METROPOLITAN POLICE
Working together for a safer London

Directorate of Professional Standards
Prevention and Organisational Learning Command

Prevention & Organisational Learning, Borough Support (SW) Jubilee House
3rd Floor
230-232 Putney Bridge Road
Putney
London
SW15 2PD

Facsimile: 020 8785 8766

Email: Steven.Bentley@met.police.uk

Telephone: 020 8785 8545

Your reference:
Our reference: PC/5183/09

Date: 28th April 2010

JFL,
Address,
London

Dear Mr JFL,

Ref. Outcome of Investigation Report – Public Complaint PC 5813/09.

I am writing to inform you of the outcome of my enquiries into your complaint made to the IPCC on the 29th July 2009 (reference 2009/15379), and received by the Metropolitan Police on the 2nd September 2009. Annex A to this letter provides background information regarding the ethos of the complaints system and may therefore assist your understanding of the contents of this letter.

Your complaint emanates from your detention at Heathrow on the 26h January 2008, your arrest on 15th September 2008 and the subsequent detentions, searches and arrests by Counter Terrorism Command (CTC) officers culminating in your convictions in June 2009.

I have used the initial complaint, to the IPCC, dated the 29th July 2008, your letter dated 20th October 2009, the account provided by you at our meeting of the 9th December 2009, and your subsequent e-mails, as the basis for my investigation. These letters identified 14 heads of complaint that you wished to be investigated and each complaint will be dealt with below.

Overview of the information surrounding your complaint: 

You stated that you had flown to Canada 'one to two days' prior to your arrest and you stated you, 'had chosen to voluntarily withdraw my application to enter. Canadian customs had wanted me to allow them to access my US business computer files without reason. I had returned, by air, to Heathrow where I was met by UK customs officials whilst I was passing through the green channel. They again requested access to my business files and again I refused to respond without legal advice. I was arrested on suspicion of smuggling and bailed.

Whilst I was on bail I went to my home in Holland via France. In August of 2008, whilst away, I rang HMRC and they informed me I was 'wanted' because I had not returned on bail. I returned to Eurostar's, Gard du Nord and spoke to the authorities there, where I was told to return on the train and someone would meet me.'

After your arrest you explained that you were 'I was de-arrested and arrested under the Terrorism Act 2008 (TACT), then taken to the interview room. This was because I had shipped all of my possessions, by freight, in three large bags which were to travel separately from myself from France to London. I am aware that the bags were searched by French sniffer dogs and that they had indicated explosives. This is, to the best of my knowledge, because I was shipping my model rocket equipment and, although I did not ship the propellant, it still contained the residue of it. The propellant could be RDX a commercially available high explosive'.

In June 2009 you pleaded guilty to two counts of making a false statement to procure a passport, ten counts of failing to comply with a Sect 49 notice and one count of failing to surrender to bail. This resulted in a sentence of thirteen months imprisonment.

You explained to me that that, since your conviction you suffered a breakdown which resulted in you being sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Your complaint was received by the IPCC in July 2009.

Our meeting took place on the 9th December 2009, after liaison with Dr Curtis of St Annes Hospital, who confirmed that you were medically capable to provide a statement clarifying your original complaint about police. Although he requested a nurse to be present during our meeting of the 9th December you refused stating you did not wish to discuss your private details in front of another person. The meeting progressed, notes were taken and a statement compiled, pending completion and signature following your release from hospital. Despite numerous requests it has not been possible to obtain a time to meet with you following your release, although lately you have been in contact and the statement has been forwarded to you at your request. To date the statement remains unsigned.

During our meeting I clarified my role regarding the investigation of police misconduct and that my role was not to re-investigate your criminal case. I would however review your allegations where they involved individual officers and assess them against the standards of professional behaviour and I would further assess the Metropolitan police's role as a whole to identify any organisational learning.

I explained that, because no issues regarding police submissions and evidence had been raised by the Judge regarding police evidence your allegations relating to misleading and untrue evidence would be difficult to prove, and I explained our ruling which, without guidance from a Judge, would prohibit the investigation into any perjury allegation. I explained that pleading 'guilty', specifically regarding the passport offences, could effect the credibility of your related allegations. However I acknowledge that by pleading guilty the case would not have been fully heard and therefore I believed that this would allow me some leeway in assessing the officer's evidence. We discussed your fitness to plead guilty and you confirmed that you had been medically assessed regarding before trial and had been pronounced 'fit'.

You explained that you would also like to complain about your original detention by HMRC and I have informed you that HMRC are not covered by police complaints: I have advised you to complain to them directly.

External oversight is provided by the HM Inspectors of Constabulary, and the National Audit Office. Complaints can be made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Ombudsman and the Adjudicator.

I have attached an internet link which explains the processes involved:- http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/ContactOrDealWithHMRC/DG_10014956

You also explained that you would like to complain about the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) solicitors and Barristers regarding their 'biased and slanderous submissions during my case', this is again not covered by the police complaints procedure.

You should contact the office of the Legal Services Ombudsman, and I have attached their details below.

Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman 3rd Floor
Sunlight House
Quay Street
Manchester
M3 3JZ

Tel: 0845 601 0794
Fax: 0161 832 5446
E-mail: lso@olso.gsi.gov.uk
Website:  www.olso.org



Complaint allegations:

Your complaint allegations were agreed via our meeting on the 9th December 2009, subsequent e-mails, and the part ratified statement returned to me on the 24th April 2010. Following your e-mail of the 28th April I have progressed the non ratified matters as per the remainder of the statement. They are as follows:

•	On the 15th September 2008, you were arrested for failing to answer bail at St. Pancras International. You believed this arrest was incorrect and thus unlawful.
•	You were transported, whilst handcuffed and at high speed with sirens and lights, to Paddington Green police station. During this time you were refused a seatbelt: which placed you in danger.
•	During your time at both St Pancras and Paddington Green stations you were kept in handcuffs for between 4 and 8 hours. which you believe to be excessive.
•	Whilst at Paddington Green you were refused access to a doctor; not allowed to urinate for five hours and defecate for eight hours: not allowed water for five hours, or food for eight hours and refused any type of break during the two hour fingerprinting procedure. You believe this treatment to be inhumane and torturous.
•	When I was allowed to urinate I had to conduct this into a container, which the police then incorrectly retained.
•	Your clothing, cards, cash and three large bags of personal property were seized, which you have not received a receipt for. The officers released you with no way to look after yourself. You believe this showed a lack of professionalism and duty of care.
•	On the 2nd December 2008 during interview at Paddington Green police station and, DC McInerney unprofessionally attempted to start a conflict by suddenly saying. "What did you call me?" This was later wrongly transcribed as, "Sorry JFL you were saying to me?"
•	At the end of the interview DC Bourne hit you on the arm.
•	You believe that CTC knew the RDX came from the model rocket and therefore your arrest was false and thus illegal.
•	That because the CTC knew your arrest to be false then their use of the sect 49 notice was also illegal and excessive.
•	The Sect 49 notice was written with several misleading inaccuracies and you believe this shows bias.
•	An armed raid was conducted on your address, during your detention you were manhandled and assaulted. You believe this was all unnecessary.
•	Whilst in Southampton, you were retained in handcuffs for four hours between 1245hrs and 1645hrs which breaches your human rights.
•	That, whist at Fareham police station, you were subjected to a 'Smart Water' test; you believe this implicitly stated that you were a thief.
•	That DC Wood failed in his duty to deter you from reporting a seized passport as lost.
•	There has been a long delay in returning your property, some items are still outstanding and some have been found to be broken.

You explained that you believed that, 'there was never a legitimate interest in myself there was no evidence of smuggling, terrorism or unlawful explosives. CTC abused their powers in order to flex the new muscle of the RIPA part 3 law.'



Details of complaint investigation

In order to investigate your allegations. I have reviewed and retrieved the relevant documentary available concerning your complaint, and obtained accounts from the officers concerned.

