given that the PCC is accountable to the Panel, and is currently a director of this company, you have a duty to scrutinise her activities.
Section 1.3, of the same report, states Serious complaints (those alleging criminal conduct) are referred automatically to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). However, the report also states that the Clerk to the Panel was able to undertake basic enquiries with the OSPCC. Please will you explain why due process was not followed?
Additional Complaints regarding the Quarterly Review Meeting, 27 January 2023
9. The PCC failed to declare her interests to the Panel.
At the Sussex Police and Crime Panel's Quarterly Review meeting, on 27 January 2023, during the agenda item Declaration of interests, the PCC did not bring her newly updated declaration of interests to the attention of the Panel (01:57, Agenda item, Declaration of Interests10). Due process required that the Panel reflected on these disclosures and questioned whether these directorships represent, or have represented, any conflict of interest, or assurance non-compliance, and consider whether the PCC has met her obligation to be transparent.
On 16 November you wrote, on behalf of the Panel, to the OSPCC “Although we cannot verify whether or not the former two interests have been declared, the latter was not declared on an archived RoI dated 6 December 2021.”. And, on 23 November, “It would be helpful for the Clerk to learn more about the Commissioner’s role in these companies, the nature of their work, and any insight into the contention outlined above.” These two statements make it appear that the Clerk of the Panel was unaware of the PCC's directorships of any of these companies. The failure to mention the names of these companies, in the Quarterly Review Meeting, under the agenda item, Declaration of Interests, or during discussion about the complaint (see Appendix for a transcript), is further evidence that the PCC, and her team, are trying to keep knowledge of these companies, concealed from the Panel and the electorate.
Prior to 1 December 2022, I can find no evidence that the PCC had disclosed these interests, using the correct names, to the public or to the Panel, in the Quarterly Review Meetings. The PCC had a duty to declare these interest to the Panel, because the role of the Panel is to provide checks and balances,.. to scrutinise the performance of the Commissioner and ensure transparency.11 Can you provide me with any evidence that the PCC disclosed her business interests previously, starting with her two appointments to the College of Policing Limited, on 28 May 2013? If the Panel was not notified, then, each occurrence is an additional offence under the Companies Act 2006 Section 183, Offence of failure to declare interests12.
10. Several member of the Panel failed to declare their interests on 27 January 2023
In addition to the PCC, I want to register a complaint that the following members failed to declare their interests at the Quarterly Review Meeting, 27 January 2023:
Councillor Christian Mitchell, Chairman of the Panel,
Mr Ninesh Edwards, Clerk,
Mr Mark Streater, SPCC CEO and Monitoring Officer,
Mr Ian McCullough, Chief Finance Officer SPCC,
Mr Mervin Dadd, Chief Communications and Insight Officer SPCC.
I request disclosure of all of their business interests and investigation into their non-disclosure, which is an offence.
11. The PCC and Monitoring Officer attempted to downgrade my Serious Complaint
At the Quarterly Review Meeting, the chairman invited the Panel to consider the Quarterly Report of Complaints, at 2:42:35, and raise any matters they wish. After a swift look around the room, he declared “None” and moved to the next agenda item. The PCC interrupted to ask to return to the Report of Complaints. I have reproduced the conversation that followed, in the Appendix, as it is, in my opinion, a parody on transparency and an exemplar of scrutiny avoidance, as named members of the Panel struggle to find ways to assist the PCC to downplay the seriousness of my complaint and the material evidence that there is to support it. This publicly funded time should have been spent discussing the PCC's newly declared interests and material facts. I allege that the PCC and Monitoring Officer's request to recategorise the complaint, was a breach of due process and a distraction from any discussion about the companies she is, and has been, directing without declaring to the Panel.
12. The PCC transfers responsibility and misleads the Panel.
In response to the PCC's request, the Clerk had just started to speak, when the PCC interrupted to say, “They got my date wrong. Yeah, my date of birth, wrong. They thought I was a lot younger than I am”. With the use of “they”, the PCC transferred the responsibility for the misstatements to a third party, whom was left ambiguous. A listener might reasonably conclude that, she was saying, that it was the complainant who had got her date of birth wrong. She then made a joke of it, “They thought I was a lot younger than I actually am, which was fantastic for me.”. Then, she lied, when she said “And, I don't think that was a criminal issue.”, because the PCC knows that providing the wrong date of birth is falsification and failing to declare interests is a criminal offence. Finally she down-played her misstatements “Joking aside, though, it was quite minor.”, which shows disregard for the law.
