Residents of Loughborough keep your cameras indoors, advice from your new police inspector Johnny Monks
Leicestershire Constabulary Professional Standards Department
Complaints and Misconduct
Police HQ
St Johns
Enderby
Leicester
LE19 2BX
Tel: 0116 222 2222
Fax: 0116 248 5207
Our Ref: CO 454/10 & CO 26/11
E-mail: professional.standards@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
Date: 23 September 2011
Dear Mr Brookes
Complaint against Police
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the outcome of the investigation in relation to
your complaint against police which has been dealt with by Detective Sergeant Eyley.
The objective of the investigation was to consider whether or not the actions of the officer
breached criminal law or the standards of professional behaviour for police officers.
I have enclosed a copy of the investigation report for your information.
The investigation report has been submitted to Detective Chief Superintendent C Rollings,
who after careful consideration of the facts has agreed with the conclusions of Detective
Sergeant Eyley. I can therefore confirm that this investigation has now been concluded and
consequently we will be taking no further action in respect of your complaint
Should you wish to discuss the matter further, please do not hesitate to contact Detective
Sergeant Eyley.
I appreciate that you may be disappointed with this outcome, but would like to remind you that
the record of this complaint will remain on the officer's discipline record for the length of their
service.
You have the right to appeal in relation to this investigation to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). You have 28 days within 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 20th October 2011.
Appeals received after 28 days may not be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances.
You might want to consider using a guaranteed next day delivery post service to ensure that your appeal is received within time,
I have attached for your consideration a leaflet produced by the Independent Police Complaints Commission which explains how you can appeal to them in respect of the way in which we have dealt with your complaint.
Yours sincerely
Geoff Brooks
Detective Chief Inspector
"Improving Confidence Through Raising Standards"
They forgot to include the leaflet, I emailed and very promptly received a new leaflet. Oakham Police station also kindly gave me an old one. I am sure the improvements will continue at Oakham now Inspector Monks has gone...
Case Ref: CO 454/10 & 26/11
Leicestershire Constabulary
Investigating Officers Report
Complainant Name: Mr Martin Brookes
Investigating Officer: D/Sergeant 525 Simon Eyley
Officer Subject to complaint: Inspector 1526 Monks
My comments in RED
Summary of complaint (specific allegations)
The allegations made by Mr Brookes arise out of incidents which occurred over a period of time, on the Rutland Local Policing Unit, the Police commander of which at that time was Inspector 1526 Monks.
The first matter (recorded as a complaint against police CO 26/11) is that Inspector Monks informed a local councillor, (who herself was subject to criminal investigation, arising out of an alleged assault on Mr Brookes), that he would 'protect her'
The second matter (recorded as a complaint against police CO 26/11) is that Inspector Monks disclosed personal information about the complainant Mr Brookes to his Doctor without the consent of Mr Brookes.
These two previous matters were originally subject of a Direction and Control Complaint, (DC 239/10), which was then subsequently re recorded as complaint against police.
The third matter (recorded as a complaint against police CO 454/10) relates to an incident where Mr Brookes attended a meeting with Inspector Monks at Oakham police station. Mr Brookes alleges that Inspector Monks stated he had convened the meeting, but Mr Brookes disagrees with this and states that in fact it was himself that called the meeting. Furthermore, he alleges that Inpsector Monks tried to audio record the meeting with digital tape recorder, to which Mr Brookes took exception, as he believed there was no reason for this, as it was not a formal interview.
These complaints were those to which the omplainant Mr Brookes agreed would be subject of investigation following a meeting between himself and D/Inspector Barber and D/Sergeant Eyley at Oakham Police station on the 6th April 2010.
Summary of circumstances
On the 8th May 2010 Mr Brookes made a complaint to Oakham police of an assault on himself by a local Cllr (Joyce Lucas), which occurred on the 5th May 2010 on High Street Oakham, where he alleged she kissed (him against his wishes), following a Council meeting.
(I am not sure where the police get the location of high street from this happened in the Council Chamber and it was disgusting.)
The matter was recorded and became subject of a police investigation and the Cllr was interviewed by the police. No action was taken, or any charges brought.
(Now imagine what would have happened if it had been grabbing and kissing a female Cllr, As Inspector Monks feels Cllr Lucas's behaviour is acceptable I suggested I could kiss a few Cllrs at this weeks meeting Cllr Adam Lowe said he would have no problem with that!)