1.	Original complaint from Mr JFL via the IPCC reference 2009/015379;
2.	Various correspondences by you regarding your complaint,
3.	Your account taken by police on the 9th December 2009;
4.	Copies of internet accounts concerning these events;
5.	Police National Computer (PNC) record for Mr JFL;
6.	Custody records from London and Hampshire;
7.	Various intelligence information from Canadian customs and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC);
8.	The case file incorporating statements, document lists and photographs, premises search warrants, Section 49 (Sect.49) Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) applications and authorities, forensic and intelligence information;
9.	Notes of arrest by PC Pile, British Transport Police (BTP);
10.	PNC snapshot showing details of the wanted information circulated by HMRC;
11.	Statement from DC McInerney regarding arrest and forensic search;
12.	Statement from DC Paddon regarding arrest and forensic search;
13.	Account from DI Hewitson,
14.	Account from DS Holt,
15.	Account from DC Wood;
16.	Account from DC McInerney;
17.	Account from DC Paddon.

DC Freislar has left the Metropolitan Police and, despite several requests, has not responded to my e-mails for an account regarding this matter.

Some confidential details may have been deleted from this copy of my report – for instance, information of a restricted and sensitive nature or personal data that is held on police records. However, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has the power to inspect any and all information that was in my report, if that should be necessary.



Outcome of complaint investigation: 

1.	On the 15th September 2008, you were arrested for failing to answer bail at St. Pancras International. You believed this arrest was incorrect and thus unlawful.

You stated that. 'Upon arrival at St. Pancras International I voluntarily surrendered and was met by PC Pile (0613 British Transport Police) and he arrested me for failing to answer bail at Heathrow police station on 23rd June 2008 for the importing of indecent and obscene material. I believe this arrest was incorrect and thus unlawful as I had been arrested for smuggling and not what the officer stated.'

I have obtained copies of both PC Pile's statement and his notebook where it pertains to your arrest. PC Pile stated that he arrested you at 1245hrs for failing to attend bail for the import of indecent and obscene material; he stated that he informed you that the arrest was for the prompt and effective investigation of the offence and to prevent any prosecution being hindered by your disappearance. PC Pile stated that you made no reply when cautioned

I have obtained a copy of the information shown on the PNC for the 15th September 2008 and can confirm that the officer was acting upon the information supplied by MHRC [HMRC] and that the officer arrested you for the offence stated on the report.

I have also obtained a copy of an intelligence report which confirmed that you had returned from Toronto where you had refused the Canadian authorities access to your laptop. It confirmed that Canadian customs had found a laptop and webcams in your luggage, and that 'due to a previous incident' which they did not elucidate upon, they suspected your laptop to contain child pornography. The report stated that, on the 25th January 2008, HMRC stopped you at Heathrow and you again prevented the examination of your computer, you were arrested by HMRC on suspicion of being involved in the importation of prohibited goods. The report further noted that you had informed the officers that your laptop did not contain any adult entertainment or any images featuring children.

The request above infers that you had been made aware of HMRC's suspicions as to the content of your laptop and that you had provided them with a response. It would appear, from the information available and on the balance of probabilities, that the reasons for your removal from Canada and your arrest in England were fully explained to you.

The Oxford English Dictionary describes 'smuggling' as to, 'move (goods) illegally into or out of a country, or to convey secretly and illicitly.' Therefore the use of the word smuggling appears to be a more colloquial and explanatory term for the importation of prohibited goods. PC Pile has arrested you using the formal wording of the offence and as per the information supplied by HMRC. The use of formal wording as opposed to colloquial wording does not negate the essence of the offence and thus its legality. As such, in regards to this part of your allegations I am unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

2. You were transported, whilst handcuffed and at high speed with sirens and lights, to Paddington Green police station. During this time you were refused a seatbelt: which placed you in danger.

You stated that, 'I was transported at high speed with sirens and lights, to Paddington Green police station in a white van with no police markings. I was sat on a bench in the rear of the van, I was handcuffed, and I was refused a seatbelt: I believe this placed me in danger.'

DC Paddon confirmed that the van used to transport you from St Pancras to Paddington police station was a blue Mercedes Vito. She confirmed that you were handcuffed using plasticuffs, and sat on the rear seat of the vehicle. She stated that the whole of the backseat was covered in a plastic sheet to prevent contamination which prevented both you and the officers on the backseat from using seatbelts. She stated that the reason for not being able to use seatbelts was explained to you. She stated that the driver of the vehicle was aware they were unable to use seatbelts and drove with due consideration.

DC McInerney described you as physically large, being of similar height to me and of heavy build. I had concerns that he may be violent or that he may try to escape considering the gravity of the offence for which he had been arrested, accordingly I decided that it would be necessary to use plasticuffs to restrain him during prisoner transit. I was aware that his compliance so far was not necessarily an indication that he would continue to be compliant throughout the processes. He also confirmed that he and DC Paddon had sat either side of you throughout the journey.

The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993 PART II Section 6 covers those who are exempt from wearing a seat belt and includes :-

A person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption).'

DI Hewitson stated, 'I was the most highly trained Police driver present, (being a Police class 1 driver), and as such, it made sense for me to drive the Mercedes Vito unmarked call out vehicle utilising the blue lights and 2-tone sirens to make progress from St Pancras to Paddington. The 2 escorting Officers, Dan and Suzanne, remained in the rear with Mr JFL.

I made the decision to utilise the Police exemption from the wearing of seatbelts for the escorting of prisoners for the following reasons:

Mr JFL had been forensically preserved. and the 2 Officers were also wearing forensic barrier clothing. Not wearing a seatbelt significantly reduced the chance of forensic contamination from seatbelts. (This decision appeared to be justified by the very small trace of explosives found on his hand which had been sealed in nylon bag)

The journey was along one road, (the Euston Road leading into Marylebone Road) and took about 5 minutes. At this stage Mr JFL was an unknown security risk and the Officers did not wear their seatbelts to ensure they could respond to possible escape or attack attempts from Mr JFL.

The vehicle was driven safely by me throughout the journey. 'Progress' was made to maximise the available TACT time clock which runs from the time of arrest rather than time of arrival at the police station.

The exemption provided by law, does cover the circumstances described and is therefore is valid in this instance. DI Hewitson has also considered the standard operating procedures (SOP) in the Metropolitan police's safe driving policy by risk assessing your safety as an arrested person, against the operational need to secure evidence and ensure your security. It was his assessment that the operational reasons were paramount and this supported his decision to not provide you with a seatbelt. This assessment appears proportionate to the circumstances and in accordance with the lawful exemptions available. As such, in regards to this part of your allegations, I am unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

3.	During your time at both St Pancras and Paddington Green stations you were kept in handcuffs for between 4 and 8 hours, which you believe to be excessive.

You stated that, 'whilst at the station I was supervised by two officers. DC McInerney and a female officer who had the number 223083 (DC Paddon). During my time at both St Pancras and Paddington Green station 1 was kept in handcuffs for between 4 and 8 hours, which I believe to be excessive especially as I was co-operating, talkative, helped fix a police tape recorder and had voluntarily surrendered as pre-arranged, of no history of violence, escape attempts or vandalism.' (Sic)

There is no time limit provided by law regarding the use of handcuffs, however it should be proportionate, lawful and necessary. The SOP for handcuffing states that, 'the officer should also take into account the detained person's previous propensity to escape, the seriousness of the offence and the possible punishment he or she may expect to receive.'

For me to determine if this arrest was lawful, I must first consider the legislation pertaining to arrests. This states that a lawful arrest requires two elements:

Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides for the power of arrest for constables for all offences. This states that a lawful arrest requires two elements:

A person's involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the elements of a criminal offence;

AND

Reasonable grounds for believing that the person's arrest is necessary

An arrest must be lawful for the officer to use Section 117 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which provides for the power for the use of force, where any provision of this act;
a) confers a power on a constable, and
b) does not provide that the power may only be exercised with the consent of some person, other than a police officer
the officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.
Section b) of section 117 of PACE makes it unlawful to use force on a person if the force is being used to carry out some action from PACE for which permission is required from a person who is not a police officer.
Where the permission of the subject or another is required before taking action under PACE then officers cannot force the subject to take part or submit. This refers chiefly to the taking of intimate samples.

