Progress into my complaint of perjury
Progress into my complaint of perjury and malfeasance in public office against the Leader FCC. Submitted 21st September 2011.
Dear Detective Superintendent,
Over a month has elapsed and I have heard nothing from you regarding the serious complaint I lodged with your Chief Constable on 21st September 2011. I have an email from the Heesom Tribunal Clerk, Stephen Phipps, which confirms that the Heesom Tribunal will not release the Woolley transcripts until the case tribunal has finished its deliberations. The reasons given are that the Panel has not made up its mind over the evidence given to this tribunal by Cllr Woolley and the Panel will not allow any risk to the Heesom tribunal. I told Mr Phipps that the Panel is therefore refusing to assist me clear my name. He told me that he could not comment.
The Tribunal is a civil arrangement. Its procedures are deeply flawed and no protection is offered as is the case with a criminal hearing. Perjury is an extremely grave offence that carries a seven year penalty on indictment. I cannot believe that no investigation will take place until the tribunal terminates which could take until the next council elections in May, 2012. This is totally unfair to me as I have been found guilty of misleading the Ombudsman and failing to cooperate with his enquiries. I cannot believe that the police can be party to this refusal of the Panel to release the Woolley transcripts where they involve me.
When in September 2010, I was able to prove that the entry dated 19th February 09 was false and Cllr Woolley had alleged on oath that the entry was contemporaneous and true, I contacted the Ombudsman. He refused to take any action as Cllr Woolley’s evidence had been believed and mine had not! He suggested that my only redress lay with the Adjudication Panel for Wales. Thus, I find myself in a pincer movement and have no one to redress the wrong against me (the financial cost was £10,500) and you, the body charged with investigating a serious crime seem unwilling to intervene.
The reasons why Judge James and Peter J Davies refuse to release the transcripts are two fold. One is to protect their star witness in the Heesom case to bolster a failing action against the councillor and the second surely relates to not wanting to overturn the decision made by the Tribunal who adjudicated on my case. At this sensitive stage in the Heesom hearing with some £3million of public money already being spent on legal fees and tribunal administration etc, the Panel does not want my case to implode which will cast considerable doubt on the integrity of both the Ombudsman’s investigations; into Cllr Heesom’s conduct and into my case which was biased as the investigation was carried out by an Ex.Ch Superintendent with the full support of the Ombudsman himself. Mr Walsh clearly had the agenda of finding me guilty and thus weakening my own capacity to assist Cllr Heesom clear his name.
What has happened to me is truly disgusting. I always maintained that the journal was a lie, but at the time of my tribunal I was not able to prove it was it. The journal was the major piece of evidence against me and it was believed to be true. I suspect that the Heesom Panel knows that comparison between the Woolley transcripts of both tribunals will find that my claim of perjury is compelling and my allegations will prove that Cllr Woolley has committed perjury.
It is not fair that I continue to be denied justice and that I may have to present myself to the Electorate with the Adjudication Panel’s false finding that should be quashed.
The final injustice is that the Ombudsman not only refused to open the flawed journal affair but has continued to rely upon it in the Heesom case. Furthermore, I am still waiting for a further investigation by the Ombudsman’s staff that I have been disrespectful to Cllr Woolley by daring to ask for the original journal as I was considering having it forensically examined. Thus, the trivial allegation of disrespect has been given precedence over the little matter of lying on oath against a fellow councillor.
You are an independent force and you need to consider your own position when it comes to integrity, commitment to the truth and willingness to investigate a criminal complaint without delay. I am an elected Councillor who has been three times before the electorate and been successful on all occasions. My reputation has been sullied and I need to know why this matter has not been addressed please.
Therefore, I would be obliged if you will tell me why there has seemingly been no police action despite the passage of two months and your reason must be explained to me please as a matter of urgency. I look forward to hearing from you at your early convenience please.
Yours truly,
Alison Halford.
Cllr Ewloe Ward and former ACC Merseyside Police.