On the 22nd October 2010 the Cllr (Mayor Cllr Joyce Lucas) was subsequently interviewed by a representative from Standards For England with regards this matter. During this interview, which was recorded on tape, she was also spoken to about the assault allegation made by Mr Brookes.
She made a comment to the investigator that Inspector Monks had telephoned her to request her to attend the police station following Mr Brookes allegation. SHE STATED INSPECTOR MONKS SAID "Can you be in my office for 9 0' clock?" "WHATEVER'S HAPPENED? "WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT YOU"
Mr Brookes was provided with a copy of the transcript of this interview by as part of the Standards For England investigation into allegations of homophobic comments and it is the latter comment he is complaining about, in doing so, eluding to his belief that Inspector Monks in someway had adverse influence over the assault investigation conducted by the police.
(Its clear to me reading on we obviously have a Mayor who cant tell the truth or a lying Inspector not sure which?)
Durring November 2010, Inspector Monks, had cause to request Mr Brookes to attend Oakham police station in order to discuss concerns he held, that Mr Brookes was presenting himself as a vulnerable individual,
(I showed this to a local business man who knows me and he said Inspector Monks was insulting me, I agree, Of course I understand he was only listening to a bunch of knickers dropping drunks) Often through his 'blogging' on a web site, the content of which at times could be perceived by some as offensive. This was also compounded at times by the way he conducted himself around Oakham town, SUCH AS PHOTOGRAPHING people going about their daily business, to which some took exception. (I am assuming he means the couple of councillor I have photographed illegally parked or those boozing in the park after they said it was banned?) Inspector Monks held concerns Mr Brookes' actions could clearly upset people
(Cllrs and now EX) and thus Mr Brookes himself could become subject of harrassment,
(harrasment interesting one of my many complaint he ignored, and not forgetting the hate mail his station binned instead of criming) or even assault by other members of the public.
(Oh yes Mr Tyers and Mr Baker experience I have already been subjected to)
It was following an incident on Rememberance Sunday
(assault by Mr Kieth Tyers Respectful Rutland Lions Member married to the respectable knickers dropping Royal wedding Ex Cllr Sue Tyer (School Govenor)) 2010 that Inspector Monks requested Mr Brokkes attended Oakham police station, to discuss what he saw as Mr Brookes' potential vulnerability and it is following this meeting that Mr Brookes alleges that Inspector Monks disclosed personal details about Mr Brookes, namely his mobile phone number to Mr Brookes' GP without his consent.
(Oakham Medical Practice Manager was very concerned I was going to raise a complaint against the practice they realised should not have shared my details or discussed me with Inspector Monks. I have not complained just moved to another Doctor out of town My medical records are now marked with no further action this is a complicated issue)
During March 2011 another meeting was held at Oakham police station, between Inspector Monks, Sgt Foster and Mr Brookes.
(Poor Sgt Foster first time he met me and had to get involved with the mob so soon after moving to Oakham) The complainant Mr Brookes alleges that Inspector Monks lied in that it was not him who requested such a meeting, but in fact Mr Brookes himself. He also alleges that Inspector Monks attempted to audio record the meeting, which Mr Brookes did not agree with, as it was not a formal meeting.
(When recording is mentioned Tape is often mentioned this is incorrect: Inspector Monks used a personal digital recorder also one of main reason for objecting. In the past a meeting was recorded correctly on cassettes and I did not object. I was given a copy of the tape before I left the police station)
Details of Investigation
In order to establish the facts of this matter I have carried out the following lines of enquiry.
I have spoken in person with the complainant Mr Brookes to establish his version of the incident.
I have reviewed crime reports relating to the investigation conducted as a result of the allegations of assault made by Mr Brookes.
I have reviewed the vulnerable person reports in relation to Mr Brookes,
I have read and reviewed the findings of a previous Direction and Control complaint raised by Mr Brookes (DC239/10)
I have read the reports and findings contained on the Standards for England web site in relation to the complaint made to them by Mr Brookes concerning another Cllr.
I have listened to the audio of the taped conversation between Inspector Monks, Sgt Foster and Mr Brookes on the 16th March 2011 and which form part of Mr Brookes complaint.
I have requested duty reports from Sgt's Dickson and Foster with regards Mr Brookes allegations against Insp Monks (Sgt Dickson has now retired he was given details of a crime and then went on leave and Oakham Police Station failed to investigate. Since Inspector Monks has been moved things have improved dramatically at Oakham Police Station I am told I won't be treated as I was in the past of course they can say this I will only trust them once I see a result)
I have been provided with a response from Inspector Monks in relation to the allegations made against him by Mr Brookes.