The sections of the act applicable for all of your detention are:-
S.1/2 Powers of search and detention for the purpose of search S.19 Seizure of evidence
S.24 General power of arrest without warrant (constables)
S.32 Search of person and premises on arrest
S.361/37 Detention at police station
S.61 Fingerprinting without consent
S.63 Taking a non-intimate sample without consent

I have already discussed the legality of PC Piles arrest. 
Following PC Pile's arrest you were detained under schedule 7 TACT.

Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 paragraphs 2 to 6 provide powers to stop, search and detain a person for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b) (a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism), whether or not he has grounds to suspect.

The identification of your bags by French explosive dogs, and the subsequent detection of body armour and a white powder lead to your arrested on suspicion of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

From the information available it would appear that your detention is lawful. I have therefore checked to see if the handcuffing was necessary.

It would appear from the statements of PC Pile, you were arrested at 1245hrs, PC Pile stated that he had handcuffed you to the front, in a stacked position, checked for tightness and double locked them. He stated that he conducted a strip search of you at 1250hrs, during which time the handcuffs were removed, to facilitate the search. He stated that immediately after the search he reapplied the handcuffs in the same way as before. He explained that at 1315hrs he seized your ticket and passport (after examination by HMRC) and that at 1320hrs he de-arrested you and passed you to CTC officers who detained you under TACT.

Other documentation shows that at 1315hrs the French authorities identified their concerns regarding your baggage, to CTC officers in Paris. At 1350hrs your bags were taken to a search area and several officers and two explosives dogs were used to conduct a search. At 1400hrs the Eurostar Terminal was closed and passengers removed. The bag search was not concluded until 1615hrs and you were arrested by CTC officers at 1556hrs.

DC Paddon stated, In relation to the excessive handcuffing. I can only comment from 1550 hours on 15/09/08 until Mr JFL was in the custody cell at Paddington Police Station. He presented an unknown risk whilst at St Pancras and during transport to Paddington Police Station. Once at Paddington Police Station both myself and DC McInerney were instructed by an SO15 Forensic Officer. We were told the order in which to remove Mr JFL's protective clothing.

DC McInerney stated, 'Regarding Mr JFL's arrest this was a sterile arrest and was conducted in such a way as to preserve any explosives evidence. The process at Paddington was carried out as directed by a member of our Forensic Management Team who would supervise the order in which exhibits were taken. It is an uncomfortable and long process for both the suspect and the officers as both are fully covered in barrier clothing. with the suspects hands and feet covered with nylon bags loosely tied into place'.

Reviewing the above information it would appear that you were in PC Pile's detention for 35 minutes, during which time the handcuffs were removed to conduct a search and then reapplied. You then remained in handcuffs during your TACT detention until your arrest at 1556hrs, a further 1 hour and 30 minutes.

You were then placed in plasticufs and transported to Paddington Green police station where the custody record noted you arrived at 1655hrs. At 1713hrs you were requested to provide hand swabs, which you declined to do, and authority had to be requested from a superintendent. At 1800hrs this authority was received and, following an urgent interview the custody risk assessment and the service of your rights and entitlements, the forensic search began, this was timed at 1835hrs. This search necessitated the removal of your forensic clothing which would have required the removal of the plasticuffs to facilitate it.

It would therefore appear that you remained in handcuffs for approximately 4hrs and 50 minutes, although forty two minutes of which were instigated by your refusal to provide authorisation for hand swabs and the need to obtain the correct authority to obtain the swabs without your permission.

In light of the information being passed to CTC officers, the need to ensure their safety; your detention; and their requirement to preserve evidence it would appear that, on the balance of probability that the need to retain you in handcuffs was both necessary and proportionate to the crime the officers were investigating. As such, in regards to this part of your allegations. I am unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

4. Whilst at Paddington Green you were refused access to a doctor; not allowed to urinate for five hours and defecate for eight hours; not allowed water for five hours, or food for eight hours and refused any type of break during the two hour fingerprinting procedure. You believe this treatment to be inhumane and torturous.

You stated that you, 'also began to suffer from extreme indigestion. I had not eaten much and this level of stress was way above my norm (sic). CCTV evidence from the cell we show me frequently doubling up in pain and conferring this to the officers present. Whilst at Paddington Green I was refused access to a doctor; the toilet. I was not allowed to urinate for five hours and defecate for eight hours; water for five hours, food for eight hours and any type of break during the two hour TACT fingerprinting procedure, ten long hours into my ordeal. Eventually I saw a doctor who gave me indigestion and pain medicine. During the two hours it took for them to fingerprint me, I requested a break and one was not allowed. I sat down anyway because I was so weak, and no-one physically stopped me.

DC McInerney stated, 'I do not specifically remember JFLmentioning that he wanted to urinate, however if he had asked while the process was going on I probably would have said that he would have to wait. This would be because he could urinate on his hands or plunge his hands into a toilet causing evidence to be lost. It would also potentially cause cross contamination if the exhibits were not taken from him and bagged up in the correct way. JFL was an unknown risk and there was potential for explosives to be elsewhere. This meant that the evidence would be vital to determine if there were any explosives and also for any subsequent prosecution.

DC Paddon stated, 'In relation to Mr JFL's requests re access to doctor, toilet, and water will be found on Mr JFL's custody record'. (Sic)

DI Hewitson stated, 'I was not aware that Mr JFL made any requests for either toilet facilities or medical attention.

Should a request for toilet facilities be made this would be refused prior to forensic examination. This is because Mr JFL could urinate on his hands or defecate on them. This could frustrate forensic examination opportunities. (Again bearing in mind the scale of explosive traces found, this appears to have been a wise move).'

The custody record stated that you arrived at Paddington Green police station at 1655hrs when you were brought directly to a forensically sealed cell. The record noted that both you, and your escorting officers, 'were fully suited in forensic clothing'. It noted that your detention was authorised at 1700hrs. The recorded noted a request for hand swabs, which you declined to provide before receiving legal advice, and that authority was to be sought from a Superintendent. At 1800hrs this authority was received for the non intimate samples and for an urgent safety interview. It was noted that the urgent interview, a medical risk assessment and your rights and entitlements were conducted between 1818hrs and 1835hrs. The record noted that you did not raise any medical issues.

Immediately following the above the officers began to remove your protective clothing and this is recorded as being between 1835hrs and 2025hrs. At 2025hrs the record noted your removal from the cell and the request for fingerprints, palm prints and photograph. The record noted that your photograph was taken and that you refused to provide fingerprints and palm prints, before receiving legal advice. You were then returned to you cell.

At 2035hrs the record noted that you were given a cup of water and at 2038hrs you ordered your evening meal. At 2039hrs a Forensic Medical Examiner (FME) was requested. Dr Frazer examined you between 2055hrs and 2100hrs. At 2101hrs you were given your evening meal another cup of water and a Co-Codermol which had been prescribed by Dr Frazer, immediately after which your request to have a second discussion with the FME was facilitated.

At 2150hrs the record noted that you left your cell to speak with Mr Macho, your solicitor. At 2200hrs, at the conclusion of this consultation, you had your fingerprints taken. The record noted your return to your cell at 2345hrs. At 0700hrs the next morning you were re-examined by Dr Hakki, following information that you had previously suffered from Schizophrenia.

In relation to your allegation that you were refused a break during fingerprinting. I note that this procedure did not occur until you had received food, water, an FME examination, and a consultation with your solicitor, over a period lasting one and a half hours. I further note that you stated that you 'took a break anyway' and that no-one physically stopped you. It is therefore difficult to identify how you were 'refused any type of break' when quite clearly you were not.

It is apparent, from the officer's need to secure evidence, that you would not have been allowed access, to the station's facilities, until after all the forensic exhibits had been taken. However, it should be noted that I can find no officer or documentation recalling your wish to avail yourself of those facilities.

I can find no evidence supporting your alleged requests but in review of all the information it is likely that, unless the opportunity arose before your detention under TACT, that you did not have an opportunity to eat, drink or dispel bodily waste until the conclusion of the forensic seizure. It is further likely that this occurred over a period of three hours and thirty minutes which includes the forty two minutes required following your refusal to provide non-intimate samples. It would appear that, as soon as the evidential procedure had concluded you were immediately allowed access to all of the facilities and therefore it would appear that this usage had not been refused but delayed pending conclusion of the forensic seizures.

