Complaints against officers

[Fedster + 1,307]

Misconduct hearing told there is 'not a shred of evidence' money had been in the flat.

The hearing is taking place at the Empress State Building

Date - 2nd August 2018
By - JJ Hutber at the Empress State Building

 

A detective sergeant denies an allegation he stole cash while conducting a search of the home of an arrested man.

Detective Sergeant Iain Wallace, based at the Met Police’s Newham Operational Command, is accused of stealing £2,000 while searching the flat in Forest Gate, east London, in August 2016.

At a misconduct hearing this morning he spoke only to say the allegations against him are false.

Meanwhile Faisal Khan, the alleged victim, told Det Sgt Wallace’s lawyer he should stop asking him “stupid questions”. He added that he should instead “worry about the £2,000 which you’re going to pay me today”.

Mr Khan is the owner of a vehicle recovery firm and is normally paid by customers in cash. He claims he had kept £2,000 in £50 notes in his wardrobe for a holiday to Turkey.

He told the hearing that in 2016 he was making £2,000 per week on average but his business suffered after he was arrested over a dozen times.

The charges, which he called “false allegations from women and ladies” mainly relate to harassment and domestic related charges. He has past convictions for wounding, harassment and malicious communications.

He said: “No one else had access to my wardrobe. As evidence on CCTV shows the officer was there at the time and was there for quite a long time.

“I was inside [custody] for nine hours. I left my money in the cupboard. When I came back I found my money missing, my wardrobe messed up, my table messed up. There was £2,000 there all in £50 notes with a rubber band around it.”

When asked why he thought it was Det Sgt Wallace who took the money, he simply said: “The money was not there.”

Although he normally transferred money into bank accounts between jobs, Mr Khan said he kept the cash is his wardrobe for holiday pocket money and intended to change the £50 notes into Turkish lira.

He could not say when he had planned to go on holiday but when pressed said perhaps in two or three weeks after the search of his house. Mr Khan was also under bail conditions at the time.

Mr Khan had a motion sensitive CCTV camera set up in his bedroom because he said had been threatened and wanted evidence if he was attacked, but the wardrobe was not in its line of sight.

It auto-deleted footage after seven days and since he didn’t download the video in time, the recording from August 26 was lost.

Lawyer Steve Evans, defending Det Sgt Wallace, told the hearing there is “not a shred of evidence” that the money had been in the wardrobe on the day in question and that Mr Khan had invented his claims about holiday spending money.

“What this panel is being asked to do is on the word of this witness, he was an awful witness and aggressive with me, to find this officer stole £2,000,” he said.

Counsel for the Metropolitan Police Service Deshpal Panesar said: “DS Wallace has excellent character references.

“If one is to make the assumption someone who has an excellent previous history of being honest cannot be made to answer to these allegations, no system of justice could function.

“Mr Khan has admitted he has convictions for other matters not that he gives up the right to be protected by the law.”

View On Police Oracle

[Mac7 808]

How has this got as far as it has?

[SimonT + 1,185]

Therein lies the danger of searching by yourself. In times of no staff and constant demands it happens more often than it should. I have done it. 

Body worn video is helpful. More helpful would be to tell the complainant that there is no evidence, so, like any victim of crime, its being filed. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

The report does not say or imply that he conducted the search on his own. I do not know of any time when search of a property would be carried out by only one Police Officer.

Having been involved in defending officers at hearings I find it surprising that the allegation ever got to a hearing.

[Fedster + 1,307]

Misconduct proceedings thrown out due to lack of evidence linking detective to 'cash theft'

Alleged victim was an evasive and unreliable witness.

 

Date - 2nd August 2018
By - JJ Hutber at the Empress State Building

2 Comments

 

A sergeant has been cleared of allegations he stole £2,000 during the search of a suspect's property.

Detective Sergeant Iain Wallace, based at the Met Police’s Newham Operational Command, was accused of stealing £2,000 while searching the flat in Forest Gate, east London, in August 2016.

Faisal Shan, who was under arrest at the time, said he had left £2,000 in £50 notes in his bedroom wardrobe for holiday spending money.

Questioned at the officer's misconduct hearing, Shan was unable to say when he had been planning to go on holiday. He was under bail conditions restricting travel at the time.

He claimed he had installed CCTV in his bedroom - pointing away from the wardrobe - because he was afraid of being attacked.

This afternoon, misconduct panel chairman Akbar Khan accepted a no case to answer submission from Sgt Wallace’s lawyer Steve Evans.