Response from officer
Insoector Monks has provided the following response in relation to the allegations made by the complainant Mr Brookes.
(Please note how Inspector Monks refers to Cllr Lucas as elderly)
With regards the comments made by a Cllr in a statement the Standards for England office in which it is alleged Inspector Monks used the term 'We're trying to protect you', Inspector Monks has stated that he believes this is an historical complaint.
Inspector Monks describes that Mr Brookes made a complaint about a Town Councillor assaulting him after an Oakham Town hall meeting (Council meeting) He describes how Mr Brookes wanted the police to record a sexual assault against the elderly female councillor, when she kissed Mr Brookes on the cheek after the meeting.
(The meeting this happened had not been pleasant and the Old Cllr had been very rude and demanded I no longer called her by her first name, I saw her actions at the end of the meeting more of a mentally ill person rather than sexual, but i often wonder what action Inspector Monks would have taken if the roles had been reversed?)
Inspeector Monks stated that he became aware of this recorded crime, a common assault and contacted the Cllr to ask her to come into the police station for questioning, He described that he knew this would upset the Cllr so he reassured her that everything would be alright, but that police procedures had to be followed.
(Inspector Monks reassured her, Although I am a gay man I have been kissed by females but nothing like that evening it was vile, it would have been nice if he had given me some assurance my complaint would be dealt with correctly. I was rather impressed he felt this case was so serious that a Inspector should take it on. I am sure Inspectors up and down the country deal with common assault every day. Telephone The Chief Executive of the County Council in this case Helen Briggs who arranged for The Deputy Conservative Leader Terry King to attend Cllr Lucas' police interview. I hope they all enjoyed the inspectors choci biscuits. I am surprised Helen Briggs did not offer to pay for legal representation.)
He describes how he thought the best course of conduct would be a voluntary interview, He states that a crime was recorded on the system for this which was dealt with quickly, proportionately and Mr Brookes was satisfied with the outcome (Mr Brookes was never satisfied if he was he would not be complaining) at the time. Inspector Monks states that the police would have followed this same procedure with any elderly lady.
Inspector Monks states that his words would have been the same to any elderly lady who was faced with an un-expected arrest / questioning by the police over a common assault, which was no more than a kiss on the cheek (this line to me clearly shows Inspector Monks had already made his mind up before any interviews had been conducted)
He states that from memory his words would have been along the lines "Don't worry about this but you are going to be questioned about an offence, its strictly routine and we must talk to you about an allegation of common assault"
(A question I have never asked is Inspector Monks a Mason? Cllr Lucas husband is and that explains why when a member of the public made a complaint against him last Christmas for drink driving no action was taken)
He states he would have not used the words 'protect'. (So if our Inspector is not a liar then we have a liar for a Mayor Cllr Lucas,) He states he would have emphasised that she ought not to worry and that he opted for a swift decisive action to resolve the matter to which the complainant Mr Brookes agreed.
(This last comment he made on the case show clearly he was not impartial, I am concerned by his comment about Rutland residents thank god they have moved him!)
Inspector Monks states this complaint is indicative of the way Mr Brookes deals with other Rutland residents. He further states that he knows it caused this elderly lady a lot of worry and pain being a suspect / offender for an assault.
With regards the divulging of Mr Brookes telephone number to his GP, Inspector Monks states that this was a well documented historical complaint that had previously been dealt with by Chief Inspector Ball who concluded this complaint.
(Oh yes Mr Ball his investigation involved telephoning me and telling me I was just like a gold fish in a golf ball floating in the water of Leicester then corrected himself by saying Rutland and went onto say If I lived in a bigger town the councils would not be interested in me in the same Rutland County Council are)
He further stated that he had contacted Mr Brookes' GP after seeking Mr Brookes consent in a meeting with him and Sgt Dickson. He stated he explained to Mr Brookes the reasons why he would be doing this as he believed Mr Brookes put him self in vulnerable positions by taking photographs of people in public places
He describes then how Mr Brookes posts these images on his blog, with upsetting comments attached. Inspector Monks describes one incident where a local councillor was referred to as having a drink problem because they were photographed coming out of a supermarket with bottles of wine in their trolley.