The delay in access to facilities must be evaluated in light of the seriousness of the offence and the loss of possible evidence. This was a suspected terrorist investigation and it is known that one of the forensic swabs subsequently identified 9 nannogrammes of an explosive on your left hand. Although on this occasion this was not a matter for charge it would be difficult to see how the officers could have known that at that stage and supports the slow collation of evidence for such a serious offence.

As such, in regards to this part of your allegations, I am able to uphold your complaint that, on the balance of probability your access to water, toilet and medical facilities was delayed, however I am unable to prove that delay was excessive or that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

5.	When I was allowed to urinate I had to conduct this into a container, which the police then incorrectly retained.

In your edited statement you stated, 'At St Pancreas I requested to urinate and I had to conduct this into a container, which the police then incorrectly and without advising, before or after (until June 2009), retained. (Sic)

In your e-mail dated 26th April 2010 you clarified, 'In regards to being required to urinate into a container. I was informed that it was the only way that I would be allowed to urinate. Either into a container or to not be provided with any facilities to urinate. I assumed that it was a logistics issue and that the police present felt that I may become contaminated, (attempt escape), etc, if shown into a WC'. (sic)

DI Hewitson stated, 'When I saw Mr JFL for the first time he was in a paper suit in a small room without a toilet.

I believe that Mr JFL wished to use the toilet before my arrival. I strongly suspect that he would have been given the pot to urinate in, rather than suffer the discomfort of waiting for the toilet or making a puddle on the floor.

As such the item was bagged and produced as an exhibit JZM/10, when in reality it was never going to be any part of the evidential chain /opportunity.

The property JZM/10 has never been submitted for any form of analysis and is stored with the forensic management team.

It was not seized as a sample, but for completeness it was retained as belonging to Mr JFL. It is available for destruction.[']

It would appear from your account that the officer had the option of refusing you the ability to relieve yourself or provide you with a container to do so. It would appear humane of him to allow you this ability. The officer who 'seized' this item has been away on annual leave and therefore I have only briefly spoken to him on his return, however his reply only provided some mitigating circumstances surrounding the initial seizure.

DC Moss stated that he had could recollect you, although he remembered you as Mr JFL, and he remembered attempting to provide some dignity in your detention by providing you with a receptacle in which to relieve yourself. He stated he had no intention to seize the item himself and was at a loss as to why the item had been seized.

It is not proportionate due to the time and number of officers involved to attempt to try and locate the officer who 'seized' the item, and it is highly possible due to your forensic arrest that during the seizure of your property this item was erroneously added.

However, the reasoning behind the seizure will not negate from the fact that the item should not have been 'seized' but destroyed at the earliest opportunity.

DI Hewitson stated he was unaware of the seizure of the container as he had neither requested it, or used it during the course of his enquiry: however checks have shown that the container is still in police possession. He has arranged for its immediate removal from storage and, having received your permission to destroy it, has done so.

As such, in regards to this part of your allegations. I am able to uphold your complaint that, your container of urine has been 'incorrectly retained' and I it has been proved, on the balance of probability, that DC Moss has breached the standards of professional behaviour, in his failure to ensure that this item was dealt with correctly.

DC Moss' Professional Standards Champion has been e-mailed to review the evidence and decide the best way to proceed with this matter. You will have a further letter from me confirming his decision. In relation to this point you will then have a further 28 days, from the date of that letter, confirming that decision, to appeal to the IPCC.

6.	Your clothing, cards, cash and three large bags of personal property were seized, which you have not received a receipt for. The officers released you with no way to look after yourself: You believe this showed a lack of professionalism and duty of care.

You stated that, 'during this time all of my clothing, cards, cash and three large bags of personal property. were seized. The officers released me with no way to look after myself, thankfully my mother helped me and I did not have to become homeless. I believe this showed a lack of professionalism and duty of care. I have also never received a receipt for all my belongings.'

DI Hewitson stated, 'When Mr JFL was in custody he did not ask me for a receipt for his possessions, he was questioned at length about items of interest to Police. When he was released on bail, he did make request for specific items of property namely financial documents. These were restored at the earliest opportunity.

It is noted that it was the police who contacted your mother and obtained her permission for her address to be used as your bail address. This action completely rebuts the allegation that you were left 'with no way to look after yourself' and with no other evidence to dispute DI Hewitson's account I am unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

7.	On the 2 2nd December 2008 during interview at Paddington Green police station and, DC McInerney unprofessionally attempted to start a conflict by suddenly saying, "What did you call me?" This was later wrongly transcribed as, "Sorry JFL you
were saying to me?"

On the 2nd December 2008 1 attended Paddington Green police station and was arrested following the identification of explosives on my hand from the forensic examination. This was due to contaminated model rocket equipment. The police DSTL forensic report very clearly confirms that the model rocket is an explosive device. I was interviewed and was silent. During my interview. I heard DC McInerney unprofessionally attempted to start a conflict by suddenly saying. "What did you call me?" This was later transcribed as, "Sorry JFL you were saying to me?"

DC McInerney stated that he could 'confirm that JFL's recall of the interview is incorrect. He stated, 'I do not recall the interview being confrontational, and all my training as a tier 3 advanced interviewer would go against starting a confrontation. This is certainly not my 'style' of interviewing. There would be no benefit to it. If however there were offensive terms used towards the interviewers then I would most probably challenge a suspect in interview in order to prevent the behaviour of the interviewee from deteriorating. An appropriate adult would have been present during the interview to ensure that Mr JFL was not mistreated in any way.'

It is noted that you had both a solicitor and an appropriate adult present during your interview and despite both of these parties in attendance to protect your welfare, neither recorded any representations about your treatment on tape or on the custody record.

Consideration was given to requesting a copy of the interview tapes from the archives, however it would not be proportionate for me to obtain the recordings. This is because the phrase "What did you call me?" by itself would not be a misconduct offence and, if this was said by DC McInerney, it is your personal interpretation that the phrase was said to provoke conflict.

With DC McInerney disputing both your recollection and interpretation, I can find no evidence supporting your perception. I am therefore unable to uphold your complaint, or prove that DC McInerney acted unprofessionally and breached the standards of professional behaviour

8.	At the end of the interview DC Bourne hit you on the arm.

You stated that, 'At the end of the interview DC Bourne hit me on the arm. This happened whilst the tapes were being changed or removed. I had been interviewed with a solicitor and an appropriate adult present. He shook hands with my solicitor and when I did not offer my hand he hit my right bicep with his left hand. His hand was open and not clenched, it was not a hard strike and I did not receive any bruising but it was totally uncalled for and out of context of the cold situation. I was asked if I said anything or if my solicitor said anything, but we did not. My solicitor witnessed this as did others present. No-one said anything about this and I quickly left'.

The Police National Legal Database states that an assault is:

Any intentional or reckless act which causes a person to apprehend immediate unlawful force or personal violence.

Their guidance for 'intentional' and 'reckless' states:

In order to constitute an assault punishable in accordance with criminal legislation, it has to be established that the accused acted intentionally or recklessly. In connection with recklessness it is necessary that the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk.

They provide further guidance regarding what is described as 'generally acceptable standard of conduct' which states:

There are occasions when a police officer needs to draw attention to their presence in order to seek to ask questions or to warn or to advise a member of the public. A hand placed on a shoulder or arm could amount to an assault or battery, but it seems the courts are willing to accept that it is not an assault simply to tap on the shoulder or to take an arm. Of course, this could equally apply to any other member of the public acting in similar circumstances. These circumstances are of course distinct from arrest where reasonable force can be used.

DC Bourne stated, 'I can only vaguely remember this incident, however I do remember Mr JFL. At one point I remember offering to shake Mr JFL's hand which he refused. I can just about recall touching his arm in a reassurance gesture as he appeared nervous of the procedure he was about to go through. I can only describe this as a gentle pat' with an open palm on his upper arm. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being hard) I would describe it as a '1'. This is a gesture that I use I have used on numerous occasions with members of my family, friends, colleagues as well as interviewee's and suspects alike.