I allege that the PCC deliberately misled the Panel to draw focus away from the product of the misstatements; a duplicated registration to the College of Policing Limited, a separate identity for The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and concealment of her directorships of Police Digital Limited and Bluelight Commercial Limited. She denied the Panel the opportunity to consider the material facts.
13. The Monitoring Officer provided no explanation or evidence of investigation
The PCC's Monitoring Officer repeatedly referred to the misstatements as “minor inconsistencies” to justify the recategorisation of the complaint, out of the serious complaint “bucket”, as he called it. This language demonstrates his disregard for the seriousness of the transgression and the importance of complaints processes for holding public bodies to account. His only argument was that, because the inconsistencies appear to be minor, no serious offence had been committed. He did not acknowledge that these inconsistencies breach the Companies Act 2006 or that they achieved multiple registered identities which obscure business interests and created an exposure to fraud. As the PCC's Monitoring Officer, I had anticipated that he would describe what steps he had taken to investigate my allegations, for example, establishing whether, or not, the PCC's duplicate registration, at the College of Policing Limited, has been used to establish fraudulent bank or trade accounts. Instead he failed to mention by name any of the Companies to which these inconsistencies relate. This is evidence of the Monitoring Officer misleading the Panel.
14. The Chairman misled the Panel.
Rather than leading a robust examination of the PCC's newly disclosed interests, there was not one mention of any of the companies that the PCC directs, and has been directing. The Panel has a duty to hold the PCC to account yet the Chairman repeatedly failed to mention that my complaints did have merit and have resulted in the PCC's disclosure and a commitment to correct the misstatements. Instead, he repeatedly diminished my substantiated complaints as “minor inconsistencies” which, he said “on the most simplest of investigation it was found not to have any merit...it was baseless”. This was an untrue statement, given evidence of Companies Act 2006 offences, from the Companies House registry and published on the SPCC website. Instead of scrutiny we witnessed the Panel accept lots of innocent explanations, as the Clerk described in the meeting. None, of which, were explained clearly.
As the Clerk responded to the PCC's request to recategorise the complaint, from 2:43:58, the Chairman was acting nervously, shuffling papers and looking agitated. At the mention of the PCC's Register of interest, at 2:44:10, the Chairman, turned to stare at the Clerk and rapidly raised his hand to his lips in, what looks like, a signal to be careful what he says in front of the Panel. As a result the Clerk's sentence didn't quite make sense. I raise the likelihood that this is evidence that the Clerk has been put under undue pressure by the Chairman, relating to the handling and reporting of this complaint. This would explain why I needed prompt the Clerk, by email, to write a further letter to refer all of my complaints to the OSPCC.
15. Accountability, assurance and separation of duties
Documentation and information, available on the Sussex Police and Crime Commission website, and records in Companies House, provide evidence that the PCC has made multiple breaches the Companies Act 2006. I have proposed that the reason for separating her appointments, between 3 registered identities, is that the appointments conflict with separation of duties requirements. Principle 6 of the Government Functional Standards, states that accountabilities and responsibilities are defined, mutually consistent and traceable across the levels of management with appropriate separation of duties.13 This administrative control exists to prevent fraud. As the Functional Standard goes on to explain, Fraud is a significant risk to the UK public sector and has far-reaching financial and reputational consequences. In addition, serious and organised economic crime is a national security issue (4.4.4 Functional Standards).