(Even if the last lie was true is it a criminal offence? readers of my blog will know I published a photogrpah of the trolley and did not name the Cllr. I must say the trolley is mor useful than most councillors)
With regards the meeting on the 16th March Inspector Monks recalled the meeting as being on 14th March at 2pm. He states that Mr Brookes had come into see him a few days earlier when unfortunately he was unable to see him . He stated he wanted to speak to speak to Mr Brookes about local issues, in particular an offensive email Mr Brookes had sent to a huge mailing list of Rutland Residents, (Councillors because Cllr Harrison had written blaming his resignation letter blaming me for Cllr Fillinghams illness I simple said I could not be responsible after using google to find the causes I copied and pasted the text and was told this was offensive) Including a previous Oakham Mayor, in which he linked cervical cancer to her sexual habits. Inspector Monks states that it could be said that Mr Brookes had requested to see him on the previous occasion when he was unavailable and re-scheduled the meeting.
With regards the audio recording at the meeting Inspector Monks states that he sought the advice from the Professional Standards Dept, who suggested that he may wish to consider recording the meeting . Inspector Monks states that prior to starting the meeting he told Mr Brookes he would be overtly recording the conversation on a hand held digital device and that he may have a copy of the recording (I was never offered a copy of the recording)
Investigation Findings
In relation to the allegations made by Mr Brookes concerning the comments made by Inspector Monks to the Cllr with regards the police investigation she found herself subject of, Inspector Monks has provided an account for this.
He denies he used the words 'protect' but gives an account of what he believed he did say. I have discovered no evidence to indicate or substantiate the allegations made by Mr Brookes, that this was in some way an inappropriate attempt by Inspector Monks to assist the Cllr . (whatever he said Cllr Lucas felt she would be protected as she clearly said this in her standards investigation interview) Having viewed the crime report in relation to this assault, I am satisfied that the matter was subject of a balanced, proportionate and ethical investigation and that Mr Brookes was updated with the investigations findings.
Having viewed Standards for England web site in relation to the complaint made to them by Mr Brookes concerning the Cllr there appears to have been no action taken in this case.
Concerning the second allegation that Inspector Monks disclosed personal imformation about the complainant Mr Brookes to his GP without his consent, again Inspector Monks has provided an account for this.
Inspector Monks stated that Mr Brookes gave his permission for this although Mr Brookes denies this was the case.
Evidence obtained during this investigation indicates a that Mr Brookes, himself now a local Cllr, is active in the Community taking photographs, some of which end up on his blog web site, together with written comments. It is some of these to which Inspector Monks eludes when describing how he had concerns over the vulnerability of Mr Brookes, owing to other peoples perception of Mr Brookes' comments and actions.
Inspector Monks concerns were that Mr Brookes was vulnerable due to his actions around people that didn't want interaction with him which may result in him be assaulted, verbally or physically by members of the public. These concerns have been recorded on a vulnerable victim report.
(I can assure any reader thinking of coming to visit Rutland its not as dangerous as what can be assumed from the last paragraphs, just stay away from Councillor and Ex Councillors, the residents are friendly)
The evidence available indicates that following an incident on Remembrance Sunday 2010 (Mr Tyers assault instead of dealing with the criminal Monks calls the GP!) Inspector Monks requested Mr Brookes attend Oakham police station, to discuss what he saw as Mr Brookes' potential vulnerability and it is following this meeting that Mr Brookes alleges Inspector Monks disclosed personal details about Mr Brookesm namely his mobile phone number to Mr Brookes' GP. without his consent.
On the 25th November Inspector Monks sent and email to Allyson Betts at Oakham NHS practice in which he describes the meeting he held with Mr Brookes earlier that day at Oakham Police Station. He describes how he talked through his concerns with Mr Brookes and of Mr Brookes perception that he is being bullied by local residents and councillors who keep sending inappropriate messages to his blog site, Inspector Monks describes explaining to Mr Brookes his own concerns over vulnerability and that he intended to pass on his concerns to his medical practice and his Doctor, He describes Mr Brookes agreed that this was ok, but that Mr Brookes stated he did not require any medical assistance from his Doctor as he was not mad or depressed, which he repeated on several occasions.
In December 2010, as a result of enquiries in Mr Brookes Direction and Control Complaint (DC239/10), Inspector Monks informed Chief Inspector Ball by email that he had passed on Mr Brookes details to his GP and that Mr Brookes had agreed to this albeit he felt he did not need any medical help. He quoted Mr Brookes as stating "I agree it is necessary but I am not mad so will not be going to the medical practice"
(that most certainly doesn't sound like the way I speak I would have just said "I don't need to go to the doctors" I also repeatedly asked him to cancel the appointment recording of one those request responses was posted on my blog)
Sgt Dickson was present at the meeting on the 25th November with Mr Brooks (e) and he confirms that Inspector Monks outlined at length his concerns to Mr Brookes. He also confirmed that Inspector Monks asked Mr Brookes if he agreed to him contacting his GP with a view to getting the Doctor to contact Mr Brookes direct and that he agreed to this but denied he was mad.