As a Tier 3 interviewer gaining the trust etc of the person about to be interviewed is vital to gaining a rapport so that any interview can progress with comment rather than silence. I can only assume that Mr JFL misinterpreted my actions and the intention of my gesture. Had I known that this would have been the case, there is no way I would have purposely upset him by my actions.

I can say that at no time in my dealings with Mr JFL did I hit him as described.'

DC McInerney stated that he did not 'remember this specifically would be my answer in that case, however again if it did happen and the appropriate adult and solicitor were present then they obviously didn't see anything they thought was inappropriate.'

It is not disputed that the officer touched you, however DC Bourne's account negates both the intention and recklessness requirement in law, in fact he described his behaviour in a manner similar to a generally acceptable standard of conduct. With no other supporting evidence available from your solicitor, appropriate adult or DC McInerney, I am unable to prove that the officer 'hit' you. In the circumstances described, and on the balance of probabilities. I can see no indication that would have warned DC Bourne that you would have interpreted his 'gesture' in this manner. I am therefore unable uphold your complaint. or prove that DC Bourne has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

9.	You believe that CTC knew the RDX came from the model rocket and therefore your arrest was false and thus illegal.

In our meeting of the 9th December 2010 and in your edited statement received on the 24th April 2010 you stated, 'Because I had remained silent to police questioning, as is my innate, civil political and legal right in this civilised culture, for instance as stated in the UK Rights of Arrest, I was informed that they would be seeking a RIPA s 49 notice. I believe this was excessive as it would have been obvious from their evidence, including the forensic report, that there were no grounds for suspicion of any offence. The police seized all the items in my home and office, including my extremely small amateur science lab/shop.

The forensic report stated that "none of the items were specifically for this (manufacture of explosive or explosive(s) devices) purpose". I was asked six questions about the makings of model rockets and believe that this indicates that CTC knew, or strongly suspected that the RDX came from the model rocket and therefore my arrest was false and thus illegal. As was any request for any alleged decryption key(s).'(Sic)

In your e-mail of the 16th April 2010 you stated, 'The harassment of myself by CTC. Including the fact that CTC knew from their forensic tests that the source of the 9ng RDX was, or at least could have been and they could have tested further to confirm or deny this, the small model rocket.'(Sic)

Your initial arrest, was on suspicion of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and, in light of the numerous articles located in your luggage it would appear on the balance of probability that there was sufficient evidence to arrest you for that offence.

I believe that this allegation appears aimed at the arrest on the 2nd December 2010 when you were arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the manufacture of explosives. At this time you had already been interviewed and in light of your allegation involving questions in interview and an examination of the Estes rocket. I have therefore directed my investigation towards that part of the enquiry.

DI Hewitson stated, 'I was not aware, then or now, that Estes model rocket engines contain or have ever contained any trace of RDX. This information is based on internet research.' 'This assumption was also based on information from the SO15 bomb data centre.'

Currently I await a statement, (requested by me) from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory in relation to the lack of RDX in Estes model rocket engines.

Additionally Mr JFL did not answer questions put to him; neither did he claim that the Estes model rocket engines contained RDX at the time.

As the Officer in the case I did not believe that the subsequent arrest of Mr JFL for being concerned in the possession / manufacture of explosives was in any way false or illegal.'

Your allegation states your opinion that the CTC officers believed the high explosive came from your model rocket. Your opinion is clearly refuted by DI Hewitson, who requested further information from Estes

I have been forwarded the preliminary Forensic Explosives Laboratory statement referred to by DI Hewitson in which Estes-Cox-Corp have confirmed that their rockets do not contain any high explosive and could not have been contaminated with RDX at the Estes factory. The statement stated that, having been provided, by Estes, with a list of hazardous ingredients, it is confirmed that these 'neither include RDX or any other high explosive'.

Faced with the list of items from your property that both the forensic report and later His Honour Judge Heatherington, in his sentencing remarks, also stated 'contained amongst other things items that could be used for the production of explosives or improvised devices, mixing beakers, stirring spatulas, a temperature reducing spray, a smoke detector, a fire blanket, a fire extinguisher, a programmable circuit board, plastic putty, three boxes of throw down bangers that explode on contact with the ground, a DNA eliminator, a model rocket and firing mechanism and a book that detailed how to make a pipe bomb. And books on the home manufacture of firearms and ammunition, the manufacture of methamphetamine and a book detailing advanced computer techniques, a set of body armour, a security scanning metal detecting wand and a can of pepper spray' it would appear that there was numerous other evidence to support your arrest'. (Sic)

It would appear proper that to prove, or disprove, your involvement in the offence for which you had been arrested that the officers ask you numerous questions including questions surrounding the rocket, which you have stated previously and on the internet, was the source of the explosive.

However in light of you exercising your right to silence, it would have been difficult to prove or disprove anything. The officer's actions appear supported by the subsequent information from Estes and I can find no evidence to support your allegation. As such in regards to this part of your allegations, I am unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

10. That because the CTC knew your arrest to be false then their use of the sect 49 notice was also illegal and excessive.

The legality of your arrest has already been discussed in point 10 above, and therefore this point will concentrate on your allegation regarding the use of the Sect 49 notice.

You stated, 'I was informed that they would be seeking a RIPA s 49 notice. I believe this was excessive as it would have been obvious from their evidence, including the forensic report, that there were no grounds for suspicion of any offence. The police seized all the items in my home and office, including my extremely small amateur science lab/shop.

As you are aware Section 49 of the RIPA (Part III) is a relatively new piece of legislation, which came into force in October 2007 and relates to encryption. Encryption is widely used in the public and private sector to protect sensitive electronic data. For example, it's used to protect credit card information when you purchase something on the Internet. Many people also choose to use readily available encryption programmes to encrypt their email, files, folders, documents and pictures. These same technologies are also used by terrorists, criminals and paedophiles to conceal their activities

All law enforcement agencies, such as the police, may serve a person, or organisation, that uses encryption with a notice called a Section 49 requiring them to decode encrypted information into plain text and hand it over as part of any investigation. They are most likely to be imposed only on individuals who have protected information directly relevant to an investigation or operation and are themselves a subject of, or are connected to, the investigation or operation.

A Section 49 will only be authorised:
•	in the interests of national security;
•	for the prevention or detection of crime;
•	in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK;
•	for securing the effective exercise by any public authority of any statutory power or duty.

DI Hewitson stated, 'Section 49 RIPA was discussed at length and Mr JFL had prior knowledge of the legislation having researched it in relation to his outstanding customs matter, (details of which were on his palm computer).

Having arrested a person on suspicion of committing a crime an investigation is conducted to prove or disprove their involvement in the offence. During that investigation officers will ask the person concerned to provide an account or innocent explanation, this explanation often facilitates in concluding the investigation at an early stage.

Throughout this process you chose to exercise your right to silence. With the items found in your possession, the high explosives traces on you hand, and your lack of willingness to assist, or provide any innocent explanation, the investigating officers would have unable to disprove your involvement in what is a very serious offence.

With the investigating officer's belief that the crime they were investigating could effect the interests of national security, and that access to your files would either prove or disprove your involvement and thus assist in the prevention or detection of crime, the information required for a Section 49 notice was compiled.

Section 49 RIPA is a highly controlled piece of legislation which requires the person, or organisation, served to provide the decryption key to their secure electronic data. It requires a high level of evidence to be established before permission is sought firstly from the National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC), and having received that approval, the matter is placed before a court to test the information is of a high enough level before receiving permission from a Judge. In this case both authorities were received. Failure to supply the 'key' is prosecuted under Section 53 RIPA.

It would appear from the information supplied from DI Hewitson that you had researched the power of Section 49 and it is possible, from the information supplied by yourself both at our meeting and on the internet, that your personal standpoint, regarding, the right to silence and the right to privacy, are in conflict with this particular piece of legislation.

However, these same options are used by criminals and those involved in terrorist activity and without your support it would be difficult for the investigating officers to differentiate between them.