Dear Detective Superintendent,
Over a month has elapsed and I have heard nothing from you regarding the serious complaint I lodged with your Chief Constable on 21st September 2011. I have an email from the Heesom Tribunal Clerk, Stephen Phipps, which confirms that the Heesom Tribunal will not release the Woolley transcripts until the case tribunal has finished its deliberations. The reasons given are that the Panel has not made up its mind over the evidence given to this tribunal by Cllr Woolley and the Panel will not allow any risk to the Heesom tribunal. I told Mr Phipps that the Panel is therefore refusing to assist me clear my name. He told me that he could not comment.
The Tribunal is a civil arrangement. Its procedures are deeply flawed and no protection is offered as is the case with a criminal hearing. Perjury is an extremely grave offence that carries a seven year penalty on indictment. I cannot believe that no investigation will take place until the tribunal terminates which could take until the next council elections in May, 2012. This is totally unfair to me as I have been found guilty of misleading the Ombudsman and failing to cooperate with his enquiries. I cannot believe that the police can be party to this refusal of the Panel to release the Woolley transcripts where they involve me.
When in September 2010, I was able to prove that the entry dated 19th February 09 was false and Cllr Woolley had alleged on oath that the entry was contemporaneous and true, I contacted the Ombudsman. He refused to take any action as Cllr Woolley’s evidence had been believed and mine had not! He suggested that my only redress lay with the Adjudication Panel for Wales. Thus, I find myself in a pincer movement and have no one to redress the wrong against me (the financial cost was £10,500) and you, the body charged with investigating a serious crime seem unwilling to intervene.
The reasons why Judge James and Peter J Davies refuse to release the transcripts are two fold. One is to protect their star witness in the Heesom case to bolster a failing action against the councillor and the second surely relates to not wanting to overturn the decision made by the Tribunal who adjudicated on my case. At this sensitive stage in the Heesom hearing with some £3million of public money already being spent on legal fees and tribunal administration etc, the Panel does not want my case to implode which will cast considerable doubt on the integrity of both the Ombudsman’s investigations; into Cllr Heesom’s conduct and into my case which was biased as the investigation was carried out by an Ex.Ch Superintendent with the full support of the Ombudsman himself. Mr Walsh clearly had the agenda of finding me guilty and thus weakening my own capacity to assist Cllr Heesom clear his name.
What has happened to me is truly disgusting. I always maintained that the journal was a lie, but at the time of my tribunal I was not able to prove it was it. The journal was the major piece of evidence against me and it was believed to be true. I suspect that the Heesom Panel knows that comparison between the Woolley transcripts of both tribunals will find that my claim of perjury is compelling and my allegations will prove that Cllr Woolley has committed perjury.
It is not fair that I continue to be denied justice and that I may have to present myself to the Electorate with the Adjudication Panel’s false finding that should be quashed.
The final injustice is that the Ombudsman not only refused to open the flawed journal affair but has continued to rely upon it in the Heesom case. Furthermore, I am still waiting for a further investigation by the Ombudsman’s staff that I have been disrespectful to Cllr Woolley by daring to ask for the original journal as I was considering having it forensically examined. Thus, the trivial allegation of disrespect has been given precedence over the little matter of lying on oath against a fellow councillor.
You are an independent force and you need to consider your own position when it comes to integrity, commitment to the truth and willingness to investigate a criminal complaint without delay. I am an elected Councillor who has been three times before the electorate and been successful on all occasions. My reputation has been sullied and I need to know why this matter has not been addressed please.
Therefore, I would be obliged if you will tell me why there has seemingly been no police action despite the passage of two months and your reason must be explained to me please as a matter of urgency. I look forward to hearing from you at your early convenience please.
Yours truly,
Alison Halford.
Cllr Ewloe Ward and former ACC Merseyside Police.
Fully agree–the Ombudsman is corrupt, only deals with certain councillors and not others.