The overwhelming weight obtained in this investigation would indicate that Inspector Monks did ask Mr Brookes for permission to pass on his details to his GP; that he did provide Mr Brookes with an explanation for this action and that Mr Brookes did agreed to it, albeit the evidence obtained does seem to indicate that Mr Brookes the rationale for such action he believed he did not need medical assistance.
With regards the meeting in March which Mr Brookes complains about, I can confirm that Inspector Monks did seek advice from myself at the Professional Standards Department with regards a forthcoming meeting he was to hold with a member of the public with whom he had concerns over vulnerability. I do not recall him mentioning any name and my advice was either minute the meeting, record it contemporaneously on written notes, or to consider an audio recording, so that there was no dispute by parties involved over what the meeting was about, whi said what and what was agreed or not agreed upon during the meeting. This line of action is common practice in many business and professional meetings, especially where they may be dispute over the content of a meeting, affording a degree of protection to all parties.
Sgt Foster was present at this meeting and he states that Inspector Monks used a Dictaphone recording device to record the meeting. He states that Mr Brookes was not happy about this and to his recollection did not not see the need for this. Sgt Foster describes how following this disagreement, another started over who had called the meeting to be held, He describes that Inspector Monks stated "The reason I've called this meeting today ....." followed by Mr Brookes continuing to state that Inspector Monks had not called the meeting he had. Sgt Foster states once the 'agree to disagree' part over who called the meeting was concluded, the remainder of the meeting went well.
The findings of this investigation would indicate that Mr Brookes attended Oakham Police station and asked to speak to Inspector Monks, who was not available at that time. It was re-arranged for Mr Brookes to attend at another time and date and therefore as such, it could be interpreted that either had requested the meeting.
I have listened to the audio recording of the meeting and Inspector Monks can be clearly heard at the start of the recording explaining to Mr Brookes that he was recording the meeting At no point does Inspector Monks elude to this being anything else other than a meeting.He certainly makes not make any mention of it being any form of interview, Mr Brookes at this point raises no objection (because Mr Brookes objected before he started recording and was so fed up shouting at Inspector Monks he shut up) and the conversation continues surrounding police investigations into allegations Mr Brookes has made concerning his blog site.
Inspector Monks then states that has asked Mr Brookes to attend the police station in order that they can discuss Mr Brookes vulnerability. The conversation continues and covers several different topics ranging from vulnerability within the community to Mr Brookes perceptions that Inspector Monks is too close to Rutland County Council and political decisions. At times the conversation is quite 'heated' and voices become raised with an amount of over speaking particularly when Mr Brookes states it is he who has requested the meeting.There is then discussion over who requested before the conversation continues. Only once during the 28 or so minutes that the conversation continues does Mr Brookes raise any negativity towards the recording and that is when Inspector Monks introduces himself and invites Mr Brookes to do likewise. Mr Brookes refuses to give his name stating this is not a formal interview. At no other point during the conversation does Mr Brookes voice any concerns over the recording of the meeting, nor at anytime does he not engage in the free flow of conversation.
(How many times do you have to say NO it became clear to me that Inspector Monks supported by Sgt Foster where going to record the meeting whatever my wish and the by engaging in the free flow of conversation I felt this would satisfy there need and enable me to get out of the awful situation as soon as I could)
From the digital recording I have listened to, I have heard nothing that would substantiate the allegations made by Mr Brookes that Inspector Monks lied over who had requested the meeting. It is clearly a matter of opinion over who called the meeting.
Mr Brookes clearly has concerns over the conduct of Inspector Monks and his dealings with local councillors.
However, as a Local Policing Unit Commander I would expect the Inspector to engage with and work closely along side other agencies such as local councils, in order to try and reduce crime and improve public confidence within the comminty.
I have discovered no evidence to indicate that Inspector Monks has acted inappropriately with regards his dealing with Rutland or Oakham Council.
Recommendations
The investigating officer is satisfied that the conduct of the officer does not amount to misconduct or that it breaches the Standards of Professional Behaviour for Police Officers.
I have discovered no evidence to substantiate the allegations made by Mr Brookes and recommend that the matter be filed as unsubstantiated.