The European Court of Human Rights Article 8 is regarding the right to respect for private and family life. It states;

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

On the balance of probability, it is likely that you were already well aware that your refusal to cooperate with this level of serious investigation would necessitate a Section 49 notice. Your cooperation at any stage may have negated the need for his request. The powers of Section 49 have been tested in the Court of Appeal in the case of S & Anor, R v [20081 EWCA Crim 2177 (09 October 2008)

The Court of Appeal ruling stated that 'a refusal to hand over your secret decryption keys, after being served with a RIPA section 49 notice, is not prevented by any protections against self incrimination i.e. the appellants can be prosecuted under RIPA section 53 for refusing to hand over their decryption keys or the unencrypted files.

Furthermore, by way of emphasis, we can see no possible ground for a successful application that the prosecution under section 53 of RIPA should be stopped as an abuse of process.'

Therefore, with no support from yourself to assist the officers in disproving the offences against you. I am unable to see how else they would have progressed what was an investigation into serious crimes. Therefore, in regards to this part of your allegations, I am unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

11. The Sect 49 notice was written with several misleading inaccuracies and you believe this shows bias.

In our meeting of the 9th December you stated that,
'firstly they used the wrong name, they continually called me Mr JFL: however this was my former name. I have been told that the beginning of the report explains the name change and that this error as I see it is not a misconduct offence, however I disagree;
The notice then explains my travel arrangements, which were incorrect;
[former name. I have been told that the beginning of the report explains the name change and that this error as I see it is not a misconduct offence. however I disagree;
The notice then explains my travel arrangements. which were incorrect;]
There is no note of the explosive dog, which is an omission:
There is no note regarding the moving of the bags to London, which proves there was no risk;
It states that one of the items was a DNA eliminator, however it was not it was Luminol.
It also states that there was plastic putty however it was modelling plastic;
The notice stated that I refused to answer questions and was obstructive before my arrest and this was also incorrect;
It states that the RDX was a military high explosive, however, it does not state that it is also commercially available and I believe this shows bias.

You also stated that because the report was biased and misleading this was unfair and an abuse of the procedures because there were no grounds to support it.

I have examined the Section 49 notice and will list my investigations in the order in which they appear in your complaint,

The notice states, 'To JFL Frequency JFL (formerly known as JFL K Maule JFL).' The remainder of the notice does refer to you as Mr JFL.

The notices states, 'That on 15th September 2008 Mr JFL went to Gare Du Nord Eurostar train station in Paris. He booked several items of luggage for freight transfer to the UK. He travelled on a different train to St Pancras International station in London.' This appears to be a precis of your travel arrangements, and although there may be fine details omitted they give a basic overview of what happened. Unfortunately this part of your statement has not been ratified by you and the details you believed should have been in the notice are not known. The finite details of the use of the freight carrier, and of you sending your encrypted material by post to your hotel in London are also not covered in your notice.

The report does cover the partial closing of the station following identification by the security scanners. The notice does not mention the explosives dogs used to check your luggage after this point, however their role was merely a pre-screen pending review by the explosives officer and his attendance is included therefore the omission of the dogs does not, on the balance of probability, effect the outlook of the notice.

After the attendance of an explosives officer from the UK, your bags were transferred to London with the explosives officer in attendance. It must be noted that a full evaluation of your property from inside the bags identified items which, the notice stated 'could be used, in conjunction with other items, for the production of explosives/ improvised explosive devices.' Risk is linked in the English Thesaurus with the words danger, jeopardy, peril, hazard, menace and threat, on the balance of probability your bags could be described by all of these words. It could therefore be said that on the balance of probability, that the officers believed there to be a risk both in the items in and the transportation of, your bags.

Luminol is a chemical that is capable of detecting bloodstains diluted up to 10,000 times. It is used to identify blood that has been removed from a given area and is an invaluable tool for investigators at altered crime scenes. I have a copy of a picture of the container which is a 'bluestar forensic' training bottle, Bluestar's website states. 'It will react in the same way as regular BLUESTAR(R) FORENSIC TABLETS do, except for DNA analysis since the "TRAINING" version destroys DNA. Therefore, it is a great product for training crime scene technicians but is definitely not usable for actual investigations.' The bottle also contains the phrase 'Destroy DNA.' It could therefore be said that on the balance of probability that this product is a DNA eliminator.

Therefore although the description is different and not the one you would use, it does not appear to be incorrect.

The notice does state that you refused to answer questions and were obstructive before your arrest, and it would appear from your own information, that you were both helpful and talkative. However none of this appears to be during your interviews in relation to your detentions and arrests for terrorism and explosives, nor during any safety interviews. Therefore, in relation to being helpful and talkative regarding the offences for which you were arrested it would appear, as stated by yourself, that you were 'silent'.

RDX is a military high explosive that was widely used during World War 2, and was part of the famed 'Dambusters raid' bombs. It does have some commercial use and that appears mainly in shaped charges for the demolition of structures. RDX forms the basis for many common military explosives. Therefore the entry was factually correct.

DI Hewitson stated that, 'During the dealings with Mr JFL by Police he was frequently referred to as Mr JFL as this is the name that he was wanted under, and at that stage he had not changed his name by the correct standard required under British law, and provided proof of the same. (3 different versions of the change of name by deed poll were used by Mr JFL between 16/8/2007 and 3/2/2009. Additionally he had not attended an interview with the passport service to question him at length about his claim to be utilising only the name JFL. (in light also of the fact that he had been travelling from France on a passport issued in the name of JFL at the time of his arrest by SO15).

In relation to the section 49 permission I briefed Superintendent Ball with sufficient information to provide an accurate picture of the need for the RIPA procedure to be followed. I actually completed the form and answered any questions raised by Mr Ball. Not every piece of information known to Police was included in the application.

In relation to my description of the plastic container exhibit DRH/13 being DNA eliminator, the first words at the top of the front label reads, DESTROY DNA.

Using the words DNA eliminator reads more eloquently and accurately describe the product involved.

The container of modelling putty I would describe as plastic putty, and has the same meaning and use as plastic putty.

Mr JFL was obstructive throughout the investigation, doing all he could to frustrate the investigation, most notably failing to answer questions or his bail, and living in a new area under an assumed name.

RDX itself appears to have been used predominantly as a military explosive, most notably by both sides in the first world war.

There was no bias in this interpretation, as it is a fact that Mr JFL had traces on his hand.

Having obtained the section 49 permission Mr JFL failed to appear and went to considerable lengths to conceal his whereabouts.

I have examined the 'inaccuracies' that you have identified and find that DI Hewitson's explanations appear to fit the information known. As we discussed in our meeting of the 9th December 2009 the section 49 notice was written by DI Hewitson and he has stated they were the facts as he knew them to be. At this stage it would appear that DI Hewitson believed you to be withholding the encryption keys because they would incriminate you.

I am unable to prove that, on the evidence available, that the 'inaccuracies' are misleading. Although DI Hewitson's words and phrases are not written in a way you would like them to be, this would not be misconduct. I am therefore unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

12. An armed raid was conducted on your address, during your detention you were manhandled and assaulted. You believe this was all unnecessary.

In your statement you stated that, 'On the 7th March 2009 1 suffered a terrifying armed raid at my residence in Southampton. I believe it was unnecessary that the officers attended at night, did not knock, smashed down the door and ordered me into a public area whilst naked. I was manhandled despite not resisting'. You further alleged that. 'During my safety interview DC Freislar pulled at my handcuffs whilst DS Holt constantly tapped me in the chest with his finger.'

In the account of your arrest and conviction held on 'theregister.co.uk' they stated that you 'did not attend you bail date of the 4th February and moved to Southampton living in a series of temporary homes because you felt harassed by authority and helpless against the police determined to pin a crime on him.'

DI Hewitson stated that he was consulted before the warrant was executed. He stated that he believed that the 'known' facts about Mr JFL, coupled with the information they had collated with fully justified an armed intervention.

Some of these 'facts' were that on the 15th September 2008, you were arrested for failing to answer bail on the 23rd June 2009, later that day you were further arrested on suspicion of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism when you bags had been found to containing numerous articles which 'Could be used in the manufacture of explosive or explosive(s) devices,' as well as books on bomb and drug making, body armour and pepper spray and a positive indication from explosives dogs,

On the 2nd December 2008, you were arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the manufacture of explosives. This was because the forensic swabs of your left hand identified the presence of the high explosive known as RDX. During this time you were found to be in possession of a lock knife, for which you were also arrested.