The PCC's appointments are analysed below, with the periods of concurrent appointments:
Appointments Appointed Resigned Concurrent with
College of Policing Limited 28/05/13 28/05/13 COP Ltd, 28/5/13
College of Policing Limited 28/05/13 30/04/17 COP Ltd, 28/5/13
Police Digital Service 20/07/16 25/07/22 COP Ltd, 20/7/16 - 30/4/17
The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners 24/07/19 Current PDS, 24/7/19 – 25/7/22
Bluelight Commercial Limited 30/09/22 Current APCC, 30/9/22 – to date
I have presented evidence that The Panel appear to have been unaware of the PCC's duties to these companies, and, so, have not been able to hold her to account. If this is correct, then, I recommend an independent review of whether there were, and are, appropriate separation of duties between these appointments, with a particular focus on procurement contracted during periods of concurrent appointments. The Panel have a duty to make these assessments because the Government Functional Standards requires: Commercial assurance should ensure at least three separate and defined levels of assurance are applied that are proportionate to the risk and value of the commercial activity. And, For highest risk contracts and commercial activity, which is assumed to apply to policing procurement, a 4th line of defence may be adopted to provide an additional layer of assurance (Government Functional Standard, 4.4.1). Are you able to explain how assurance requirements were met within these mutual relationships?
The role of the Panel is to scrutinise the performance of the Commissioner and ensure transparency on behalf of the electorate14. Since the PCC failed to declare these interests, the Panel has been unable to hold her to account on these activities and the opposite of transparency has occurred, for over 9 years. The reason that there is a duty to declare interests, is to prevent fraud through corporate crime. Based on this evidence, I restate my request that the PCC, Mrs Katy Bourne, is suspended, whilst the extent of her fraud is investigated. I extend this request for suspension, to include her Monitoring Officer, Mr Mark Streater, and the Chairman of the Sussex Police and Crime Panel, Mr Christian Mitchell, for misleading the electorate about the PCC's interests, to create the impression, as Councillor Denis put it, that there's “nothing to see here, move along”. An assessment of the risk factors for money laundering and terrorism financing, concludes that the PCC role is at high risk to control by criminals (see Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Guidance for the Accountancy Sector, CCAB)15..I allege that, on balance of probability, with researched hindsight, Mrs Katy Bourne and team's transgressions are a symptom of a coup.
Yours sincerely,
Alison Wright.
Appendix – Transcript of Sussex Police and Crime Panel, Quarterly Review Meeting, Quarterly Report of Complaints . 27 January 2023.
At the Quarterly Review Meeting, the chairman invited the Panel to consider the Quarterly Report of Complaints at 2:42:35 and raise any matters they wish. After a swift look around the room, he declared “None” and moved to the next agenda item. The PCC interrupted to ask to return to the Report of Complaints. The conversation that followed is described bellow.
PCC:
“I just had a question, it was around the 3.1.3, that was put under Serious complaints - allegations of criminal conduct and I just wondered why it was placed in that section and not in the section above, which is the, just the sort of, Complaints section?”
Clerk:
“It's because what was alleged would, on the face of it, have sat under that section. But upon...
PCC: (Interrupts)
“They got my date wrong, yeah, my date of birth, wrong. They thought I was a lot younger than I actually am, which was fantastic for me. And, I don't think that was a criminal issue. I thought that was fantastic. No. Joking aside, though, it was quite minor.”
Clerk:
“So, what was actually alleged, it turned out that there were lots of innocent explanations for it, for all the matters that were alleged. It was the case that your Register of Interests...did happen to catch your website at a time when those weren't published, so that was able to be rectified. We are able to go back, and, and, and, I think, through your office correct the entries at Companies House. But on the face of it when the complaint arrived it did allege matters that would sit within that paragraph, which is why I have indicated it there, but I hope within the text I've made it clear why, er, on basic inquiry, erm...” He paused. A noise caused a distraction.
PCC:
“I'll refer you to my monitoring officer, who is just wrecking the place.”
Monitoring Officer:
“I think, I think, the issue is that if you see a 3.1.3 that making, making some initial inquiries, that minor inconsistencies with information held were identified, and I think it's, it's the fact that whatever the complainant may have alluded or said that, a very quick and swift determination by your good selves showed that this was merely a matter of minor inconsistencies, indeed, which is what our office found. And, I think, if I remember the complainant was alluding to the fact that the inconsistency at Companies House could lead to serious offences being committed rather than they had. So, I think the point being is it.. I think the feeling is, isn't it Commissioner?, that this is a little disingenuous in terms of putting it straight into the 'Serious Criminal Conduct' bucket as opposed to the 'considered by, as a serious complaint, but not found to be'... Because all of this has ramifications as Members might recognise when you're in public office as to what is captured, documented and alluded to and, of course, that letter is not made public and nor is the findings. So I think it's a question of a degree of proportionality based on the fact that these were minor inconsistencies and the complainant was alleging what could have happened rather than what did.”
