APPEAL TO THE INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINT’S COMMISSION (‘IPCC’)
Submissions to IPCC in respect of Appeal Relating to the Police Response dated 24th March 2016 to The Complaint of Ella Gareeva dated 15th May 2015 Police ref: PC 5920 / 14 [Ms Draper] IPCC Reference: 2015/047905
POLICE RESPONCE TO THE IPCC COMPLAINT
We act for Ella Gareeva, aka Ella Draper in the aforementioned matter.
This document is a response to the police report dated 24th March 2016 (the “police report”).
On 4/5th September 2014, the children of Ella Gareeva, A and G, made allegations of horrific sexual abuse, murder and cannibalism of babies by a “cult” mainly operating from the Hampstead area.
The suspects include their father Mr. Ricky Dearman, teaching staff and other members of Christchurch primary school and other local schools, parents of other children attending these schools, members of the police, social services and other professionals.
The investigation into these allegations was concluded on 22nd September 2014 with “no crime confirmed”.
On 6th October 2014, Ella Draper lodged a complaint against the police’s failure to investigate the allegations her children made on 4/5th September 2014 regarding horrific sexual abuse, murder and cannibalism of infants in a prompt and effective manner. She alleged that the police had covered up the allegations and closed the investigation without any considerations to the available evidence and leads. The police failed to respond or communicate with Ella Gareeva in respect of her complaint until we lodged further grounds for the complaint on 15th May 2015.
The police were reluctant to accept our complaint on behalf of Ella Draper, but confirmed it would be addressed when they responded to the initial complaint made by Ella Gareeva on 6th October 2014.
POLICE CRIS (CRIME REPORT INFORMATION SYSTEM) REPORT
ANALYSIS OF THE OFFICIAL POLICE CRIS (CRIME REPORT INFORMATION SYSTEM) REPORT, by Arthur Kirkland (read in Adobe Acrobat pro)
The police responded with an outcome letter dated 8th July 2015. This response failed to address the issues raised in our complaint dated 15th May 2015 and largely concentrated on undermining the complaint made by Ella Gareeva.
An appeal was lodged to the IPCC and was upheld on 23rd October 2015. The IPCC requested the police reinvestigate our complaint and address all the concerns and issues raised.
The police responded after 5 months via a report dated 24th March 2016, which was received by our offices on 1st April 2016.
We, as representatives of Ella Gareeva, appealed the decision to the IPCC who kindly allowed an extension until 13th May 2016 to make any submissions.
Please note that despite several emails, the police failed to advise us, as to who the new Officer in charge (OIC) was that was responsible for completing the police report. They have only referred to him/her as the “OIC” or the “investigating officer”, even in emails posted 24th March 2016.
We now know that the police report dated 24th March 2016 was completed by DCI John Foulkes.
We understand that DCI Foulkes was involved in the initial investigation by the police into the allegations made by the children.
Accordingly, he is not independent and therefore there is evident danger of lack of impartiality and objectivity. This has been discussed within this document. The police response should be ignored and nullified on this point alone (DSD and NVB v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis  EWHC 436 (QB) held that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to independent scrutiny).
We also note that the decision was made to serve the officers with section 14 notices, as opposed to interviewing them under caution. The police report fails to detail its reasoning for this decision. We do not agree with this decision. We would have expected the officers to be interviewed under caution, given the serious nature of this complaint.
The police have only identified DI Cannon, DS Fernandez, and DC Martin. However, it is clear that in order to investigate our complaint fairly and objectively others involved in the investigation should have been interviewed or served with notices including DC Savage, B Lowen, DC Rogers, DS Papachristou etc. Officer Yaohirou should have been questioned for evidential purposes as a witness.
Before we respond to the police report we would like to refer you to page 13 and 14 of tape two of the transcript of Mr Dearman’s interview on 15th September 2014;
DEARMAN'S POLICE INTERVIEW TRANSRIPT
“R Dearman - Would the CAFCASS (Children And Family Court Advisory Support Service), reports saying that they have a concern about Ella Telling the kids stuff and telling them what to say…
DC Savage - yeah”
“R Dearman – And same with the video of her telling the kids how to be and what to say
DC Savage – what happens is, sir, the police and the Social Services have to work together, we all work together….I know for a fact that DS Fernandez has been to every single meeting with the social services. So I’m assuming information would be shared”
These are very odd comments by Mr Dearman and DC Savage on the 15th September 2014. Strangely reminiscent of Justice Pauffley’s Judgement conclusion dated 19th March 2015, para 165
“The children's false stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is the most accurate way to describe what was done by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper”
In other words, the implication is that the mother and Mr Christie told the children what to say and how to behave. It also reminds us of the various mainstream newspapers headlines on and after 19th March 2015 stating such things as “Police hunting runaway mother who tortured her two children into inventing fantasy claims about a satanic sex cult run by their father “(The Daily Mail).