Following interview you were bailed to return to Paddington Green police station on the 4th February 2008. You again failed to return.

Intelligence showed that you had been reported missing by your family; you had moved addresses on four separate occasions between February 2009 and March 2009, and you had assumed the name Jake Lincon. Enquiries showed local residents had noticed a chemical smell from your previous addresses.

DS Holt stated, 'The decision to deploy a firearms team and effect an entry to the address was a decision taken at a local level. Once armed officers had effected the entry and detained Mr JFL I was called forward. It was immediately apparent that he was being held outside his address in the hallway, naked and in plastic cuffs. I instructed DC Albert to help Mr JFL into a paper suit to protect his modesty. I explained this to Mr JFL who thanked me and stepped into the suit assisted by DC Albert. I also asked that the plastic cuffs were removed and rigid cuffs used to improve his comfort. No other members of the public were present or permitted to access this area of the flats.'

DS Holt explained that there was a highly pungent chemical smell from the premises and so he moved you further along the corridor. He stated that he asked you a series of public safety questions in order to ascertain the immediate risk to the public, officers and residents in the flat.

DS Holt stated, I focused on whether I needed to immediately evacuate the block of flats to protect the residents. Mr JFL was uncooperative.' He stated 'I did not tap on Mr JFL's chest' He further stated that, 'I would be disappointed if DC Frieslaar did not have hold of Mr JFL throughout this process. At times I had hold of him to make sure he was not able to abscond, attempt re entry to the flat, or access any form of device. Neither DC Frieslaar nor myself pulled at the handcuffs. Mr JFL remained uncooperative throughout this process'

DS Holt stated that other members of public had been prohibited from entering the area of your arrest and that he moved to your location as soon as he was allowed, and gave you clothing. In circumstances such as these 'manhandling' could not be avoided.

In these circumstances it would be standard procedure for the armed officer's to ensure you exited the premises, thus minimising your access to items in your premises which could cause danger. I am unclear if you were naked at the time of the entry or were asked to remove your clothes, however in matters relating to explosives a request to remove clothing could be made to ensure there was nothing on your person which could injure members of public or police.

It would appear that, on the balance of probability that you failed to return on police bail and that you conducted this act intentionally. You have previously failed to return on bail and although you have stated that you 'voluntarily surrendered' it is noted that this was not for nearly 3 months; you had hired premises in a false name; you had been found to have a knife and pepper spray in your possessions: and there was an unknown chemical smell linked to your premises which when measured against the offence for which you had gone missing (suspicion of manufacturing explosives) it would appear proportionate for the officers to have conducted the entry both at night and with armed officers to minimise risks both to the public and themselves.

With DS Holt disputing you account regarding the pulling of your handcuffs and being tapped in the chest, and with no other evidence to assist me in refuting his account I am unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

13. Whilst in Southampton, you were retained in handcuffs for four hours between 1245hrs and 1645hrs which breaches your human rights.

I was retained in handcuffs for four hours between 1245hrs and 1645hrs in the Hampshire Premises Search Book under general notes for guidance under the Human Rights act, it states that, 'In most cases it will be difficult to justify the use of handcuffs as a necessity where there are no grounds to believe that a person concerned would cause injury or damage or suppress evidence.'

DS Holt stated that, 'Under my instruction, due to the nature of the search, possibility of explosives or access to devices or electronic triggers I instructed that Mr JFL remain in handcuffs to ensure public safety and safety of the officers. Mr JFL could have assisted during this process but he chose not to. He did say that there were no dangerous chemicals to his knowledge. He did describe the basic layout of the flat, and stated he had called 999 as police forced entry; he gave the location of his wallet, clothes and mobile phone.'

DS Holt stated that you would have been in handcuffs from about 2020hrs you were conveyed to Fareham Police at about 2045hrs, and he believed that that the handcuffs were removed upon your arrival or detention.

It would appear from the premises search record and custody record that you were handcuffed by armed officers at approximately 2020hrs and the search record notes DS Holt beginning his safety interview at approximately 2024hrs. The custody record noted you arrival at 2057hrs and your detention at 2144hrs the custody officer noted that the handcuffs had been removed before you were brought before him. This would provide a period of handcuffing from between 37 minutes up to 1 hour 24 minutes and not the four hours stated.

Both DS Holt and the custody record note that your handcuffs were removed before you were brought before the custody sergeant; Therefore on the evidence available it would appear, on the balance of probabilities, that you could be considered a risk and therefore it would be proportionate in the circumstances to ensure you were restrained until your safe detention inside Fareham police station. As such, in regards to this part of your allegations, I am unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

14. That, whist at Fareham police station, you were subjected to a 'Smart Water' test; you believe this implicitly stated that you were a thief

'SmartWater' is an anti-criminal system marketed It consists of a liquid containing a code which can be read under ultraviolet light. A 'smart water' test involves standing in an area illuminated by UV lights, which is usually in the entrance area of a custody suite. Although not all police stations are equipped with this facility its use is standard practice for all persons during arrival at a 'Smart water' equipped custody. As such, in regards to this part of your allegations, I am unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

15. That DC Wood failed in his duty to deter you from reporting a seized passport as lost.

In our meeting you stated, 'During this time I was accused of making a false statement to obtain a passport. This is because I submitted a Lost/Stolen passport form in September 2008 and detailed the loss as 'seized'. I knew that I had not been placed under any travel restrictions and that there was no legal reason that I should not have a passport. DC Wood told me, when he seized my passport, that "You will never get it back because it is invalid because you have changed your name." I told DC Wood that I had planned to report the passport as 'lost' and he made no attempt to deter or stop me. I believe it was his duty to do so.'

In your e-mail of the 16th April you stated. 'The charges of CJA 1925 s36, read to myself by CTC DI Hewitson, although maybe outside of your jurisdiction. They knew me to be innocent. My choice to plead Guilty in Crown Court stopped a definite doubling of my imprisonment from 3mns to 6mns and I was informed would have enabled my release that day/ASAP. CTC knew me to be innocent. No proof had been provided by Police as to their seizure of my passport. Nothing had been put in writing. The last time I had used it was in Paris, France. I didn't need it to enter the UK as I was met before the border when I was Voluntarily Surrendering.'(Sic)

DC Wood stated that, 'In September 2008, while JFL was under investigation, I returned a number of items of property to him - including cash and bank cards. He did ask about his passport, I told him that he could not have the passport back at that time as we were unclear what his official name was and we believed that the passport might be invalid. I did not say he would never have it back. He did not say anything to me about applying for a new passport.

DI Hewitson stated that, 'In relation to Mr JFL receiving his passport or indeed any passport issued by the passport agency, this would depend on his provision of proof of a legitimate change of name by deed poll, as previously stated this was not done until a copy was sent on or about 3/2/2009 to the passport agency. Mr JFL failed to attend the passport office in London for an interview when requested to on 4/2/2009.

Mr JFL failed to be honest with the passport agency, utilising the names JFL and JFL as and when it suited his purpose. Additionally he had not attended an interview with the passport service to question him at length about his claim to be utilising only the name JFL. (in light also of the fact that he had been travelling from France on a passport issued in the name of JFL at the time of his arrest by SO15(CTC)'.

DC Wood concluded stating 'JFL was convicted of making two fraudulent passport application, because he stated on the applications that his passport had been lost, when he knew that it had actually been seized by police'

[that it had actually been seized by police']

Both officers provided evidence which identified not a single misguided application but two fraudulent applications. Their evidence is further strengthened by the information on your applications, the first, received by the passport agency on the 15th December 2008, stated that your passport had been lost on the 16th September 2008 in 'UK/France', and that your photographs were countersigned by a teacher, Mr Panayiotis, who had known you for 6 years.

The second received on the 10th February 2009 stated the passport had been lost in 'Paris,' apparently London had been recorded but then crossed through. Your photographs were again countersigned by, Mr Panayiotis, who had now known you for 14 years.