Chairman:
“OK. So, clarified? Yes.
The Chairman and the Clerk begin a conversation, it's hard to determine what is being said, by whom,
“Well, the knowledge can as wait for it.. yeah, I mean I have to take your advice as a.. Is it saying that it fits in there...to be shared with the Panel.. should consider whether it fits in...” The conversation goes off-line for 1½ minutes.
Chairman:
“Sorry I was, as Mr Edwards, we've just been conferring about how the minutes can recall this, so it's clear and fair to, to, erm, everyone. Councillor Walsh”. He brings in the councillor who was waiting to speak.
Councillor Walsh:
“Chairman, the report is as it is. It's in the public domain, it's been published, we can't unpublish it or take it back. What I think is, the minutes should reflect the discussion that we've had and the information that's been given and re-emphasised that it was a minor inconsistencies and that the, the, the, the, the complainant made suggestions that made it appear it might have been a serious offence, not that anybody else did.”
Chairman:
“Well, that's what, that, was the point we had just reached and said that. Mr Edwards, do you want to say anything?
Clerk:
“No”
Mrs Scholefield:
“Can we just not reclassify it and amend the heading? Or, is that not possible?
Chairman:
“Well, that's what I was just taking advice on whether it can be reclassified or whether these classification and boxes are fixed.”
Clerk:
“The report has been published” Conversation continues, too quietly to hear.
Mrs Scholefield:
“I mean there are other typos, we are saying that one colleague is going to go through and list, because there are one or two, couldn't this be a correction like one of those?
Chairman:
No. The point is, which was rightly made by Councillor Walsh, there was a complaint made, so we can't, it can't be said that there wasn't. But, upon ...the most cursory of examination, it was found..uh, there was no basis, not even that there was no merit, but it was, it has to be categorised into that. I hear what the Commissioner is saying, that it means anyone could make spurious allegations people and we've talked earlier about liberty and people are free to make, people do make allegations and it's right that people, if people do that they are investigated, but of course they need to be categorised and after they have been investigated we can''t sort of recategorise them to how they ought to have been. It follows, so I think it has to be, that the complaint was made and on, on, the, the, most simplest of investigations, urm, it, it it wasn't even found to have any merit to, to , to , to make it, to take it forward .. but it does, did fall into that category, therefore the right way forward. I think it has to be that the minutes record that, as set out. I don't think there's any way of, of presenting any differently”.
Clerk:
We could say that there was no, we found that there was no basis.
Chairman:
Yeah, I mean, the minutes can record that it was found that there was no basis for the complaint as indeed did the report. I think, that, that has to be the right way of capturing it. Because to do otherwise, since it was made under that category, rightly or wrongly, but the decision was without merit. The alternative is, then, that we sort of move it into a different category. The, the, the downside actually of doing that, is, that if, if anyone else was to, to think 'I thought someone made a complaint, about criminal misconduct, then, if they were to look in the minutes they wouldn't actually find it, because it won't be under the right category and then that would actually cause further confusion. So, it was dealt with under that heading, and the answer is, is, is as we've, as we've received in the report. Councillor Denis, then Councillor Youtan.
Councillor Denis:
I agree with your approach, think it's very sensible, you can't reclassify, but I think what would be, would have been useful, in retrospect, I didn't think of it at the time, but because I haven't, you know, I didn't, I didn't see any.. anything bad in this, but obviously I'm not the subject, so I... I didn't, I didn't read anything bad in this, but it might be useful, to, both in the report and in the minutes, make sure it's clearly separated out with, like, the result? This is like the narrative, and that it's like the conclusion, if you like, would be a clear subheading, or as a little subheading, or something, conclusion. No merit or nothing to see here, move along. Whatever is the right thing to do. Just so it's clearer what the outcome of that is, when you're looking at the report and in the minutes.
Chairman:
Yeah, and I think we'll have the minutes, also, not that it will labour the point or, or sort of gold plate it, but to make the point why it has sat, go on to say, why, following the Panel's debate, it has remained in that category, despite all the reasons above, because to do otherwise would equally would not be right, and the minutes will record then, that it had no merit, baseless, as well. It was baseless. Councillor Youtan?
