The Full Code Test has two stages: (i) the evidential stage; followed by (ii) the public interest stage.
Q1. Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction?
The nature of the criminal investigation against Katy Bourne is she made a false statement during an election to influence it's outcome.
The alleged 'false statement' was published on a Facebook sponsored up-date, of which the appropriate screen shots were recorded and accepted by the IPCC as credible evidence.
Further evidence will be my testament as an ex Royal Military policeman; of whom my reputation and character is without reproach.
Q2. Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?
Yes there is. Based on the screen shots of Katy Bourne's alleged 'false statements', combined with my testament as an ex Royal Military Policeman, there is a realistic prospect of conviction because the evidence speaks for itself.
Q3. Are there any reason to doubt the credibility of the evidence?
No; the evidence is self explanatory and is based on actual screen shots and my testament, as an ex Royal Military Policeman and independent Parliamentary candidate in the Brighton Kemptown 2015 General election.
Katy Bourne has acknowledged she was solely responsible for making the Facebook comments, which has landed her with a criminal investigation being instigated against her.
Q4. Is it in the public interest?
Yes; (and in the words of Gerry McCann) that's an emphatic yes.
Katy Bourne is being paid £85,000 a year, while her office costs the public £1.1M a year. She is responsible for managing a £250M budget of public funds and her most recent Police Tax rise of 5% affects everyone in Sussex.
Q5. How serious is the offence
This is about trust in the police and trust in the people tasked with holding the police to account.
- Katy Bourne is accused of failing to hold Sussex Police to account and as a consequence the 1996 murder cover-up of Katrina Taylor has been allowed to continue.
- The collusion between Sussex police and known Crime Lord Mark Slade has been allowed to continue. (According to Joe Neilson – See the Neilson Files)
- The elderly abuse of Joe Neilson, (the main witness in Katrina Taylor's murder) continues, leaving him to fend for himself, abandoned by Social Services, in hiding and too scared to return to his home, in fear of being murdered by the same crime gang responsible for Katrina Taylor's murder in 1996.
- The cover-up of historical child-abuse involving John Walson, and the possibility of children's bodies being buried in a Bognor Regis garden, ignored by Sussex Police.
- The cover-up of fraud, theft of government money, and murder at the Bohemian Police Station in Hastings on February 12, 2009.
The offence committed is serious because the failure to hold Sussex police to account has proved to destroy lives and perpetuate organized crime, while Police Tax keeps going up and up.
Q6. What is the suspect's culpability?
Because Katy Bourne was solely responsible for writing and publishing the alleged 'false statements,' she is solely responsible for the fault and blame.
Q7. What is the harm to the victim?
Katy Bourne has already shut down the www.shadowsussexpolicecrimecommissioner.blogspot.co.uk blog, citing harassment as her grounds to do so. I dispute this and further accuse Katy Bourne of abusing my Human Rights of Expression and Speech.
In light of the seriousness of police corruption and the events on 15 January 2015 (in which disabled OAP Joe Neilson, was attacked at our election office in Peacehaven; only for Sussex Police to arrest us and let our attackers go free;) the prospect of harm to the victim is clear, present and extremely dangerous.
Q8. Was the offence premeditated and/or planned?
Katy Bourne made the comments the day before the 5th May 2016 PCC elections. Any comment she would have made would of been made to influence the outcome of the election. Anything she wrote would clearly have been premeditated and planned to influence the readers to re-elect her.
Q9. Was the offence committed against a victims who was at the time a person serving the public?
Welcomed in the Oath of Office which Katy Bourne pledged to adhere, was a condition that she would welcome public scrutiny into her role.
As the self appointed Shadow Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner, I was providing a public service on a voluntary basis, holding Katy Bourne to account.
A compliant Sussex press were clearly not asking the pertinent questions of why ex Chief Constable Martin Richards retired early.
At one point Brighton based hack and presenter of Latest TV's The Vote Show, Frank Le Duc, made a comment to Katy Bourne (while on The Vote show), that there was a trend of police officers retiring early to escape misconduct charges. Katy Bourne agreed with this observation, but no further questions were asked as to the circumstances why Martin Richards retired 9 months early, having had 24 complaints made against him, with all 24 complaints found to be 'unsubstantiated' by Mark Streater; a 30 year Sussex Police officer and close friend of Martin Richards.
Q10. Whether the offending, was or is likely to be continued, repeated or escalated?
The criminal investigation centres around Katy Bourne making a false statement to influence the outcome of an election.
Katy Bourne has since been accused of making a further false statement by Geoffrey Madden, who alleges the 80% of residents who Katy Bourne says agreed with her recommendation of a £5.00 increase in Police tax, to be false and based on flawed data. He challenges the result by saying he was unable to record his opinion with the office of SPCC and that from the public reaction to the prospect of a Police Tax rise gauged from comments left on newspaper articles, the true percentage of people against the tax increase is more in the region of 99% against, rather than the figure Katy Bourne quoted of 80% in favour.
Katy Bourne has demonstrated she will continue to make false statements to affect polls and election outcomes, if left in office.
Q11. What is the impact on the community?
The lack of trust in one's police force is the greatest of concern for any community. By failing to hold the police to account and accused of making false statements with the intent of influencing an election, the impact to the community is vast and comprehensive.
Police forces can only effectively police a community, by having the trust and consent of the community they serve. Abusing the trust of the community is a grave and serious offence and must be investigated with the full force of the Law.