This conclusion was reached by Justice Pauffley in the absence of unrepresented litigant Ella Gareeva whom the local authority and the Court failed to advise that her absence from the family proceedings could result in a damning judgement against her, the permanent removal of her children and that she would not be given permission to appeal the decision against her so that she could challenge it.
A damning decision in your absence? Cannot see your children again? No right to appeal? Tough! Such seems to be the barrier to justice in the care proceedings.
Please note the case law cited below which clearly establishes that the police have a duty to investigate allegations, such as the one alleged by A and G, in a timely and efficient manner; the investigation has to be prompt, effective and reasonable. It is our complaint, and as evidenced in our complaint dated 15th May 2015 and this document, that the investigation into the allegations made by G and A was not prompt, effective nor reasonable and was not carried out in a timely and effective manner.
The case law below also confirms that investigations should be independent, impartial and subject to independent scrutiny. With the fact that members of social services and Christchurch primary school, whom are alleged to have been involved in the abuse, attended strategy meetings, one finds it difficult to reconcile how the police investigation could be impartial and independent.
One finds it difficult to reconcile that, with DCI John Foulkes’ involvment in the investigation of the initial allegations, how the police report could be impartial and independent given that DCI Foulkes investigated our complaint and completed the response encompassed in the police report dated 24th March 2016.
DSD and NVB v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis  EWHC 436 (QB)
In this case it was held that the police have a duty to conduct investigations into particularly severe violent acts perpetrated by private parties in a timely and efficient manner. There had been systemic failings by the police in investigating a large number of rapes and sexual assaults amounting to a breach of the of the victims’ rights under Article 3 of the ECHR.
Green J concluded that there was established case law to show that Article 3 of the Convention imposes a duty upon the police to investigate which covers the entire span of a case from investigation to trial. The purpose behind this duty was to secure confidence in the rule of law in a democratic society, to demonstrate that the State is not colluding with or consenting to criminality, and, to provide learning to the police with a view to increasing future detection levels and preventing future crime. The investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to independent scrutiny
In respect of our complaint, it is clear that the police did not investigate in a prompt, effective, timely and efficient manner. They failed to arrest any suspects or properly interview Mr Dearman, carry out intimate searches of suspects for distinguishing marks, birthmarks / tattoos, seize mobile phones / laptops / computers, search addresses of suspects and other scenes of crimes etc.
Z & Others v United Kingdom 34 EHRR 3 (10th May 2001)
In this case the Court emphasised the fundamental importance of Article 3 in a democratic society.
MC v Bulgaria (2005) 40 EHRR 20 (4th December 2003)
This judgment, concerning rape, drew together the jurisprudence on Article 3 as it was evolving. It identified and described the duty on the police to investigate and explains the substantive content of that duty. It concerned errors which are both systemic, and, operational. It had been cited with approval by the Strasbourg and English Courts on a number of occasions
Ali and Ayse Duran v Turkey Application No 42942/08 (8th April 2008)
In this case the Court clarified that the duty in Article 3 was not confined to the official investigation but extended to “the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage”
Denis Vasilyev v Russia App No 32704/04 (17th December 2009)
The court identified a clear duty on police to investigate. This was a duty of means not result. The duty was the same regardless of whether police were complicit or not. The investigation must be effective and prompt and reasonable.
CAS & CS v Romania App No 26692/05 (20th March 2012)
This case illustrated that by 2012 the principles detailed above in the other cited cases were well established. It addressed also Article 8 but in terms which suggest that there is no material difference with Article 3.
Koky & Others v Slovakia App. No. 13624/03 (12th June 2012)
This case was significant only in that it showed the Strasbourg Court, in a routine manner, finding violations of the duty to investigate violence by private parties. It highlighted how facts involving particularly vulnerable victims, such as children, may lead more readily to a conclusion of breach.
A. MEDICAL EVIDENCE - Cris Report Entry 15th September 2014 Regarding the Findings of Consultant Paediatrician Dr Hodes
Please refer to the medical reports prepared by Dr Hodes which we have enclosed herein. An analysis of her repeated conclusive findings that the injuries to the anus of both children “are consistent” with the allegations of sexual abuse, is detailed further below.