You were requested to attend a personal interview with the passport agency on two occasions in letters dated the 11th and 16th February 2009 and failed to reply or attend.

The PNC confirmed that you pleaded guilty to two counts of fraudulently applying for a passport and, although you stated to me that this was the easiest option for you to take, the plea of guilty cannot be ignored. The balance of proof required by a criminal court is higher that that required by a misconduct investigation and a court hearing would have been the appropriate time for you to identify your misgivings regarding DC Wood's statements.

I have read His Honour Judge Heatherington's sentencing remarks in relation to your conviction on this point and note the he 'had no doubt that the purpose behind that (false application) was so that you could obtain a passport and manage to leave the country'

The evidence appears to shows that you were using a name which you had not changed by deed poll. That you made two further applications for passports and, when you were informed that this would be need to be clarified with the passport office, you failed to attend. That you have chosen to admit guilt to the passport offences in a court of law, which you now claim, is incorrect.

Your allegation that DC Wood should have stopped or advised you against, applying for a new passport, accepts no responsibility for the actions which you appear to have chosen to do. Therefore with no other evidence to support your allegation, I am unable to uphold your complaint regarding DC Wood or prove that he has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

15. There has been a long delay in returning your property, some items are still outstanding and some have been found to be broken.

In the e-mail I received from you on the 10th March you stated, 'I complain about CTC's reluctance to return any of my property. Some has now been returned. I requested it in Dec 09. CTC DC Wood, Property Officer, was not available until Feb 10. Then they rescheduled at least twice and in the end turned up an hour late at the police station in N22.

They then had not opened the evidence packages yet required the envelopes back and so we all stayed there and opened each package individually, taking another 45mins. DC Wood had not brought any of my clothing, worth $1k, and still promises to return this sometime.

CTC have decided to keep an inordinate amount of the property, including items *listed on a sheet as being available to return* to myself These include hundreds of £ pounds worth of electronics. Also missing the data media that is *not* encrypted and noted so in the RIPA s49 notice. Also *many* items were returned faulty. These include a digital camera, a shattered UV lightbulb covering a third of the items with shards of broken glass, and a flatbed scanner. (sic)

DC Wood has been unable to send an email to myself in the few weeks since this day. He took down my email wrong. I've sent two text messages and an email to him to confirm my email address.

In your e-mail of the 16th April you stated, 'I do strongly request the items agreed to be returned, to be returned. Obviously I am making claims via my insurance but it is more just for the Police to compensate me for items that they have damaged during their searches, these include a digital camera, a scanner, a lamp, a safe, two padlocks and a hacksaw. Please advise me if this issue is better dealt with by the Directorate of Legal Services at Scotland Yard. Their dispossessing myself of the computer surrounding the data media is analogous to dispossessing myself of all my possessions due to the data media. One screw is all that is required to be removed to return the computer with no possibility of encrypted data remaining on it, ask any techie.'

DC Wood has stated that, 'The second complaint about some of the property that I returned to him on the on 12 February 2010, being damaged is also unfounded. The three items that JFL has listed as being damaged, two of them were never seized by police and therefore were also never returned to him - the UV light bulb and a flatbed scanner. On the 12th February, I told JFL that the clothing that he was wearing when he was arrested was still at the Forensic Explosives Lab, I asked him if he would like it back and he stated that he did want it back. I said I would be in touch to arrange a date to return the items of clothing. I have tried twice to arrange a date to return the items but JFL has not responded to my messages.

When I returned the property to JFL, I took the property in the exhibit bags and opened them in front of JFL, I also had a colleague present, DC David Milton. I got JFL to sign the property receipts to show that the items had been returned to him. A Kodak digital camera was returned to JFL, it had been stored in bubble wrap. I did not turn on the camera to check that it was working but there was no visible damage to the camera. I do not know in what way JFL is claiming it was damaged.

JFL then texted me at midnight on the evening of the 12 February stating that he believed that some items were missing. I was shocked that he was texting me in the middle of night. The text read "To DC Wood from JFL JFL. The possessions that were returned were missing some items. There was no Iomega not encrypted hard disc, no not encrypted DVD, only one PDA instead of four, no passport, no Ocado food and alcohol, et cetera. Please contact me urgently in this regard. Thank you.

I left a message for JFL on Monday 15th February, when I was back at work. I had found when I was back at work that the Iomgea hard disc had been left in the property box that I had used to transport the items to JFL. He called me back in the afternoon. He said that he wanted three PDA's returned to him, a UV touch, a webcam, a microphone, batteries, two passport photos, four photo negatives and a black Toshiba laptop in addition to the items mentioned in the text. I said that I would check the property list and call him back. I explained to him in this conversion (Sic) that he could not have his passport back as it had been seized by the passport office and that he would have to make an application for a new passport, stating that it had been seized by the passport office. He asked me to put his in writing: I have provided the DPS with a written account.

As I thought, the property list showed that most of the items he requested we return, we had never seized.(sic) To be fair to JFL, I had over looked one PDA, but there was only one not three. Also there were also two passport photos of JFL that he can have back; there were four photo negatives of what appears to be two school girls taken through a window. I have come to the decision that JFL can have these negatives back if he can tell me who the school girls are. I have not been able to communicate this to JFL yet, as he has not returned my two voice messages that I have left for him. The black Toshiba laptop was one of the encrypted items that JFL was convicted of possessing, he therefore, will not be getting it back. One DVD out of approximately 25 DVDs that were seized is not encrypted, he can also have this back. The rest of the items that he has mentioned were never seized from JFL.

I called JFL back on Tuesday 16th February and left a message on his voice mail, to arrange to return these items to JFL, explain why he could not have some items back and explain that some items had never been seized; I also asked him to confirm his email address, as the address he had given me was incorrect.

On Tuesday 23rd February I had not heard from JFL, so I called him again and left him another message asking him to call me back. He still has not called me back. He did send me two text messages, one of the 24/02/10 and one of the 05/03/10 confirming his email address. I responded to the second saying that DS Jagger would write to him about the status of his passport.

Additionally, JFL's claim that I was not available to return the items to him until 10th February, is not true. I was in contact trying to return the items to JFL throughout January, I even arranged for a colleague to return the items to JFL while I was on a course, but JFL cancelled.'

I have been copied into an e-mail from the CPS regarding a deprivation order was obtained from the court in relation to your property. It read: 'It is hereby ordered that, Name.- (sic) JFL JFL also known as JFL, Date of Birth (sic) 22/12/1975, be deprived of all or any property rights in relation to items found in his luggage containing a quantity of computer electronics and chemical substances and all items named in appendix 1 and 2 (encrypted material)'

The Metropolitan Police are always sorry when someone believes they have to complain about police actions: however it would appear that the CTC officers have made attempts to restore some property to you even though they are in possession of a deprivation order. DC Wood disputes your allegations and has provided copies of the signed property receipts. You have already stated your ire at being delayed whilst the officer went through each package and I am therefore at loss how the broken items were not identified at source or why the UV light and scanner are not on the receipts. Without any supporting evidence I am therefore unable to uphold your complaint or prove that any officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour.

This concludes my report.

The address for our civil actions unit is:-

Department Legal Services,
Accident Claims,
1st Floor (V),
8-10 Broadway,
SW1H OBD.

You have the right of appeal in relation to this investigation to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). You have 28 days within which to make your appeal to the IPCC. You are advised to post your appeal in good time to ensure it reaches the IPCC before the end of the 28th day. The 28th day is the 28th May 2010. Appeals received after 28 days may not be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances.

You might want to consider using guaranteed next-day delivery post service to ensure that your appeal is received within time.

I enclose the IPCC's leaflet that explains exactly how to go about lodging an appeal. You will see that you can appeal on any one of the following grounds, that you: (you will see that not all of these necessarily apply to your case).

•	have not been adequately informed about the findings of the investigation or any proposals resulting from the report,

•	disagree with the findings of the investigation including whether a person has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct,

•	disagree with the police proposals for action – or lack of them – in light of the report;

•	disagree with the decision not to refer the report to the CPS.

Yours sincerely,

Detective Sergeant Jane Jagger
<signed/>

On behalf of;

Detective Inspector Steven Bentley
<signed/>