Page 442 - tmp

From: Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 16 August 2017 12:20
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: RE: Our meeting today.
Hello Lorraine,

Many apologies again for my delayed reply, it’s been a busy week or so.

I’ve had no response from PC G, the letter was sent recorded delivery. So far, there’s nothing to say he no
longer resides at the address etc. I’ll keep you updated on that front. As it stands, should PC G choose to not
assist then presently there is little we could do to compel him to provide an account in the furtherance of the
investigation.

I note all of your comments in your email, I can assure you they will be taken into account when I come to
write my report.

Re PC G’s current occupation, I note your views. All I can say is that my review of the evidence will be
objective and governed by the information available to me.

If you’ve any questions for me at this stage, as ever, please do put them to me.

Kind regards

Jamie Newman | Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit (SMIU) | Directorate of Professional Standards |
MetPhone 786675 | Telephone 0207 161 6675 | Email Jamie.newman@met.pnn.police.uk
Address Empress State Building, 22nd Floor, Lillie Road, London, SW6 1TR
'Setting the bar and upholding standards without fear or favour’

From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 07 August 2017 17:31
To: Newman Jamie M ‐ HQ Directorate of Professional Standards <Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: RE: Our meeting today.

Dear Jamie

Thank you for the update reply.

Due to never seeing PC G statement written after what happened on the day, and never having access
to any documents since, I rely on what was said in court from PC G and also the 1st report after the 1st
investigation that the DPS did, which you are now redoing due to what the IPCC said.

PC G stated there was no notebook in court; he stated Mr Cordell was arrested due to him not giving
his details so they could be confirmed he stated Mr Cordell had said he was homeless. But Mr Cordell
knew there was a notebook he saw PC G writing in it on the day he was arrested, and knew he had
given his details as if he had not how would PC G have been able to speak to the insurance
companies.

In the Crown Court Appeal in went a lot deeper my son had a barrister and he knew what to ask.

When PC G got into trouble after the audio tapes was played and the judge got really upset due to
knowing that PC G had not told the truth the Judge asked for all documents the police office had replied
on in this case. PC G passed a statement to the judge he had in his hand that he had been using in
court. The judge was not happy with the statement as there was no date and timed marked, PC G said
to the Judge that the statement he was using was a copy, it was my son barrister said there seemed to
be a time on the back. My son's barrister had also PC G about the ticket issues and PC G said he did
3420