The police report has conveniently ignored the following entry of 15th September 2014 at page 40 of 77 of the CRIS report by DS Fernandez, which would, in our view, render the response that DCI John Foulkes has provided as inadequate and misleading. The entry confirms that Dr Hodes findings were strong and conclusive in that the sexual abuse had occurred and the father, Mr Dearman, was implicated.
“Strategy discussion” Camden
Dr Hodes confirmed the injuries to the children and that the child had his father for causing injuries to the anus area”
The entry of 15th September 2014, same day and time as the interview of Mr Dearman, is as clear as day as to the conclusions of Dr Hodes.
Furthermore, we understand that Dr Hodes, was present at the strategy meetings on 8th and 15th September in Camden as detailed in her report dated 22nd September 2014 and also the following entry by DS Fernandez dated 13th September 2014 at page 40 of 77
“Meeting will be held at 09:30 in Camden which the Dr. will now attend”.
This meeting is likely to have been on the 15th September 2014 at 09:30 when Dr Hodes was in attendance. Coincidently, her initial report is dated 15th September 2014, and it may be that she provided all attendees, including DS Fernandez and other officers, with a copy of her initial report. DS Fernandez has been present at every strategy meeting (Interview transcript of Mr Dearman).
In any event, the aforementioned damning entry by DS Fernandez on 15th September 2014 at 16:49 suggests that the findings of Dr Hodes was at the very least communicated at the strategy meeting in person to DS Fernandez and others in attendance, as it begins with “STRATEGY DISCUSSION CAMDEN” before detailing the findings of Dr Hodes’.
Consequently, given the damning entry in the CRIS report and the strategy meeting of 15th September 2014, it is difficult to reconcile the statement of DCI Foulkes that “The discussion DS Fernandez had with Dr Hodes were such that she verbally reported inconclusive results on the 12th September 2014”.
Following this, as we are aware, instead of arresting Mr. Dearman, social services contacted him (perhaps days before.) Mr. Dearman then allegedly contacted the police (we do not know which police officer he contacted or what was discussed, perhaps it was DS Matt ”large solid poo” Fernandez) and was invited for a caution plus 3 interview which cannot be considered a proper or adequate interview, due to it’s manner and the questions asked / not asked which render it a breach of the children’s rights secured under article 3 ECHR as they have a right not to be tortured and once they have made their allegations the police have a duty to properly investigate their claims. Please refer to our comments on Mr. Dearman’s interview below for further analysis and information.
The above highlights prime reasons why it is fundamental that the minutes of all strategy meetings are provided to us, and that the police disclose what was discussed in them and confirm details of every person in attendance. The issue of the strategy meetings is further addressed below.
DCI Foulkes has ignored this crucial part of our complaint (entry in CRIS report of 15th September 2014) because in our view, it does not justify his response. It also helps to explain why our repeated requests for the details of the strategy meetings and for the disclosure of the minutes has been ignored by the police and the Courts.
The complainant states that the police have attempted to manipulate the position by: -
- Initially undermining the findings by stating in the CRIS report in an entry fabricated by DS Fernandez dated 13th September 2014 that the scar to the anus area of Gabriel could be the result of a “large solid poo”. Firstly, DS Fernandez is not medical expert qualified to make such a claim. Secondly, this is not enough to relieve the police of their duties to investigate the alleged suspects. Third, this doubtful, fabricated “large solid poo”, which was oddly introduced by DS Fernandez, would clearly have been rebutted after the entry on 15th September by the same police officer as copied above. Lastly, Dr Hodes was present at the Strategy meeting on 15tH September.
- The first police response to our complaint was on 8th July 2015. This, as confirmed by the IPCC, was an inadequate response. Within this response, the police have stated that “the children were medically examined on two occasions where some scarring was found on their anuses, which the examining doctor thought could be consistent with allegations of sexual abuse”.
- This clearly indicates that the investigating officers were aware of the findings of Dr Hodes, albeit that the definite findings were altered to “could be consistent”.
- In the current response from the police dated 24th March 2016, the police state “Dr Hodes written report [of the examination of the children on 12th September 2014] was not received by the police until 8th January 2015……. Dr Hodes conducted a second CP medical with an opportunity to photograph the injuries – completed on 16th September 2014. The photographs were not received by the police…….Dr Hodes completed a report on the examinations on 22nd September 2014. This was not received by the police at the time but supplied at a later stage through the MPS Directorates of Legal Services on 22nd January 2015 as part of the Judicial review papers. Dr Hodes completed an amended copy of the medical report on 4th December 2014 which was received by the police on 8th January 2015”. Police later state that this report was not received until 8th January 2015 despite repeated requests”. This is the first time we have learnt that the police did not receive the medical reports of a consultant paediatrician that they had instructed for their investigation and who was present at strategy meetings alongside them. How feasible is this claim by the police?