Mr Khan said: “Mr Shan was at times aggressive and evasive. He disputed his own evidence. He denied he’d been uncooperative with the investigating officer regarding the CCTV.

“He was unable to give any reasonable explanation for a legal source of his money.

“He was unable to explain why this money had not been deposited in the bank."

An email from an investigating officer to Mr Shan on September 19 had asked for an update on the CCTV footage supposedly proving Det Sgt Wallace’s theft.

His response was “I don’t know exact dates. It was just one day. I put the money in my wardrobe. The money was not there.”

Ending the misconduct hearing, Mr Khan added: “The panel considers Mr Shan to be contradictory, evasive and inconsistent.”

A spokeswoman for the force said Det Sgt Wallace was neither on restricted duties nor suspended during the investigation.

View On Police Oracle

[Radman + 2,163]

What a waste of time and money not to mention unnecessary stress caused to the officer.

Shameful.

[Hyphen + 693]

Just reading the initial argument I couldn’t believe how fanciful the whole thing sounded from the claimant, frankly it sounds like complete nonsense. This should not have got past an initial discussion and certainly should have got nowhere near any sort of misconduct hearing.

 

[bensonby + 3,503]

It was an IPCC directed hearing that (yet again) collapsed. There was never any evidence the money existed, the complainant provided no footage of the money being put in the wardrobe, he did not provide footage of him finding it missing, the footage did not cover the officer taking it. The DPS, rightly, said there was no case to answe. The IPCC insisted on holding a hearing with literally not evidence but the complainant’s assertions.

 

Its outrageous: it all boils down to the interpretation of the high court decision in the Jordan Begley case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2993.html

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

^
Shame The Met can't make a claim for costs against the IOPC.

[bensonby + 3,503]

That is something being looked into

 

*edited to add* not in this specific case necessarily but in general terms re the IOPC bearing the costs of their directed hearings by having to present them themselves.

Edited August 3, 2018 by bensonby

[Fedster + 1,307]

Met and IOPC disagree on responsibility for misconduct hearing where no evidence existed

Legally qualified chair halted proceedings over a lack of 'cogent' evidence.

 

Date - 3rd August 2018
By - JJ Hutber- Police Oracle

3 Comments

 

The Met and IOPC have provided contradictory information over who was responsible for holding a public misconduct hearing on the case of a detective accused by an arrested suspect of stealing £2,000 in cash – which there was no evidence ever existed.

As earlier reported on Police Oracle, Detective Sergeant Iain Wallace was cleared of allegations he stole £2,000 in cash from Faisal Shan’s wardrobe while searching his flat on August 26, 2016.

Panel chairman Akbar Khan accepted there was no case to answer due to a “lack of sufficient cogency” by the member of the public claiming to be a victim.

Sgt Jamie Newman, who investigated Mr Shan’s complaints in 2016, told the hearing he found insufficient evidence on which to proceed.

Mr Khan described the alleged victim as “contradictory, evasive and inconsistent” in his evidence. 

An IOPC spokeswoman told Police Oracle misconduct proceedings had been conducted internally. She said the case had initially been referred to the watchdog but they had referred it back to the force who re-examined the case on appeal.

But a Met Police spokeswoman told our reporter the force held the hearing because they had been directed to do so by the IOPC.

During the hearing, Mr Shan was at times aggressive, once telling Det Sgt Wallace’s lawyer to “stop asking me stupid questions” and to “worry about the £2,000 you’re going to pay me, today”.

An email from Sgt Newman to Mr Shan on September 19 had asked for an update on the CCTV footage supposedly proving Det Sgt Wallace’s theft.

His response was “I don’t know exact dates. It was just one day. I put the money in my wardrobe. The money was not there.”

His only explanation for keeping the large sum of cash in his wardrobe was that he liked £50 notes and intended to exchange it for Turkish lira for holiday pocket money but struggled to answer questions about when he planned to go on holiday.

Mr Shan was subject to bail conditions at the time which would have restricted overseas travel, Det Sgt Wallace’s lawyer told the hearing.

View Police Oracle

[Pathca + 612]

Is Mr Shan now going to be prosecuted for  wasting police time and the other offences  his malicious allegations encompassed?

[bensonby + 3,503]

17 minutes ago, Pathca said:

Is Mr Shan now going to be prosecuted for  wasting police time and the other offences  his malicious allegations encompassed?

I doubt it, as it’s a summary-only offence.

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

He could be sued for a malicious complaint and/or defamation. It would not be the first time such action has been taken.

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

He could be sued for a malicious complaint and/or defamation. It would not be the first time such action has been taken.

I thought that complaints against police were subject to absolute privilege?