Councillor Youtan:
No, that's ok as long as it's corrected, 100%.
Chairman:
Absolutely, it was be absolutely corrected, but I don't see how it's possible to slide it or move it into a different category when it came in under that category.
Councillor Youtan:
But it will be clear that there was no case to answer.
Chairman:
Oh yes, yes, yes and, and, and, as I've set out, it will further go on to say why, nevertheless, despite there being no case to answer, at all, it still remained in that category it'd in, and the fact it was considered and dismissed in that category.
Councillor Youtan:
In that category, in that category.
Chairman:
Yes
Councillor Youtan:
I mean, I understand where the Police Commissioner is coming from because I was once erroneously accused of racism and it's a horrible thing to have something like that on your record, it really is. I mean there was no case to answer but nevertheless it's not a nice thing to have particularly in her position.
Chairman:
Yes, sorted. Councillor Drayson, sorry.
Councillor Drayson:
Very quickly, please don't take this as criticism of you, Mr Edwards, because it sounds like you've done the best, but, one comment on this one is that paragraph 3.1 says “during the subject period one person raised issues”, which could potentially have cost us here, and then it reappears, presumably, in 3.1.3, which, going forward, could perhaps have a title like 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 which said “correspondence recorded and considered by the Clerk to be”. Because this just says “Serious complaint”, it doesn't say that the Clerk considered this to be a serious complaint and in fact in 3.1 he said it could, it could be a serious complaint, or is that a different complaint, referred to in 3.1? It's that. Then, you've got the next heading, “correspondence recorded considered by you, not considered by you to be a complaint, then the next one is something else recorded, considered by you not to be a serious complaint, but then we do not use the words, considered by you to be a serious complaint, we're saying it is a serious complaint. It's just that wording, it's just because that's what obviously made the Commissioner go “Argh”.
Chairman:
Noted and accepted. Any other panel members? OK It will appear in the draft minutes which will be circulated well in advance of the meeting on 24 March. Please do raise with the clerk any points so that when we come to approve the minutes the wording accurately records our debate and decision now. Content with that Commissioner? No. I understand why but equally you probably understand the debate that we've had.
1Section 183 Offence of failure to declare interest, Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)
2Section 2 Fraud by false representation, Fraud Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)
3Section 3 Fraud by failing to disclose interests, Fraud Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)
4Correspondence from the Panel – Sussex Police and Crime Panel (sussexpcp.gov.uk)
5Disclosable Interests - December 2022 (sussex-pcc.gov.uk)
6Katy BOURNE personal appointments identity 1 - GOV.UK
7Katy Elizabeth BOURNE personal appointments identity 2 - GOV.UK
8Katy Elizabeth BOURNE personal appointments identity 3 - GOV.UK
9Section 167 Duty to notify registrar of changes, Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)
10Sussex Police and Crime Panel - Friday 27 January 2023, 10:30am - East Sussex County Council Webcasts (public-i.tv)
11Sussex Police and Crime Panel – Supporting and scrutinising the work of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (sussexpcp.gov.uk)
12Section 183 Offence of failure to declare interest, Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)
13Government Functional Standards (publishing.service.gov.uk)
14About the Panel – Sussex Police and Crime Panel (sussexpcp.gov.uk)
Update: I've revised by campaign objective to £750 to go towards promotional posters to put up across Sussex.
Hi Alison,
Another great but worrying article.
Am a little surprised by the lack of comments and likes, I have on numerous occasions mentioned your substack in comments I have put on social media to try an increase awareness of what you do.
Will make a small donation and hope you get the support you deserve.
Have you considered an email to the CEO about the potential fraud that may be being committed by its direct or indirect employees????
It would put them in an interesting position and it would be difficult to refuse the request given the information that has been documented.
The letter (if done) could be used as a template for all CEOs of councils?
Finally came up with what I think is the best way to not pay council tax, it will involve a long letter to the section 151 officer (by name) and series of questions that will need to be rebutted for the tax to stand.
Given that they have lied about pretty much everything and the evidence stands to support this , it will put them in a somewhat difficult position.
And at the end of the day there is nothing to actually loose by doing this other than some time.