- In the same report, the police go on to say “Dr Hodes stated that they [scarring on anus of both children] may have been caused by physical abuse in the absence of a medical explanation. The discussion DS Fernandez had with Dr Hodes were such that she verbally reported inconclusive results on the 12th September 2014”.
As you can see, the police position has changed from the cause of scarring possibly being the result of a large solid poo, to “could be consistent” with the abuse allegations to verbal “inconclusive results” to we did not receive the reports or the photographs until January 2015 by which time the investigation had closed.
Why did the police claim that they did not receive the medical reports until January 2015? Who claimed that the medical results were “inconclusive?” Social Services?
We do not accept that the police did not receive the medical reports from Dr Hodes during the investigation. The Medical reports are dated 15th, 16th and 22nd September 2014. This was during the period of the police investigation. Are we expected to believe that the police instructed Dr Hodes and decided to close the investigation without her findings or her report? That is not feasible and if such did occur, the premature closure of the investigation is in clear breach of the children’s rights under Art 3 ECHR and suggests a “cover up”.
The police report states that they made several requests for the disclosure of the report but did not detail to whom it was they were making the requests, the nature of the request, nor when they were made. The requests may have been to Dr Hodes, but this is unlikely as the police instructed her and there is no plausible reason why she would withhold the reports. In addition, she was present at strategy meetings in the presence of the police.
However, Dr Hodes’ reports are all addressed to social worker;
Senior Family Practitioner
Family Services and Social Work
Children Schools and Families
London borough of Camden
9th Floor St Pancras Square
London N1C 4AG”
Please note that the final page of the reports dated 15th September 2014 contain what seems like an additional postal address blacked out. This may be the address of the police, which would indicate that the police did receive it. Therefore, we require the police to provide us with the un-redacted version of all the medical reports.
You will also note that “Chantelle” is the person Mr Dearman refers to in his police interview as speaking to a week before the 15th September 2014. Please see below where we discuss the arrest and interview of Mr Dearman
In any event, it is clear that the local authority / social services had a copy of the medical reports. Consequently, the inference by the police is that the social services refused / failed to disclose the reports to them. If the social services, whom the police were working “closely” with and whom “share” everything, failed to provide the police with such a damning medical report, why could the police not telephone Dr Hodes and ask her to send them further copies prior to closing the investigation? If such is the case, this further suggests evidence of a “COVER UP” because why would social services withhold such important evidence from the police officers investigating the allegations?
The Social services also, by admission by Mr Dearman on the Victoria Derbyshire programme, contacted him to tip him off that the police were looking for him.
Mr Dearman’s police interview suggests he may have seen the “videos” and makes references to CAFCASS reports claiming that the mother had told the children what to say and how to behave in the “videos”. How would, Mr Dearman be aware of the basis of the “retraction” interviews, the conclusion of the police investigation and the findings of the family proceedings in March 2015 on the 15th September 2014, prior to the retraction interviews?
In the view of the complainant, the social services / local authority and Mr Dearman should also be investigated for perverting the course of Justice, as there is clear inference that Mr Dearman was aware of the allegations, had seen the videos, and was aware of the basis of the “retraction” interviews, the outcome of the police investigation and the family proceedings.
Any proper and objective investigation into our complaint would have identified the issues above and addressed them.
Medical results “inconclusive” as confirmed by Social Services?
Furthermore, as stated above, the police report states “the discussion DS Fernandez had with Dr Hodes were such that she verbally reported inconclusive results on the 12th September 2014”. There is no such entry in the CRIS report confirming this, and we require the notes by DS Fernandez of this discussion and other discussions he had with Dr Hodes, including the notes of all other officers that dealt with Dr Hodes to evidence this claim, because, there is yet another curious entry by DS Fernandez on the 13th September 2014 at 13:55 which ties in with the “inconclusive results” information:
“DS Fernandez spoke to on call EDT at Camden for assist re CP medical that was carried out on Friday. There was no update on children’s file.
He was able to speak to a person involved in the case from Social Services who told him that the medical was inconclusive”
Therefore, is the police report mistaking what an unnamed “person” from social services (like the unnamed neighbour that stated that the house the children pointed out in the drive around was vacant for some time), informed the police that the “medical was INCONCLUSIVE”. Who was this person and where did this person from the social services obtain such misleading and inaccurate information, because as you can see from the medical reports (detailed below) Dr Hodes’ findings were conclusive, as she stated that the allegations “are consistent” with sexual abuse. Her reports could not have been any clearer and conclusive.
Any objective investigation into our complaint would have identified the above.
So, it seems that:
- A week prior to the interview on the 15th September 2014, Mr Dearman was in contact with an Yvonne and Chantelle of Social Services (evidenced in Mr Dearman’s interview transcript)
- Social services tipped Mr Dearman off about the police investigation (as claimed by Mr Dearman in the BBC Victoria Derbyshire interview)
- Children were taken into care on 11th September 2014 with an emergency protection order due to expire on 17th September, the date of the “retraction” interviews of the children. In view of the complainant, the fact that the emergency protection order was due to expire on 17th September 2015 suggests why it was necessary and vital for the police to obtain the retractions on or before this date, because otherwise the children would have been returned to their mother which is likely to have caused the alleged cover up many more problems.
- The complainant states that this maybe why the retraction interviews were hurried and without any probing for specific details by DC Martin, the interviewing officer.
- Mr Dearman was due to have contact with the children13, and we do not know if this visit went ahead. The complainant suggests that Mr Dearman was permitted to see the children between the 11th and 17th September 2014 in order to abuse and coerce the children into the “retractions”.
- Prior to the interview on the 15th September 2014, the inference is Mr Dearman was aware of the “videos” of the children repeating the sexual allegations (evidenced in Mr Dearman interview transcript)
- During this interview, Mr Dearman asks if considerations will be given to CAFCASS reports that state that the mother had told the children what to say and how to behave.
- The complainant suggests that these comments premeditate the retraction interviews, the outcome of the police investigation, and family proceedings. Please note that Justice Pauffley in her judgement dated 19th March 2015 has claimed that no police officer reviewed this material before the family proceedings commenced, as it was locked away in Chingford by an anonymous officer for some strange reason. “It is a curious fact that prior to the launch of these proceedings, no police officer had listened to the audio recording made by Jean Clement Yaohirou or watched the film clips of the children. DI Cannon made inquiries at my request to discover that DC Rogers, the member of his team who received the film clips and the audio recording from Mr Yaohirou, had sent them to a property store in Chingford” para 107, Justice Pauffley judgement dated 19th March 2015. If indeed Mr Dearman is aware of the videos of the children making the allegations, the question that arises is how did he know about the videos and predict the outcome of the investigation and the family proceedings?
- Despite police requests, Social Services allegedly did not provide the police with the conclusive medical report until January 2015. Were they not supposed to be working “closely together” from the outset and did DS Fernandez not attend all strategy meetings (evidenced in Mr Dearman interview transcript – but we are aware others attended)?
In our view, this, in addition to the many other bizarre aspects of this case, amounts to perverting the course of Justice and breaching of the children’s rights secured under article 3 ECHR. It seems, in the view of the complainant, that the strategy meetings were employed to strategise a way to silence the children and ensure that the allegations and investigation did not progress. The strategy seems to have included a vision of the outcome of the Family Court proceedings and Mr Dearman may have been privy to this information during the police investigation.
Even if the complainant accepts that the police did not get the reports until January 2015, is it not the duty of the officers to act upon this and reopen the investigation? After all, on page 12 (and onwards) of the Crime report 2419891/14, entry by DI Cannon on 6th September 2015 at 00:44 hours states;
“I recommend that immediate arrest is not required…the disclosure amounts to historic sexual abuse on both children, and each will need medical examination “
Although it is clear that the allegations were not historic (and the police have failed to comment as to why they felt it was historic), this entry suggests that the police required medical examination for the investigation to progress. Consequently, it is difficult to reconcile why the police did not ensure that they were in possession of all medical reports before hurrying to end the investigation especially considering the medical examinations were within the period of the investigation (12th September and 16th September 2014). Is the alleged failure to close the investigation without sight of the medical reports itself evidence of a deliberate cover up, or at the very least negligence, and evidence that the police investigation was not prompt and effective and in harmony with Article 3.
The complainant believes that at the very least, the police were fully aware of the conclusive nature of the medical results due to the entry by DS Fernandez on 15th September and because Dr Hodes was present at the strategy meetings on the 8th and 15th September 2014 as confirmed in her report dated 22nd September 2014
Also in respect of the “historic aspect” the children stated in their interview, that the police could attend Christ Church primary school in the morning and they would “catch them” abusing the other children, However, the police failed to do this but instead invited the representatives of the school to strategy meetings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ end of first 10 pages,
What exactly did the medical reports state?
No feedback yet
Form is loading...