Wednesday 17 October 2012

Curtis Warren----More Questions Than Answers

My last week’s Blog on the Curtis Warren case (below) has certainly aroused interest and although not many Comments were submitted one in particular led me to look up the Court Judgements and a couple in particular are worth looking at.

As one can see in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’s Press Summary which I referred to in last week’s Blog, the UK Court was very critical of the Police’s role in the events leading to the arrest. The Press Summary makes reference to  [2008] JRC 050). (AG v Warren and others) which is the Ruling issued on 20th March 2008 on an application for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process?

On reading both reports it becomes apparent that there were a number of questions asked and advice sought before the police operation actually got underway. It would seem that the best intentions of the Jersey police officers were being frustrated by red tape and/or lack of co-operation from other agencies. The clock was ticking away and swift action was required however should one lie or withhold the truth to justify arresting someone? Did the ends justify the means? Red tape is often in place for a purpose; some times that red tape is actually a law which is intended to prevent abuse.

One thing certain is that as a result of one group of people breaking the law it led to another group of people, a team of traffickers hell bent on breaking another law, that of importing around one million pounds worth of drugs to Jersey being foiled, arrested and convicted.

It may well be that it is in the public’s interest that the convictions should stand. However was it a Pyrrhic victory? In the Jersey Royal Court’s Judgement there is a quotation from Lord Bridge who said “no principle is more basic to any proper system of law than the maintenance of the rule of law.” That is a powerful quotation which should be to the forefront of all those tasked with the maintenance of the rule of law, that includes Crown Officers.

It is to the role of the Crown Officers in the case that is worth a second glance.When reading the Judge’s comments on role played by Crown Advocate Jowitt a senior member of the Law Officer’s Department I had difficulty understanding his logic. The Judge found him to to be an honest witness and deemed him to be an Advocate of integrity. It appears that the Judge based his claim on the premise that he gave evidence before him for some considerable time was subjected to rigorous cross-examination.

However in the next paragraph the Judge states that the advice the Advocate gave to the Police Officers with hind sight may have been more carefully and felicitously expressed and he should have considered and researched the law more carefully than he did. However as the Judge considered the Advocate to be honest and well intentioned, he acquitted the Advocate of any impropriety or criminality or of acting recklessly or in disregard of the law.

That’s all very well but the Judge was not so generous with remarks about the Police Officers for whom I hold no brief but it does take two to tango and it is apparent that there are three versions of the truth, that of the police, the Advocate and the actual truth which is probably somewhere in between.

The Advocate must have known what the Officers were trying to achieve and were seeking advice not from someone at the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (no offence intended) but from a Senior Crown Officer. In my book the advice should have been clear, precise and in writing. As it is we now have the situation where it is the word of one officer against another officer, with the Crown Officer’s word apparently having more weight than the Police Officers even though the advice given was personal and not to be relied on.

The Attorney General does not come out the affair with flying colours either. It is apparent that he mis-led the Dutch authorities in a letter and he also gave them an undertaking not to proceed with the case without their clear consent.

Fortunately for the AG, the Judge also believes him to be a man of integrity, so even if they make the odd mistake or two the Crown Officers are jolly good fellows and no blame should be apportioned to them. But hang on, the Crown Officers are also the people who give consent to prosecute, so how does that square with the Judge? Were the Crown Officer’s mistakes simple or were they intentional? Whatever the answer it will never be convincing and will be further ammunition to those who have called for a separate Crown Prosecution Service.

From the evidence to hand it is pretty obvious that Warren and his team were up to no good and had they succeeded with their plans they would have received a nice pay day and Jersey would have been awash with illegal drugs. So perhaps they deserve to be behind bars. But life is not that simple and one can be sure that Curtis Warren will be spending a great deal of his time and money appealing against his conviction. I understand he is claiming that his Human Rights were violated and it will be interesting to see whether he is successful. Should he succeed he could be in for a nice compensation killing and Jersey’s Police and Crown Officers will be left with all mighty egg on face.

We know that the Hampshire Police have been investigating the police actions and its report is due in the near future. However if we are going to get to the bottom of the affair then the role of the Crown Officers should also be subject to an investigation and the outcome made known to the public.

As one can imagine I shall not be holding my breath as there is little likely hood of any investigation taking place into their role in the affair. However one would hope that the Crown Officers now have a system in place whereby any advice given is accurate and in writing.


  1. Bob
    This is a very tricky legal area. A dilemma always faces the police on the ground in such cases. They strongly suspect that an individual or individuals have committed or are about to commit a serious offence and want to do everything in their power to bring the offender(s) to justice.
    In this case, given the apparent obstructive nature of continental agencies, the hand of the Jersey police was forced.
    My understanding is that the police sought legal advice and thought that they were acting in accordance with the legal advice. Whether or not this was entirely in good faith I do not know.
    From what you say, Advocate Jowitt gave advice which was either incorrect or which was interpreted incorrectly. Furthermore, the A-G's hands are not entirely clean.
    There is no doubt that Warren is a very bad man and that the right result was obtained. However, Crown Officers and others should come clean on what advice was given and not seek to find police scapegoats.
    What I find interesting in the broader sense is that there can be so much apparent concern about the rights of an evidenced hardened criminal like Warren and yet no concern whatsoever about the rights of a then Senior Senator whose home was ransacked without a warrant by something like 10 police officers and then he was held in custody for about 8 hours - and all for nothing.
    The ultimate paradox is that the former Senator was merely trying to find a way to ensure that children in the care of the States were protected - i.e. his motives were good.
    I could go further and refer to the suspension of the former Chief Officer of Police and the subsequent rather pathetic but sustained campaign to prevent his side of the story from being heard.
    I think you might see where I am coming from here .......

    1. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, the police were as you say in quandary and I can well understand their predicament. The general rule is/was that if short cuts had to be taken to arrest a criminal, the Police Officer would come clean at the time of the arrest and that is where the officer’s role ended. It would then be for the Independent Crown Prosecution Service to take the decision whether or not to prosecute. In the Warren case the same Body involved in giving the advice to the police was also the Body making the decision to prosecute. That practice ceased in the UK over 30 years ago.

      What is of interest is that not only was decision taken to prosecute, but Warren and co were found guilty and lost their appeal when everyone was aware of the police short cuts. I do not want to anticipate the outcome of the Hants Police investigation but it would be a gross injustice if police officers are taken to task yet those responsible for advising them and taking the decision to prosecute are not held accountable. As you say the Crown Officers should come clean.

      I don’t think Warren got any special treatment but the difference between the Warren arrest and Senior Senator and the Chief Police Officer cases is that in the two latter cases both men were denied the protocols that are in place. What is alarming is that those involved in breaking the protocols are seemingly above the Law and untouchable.

  2. It is so obvious that the role of the Crown Officers should be under investigation as well as the police concerned. It must have been extremely frustrating for the police so near to being able to catch these criminals and yet have the knowledge that once they decided to go against the other agencies advice would lead to them losing the possibility to arrest and charge.

    This problem was due to technicalities and I can't honestly understand why the other agencies would now allow our police to do what they needed in order to get a conviction but that is obviously all out of our control and was definitely out of our policemen's jurisdiction. That said I do believe that we should all follow the rule of law. I have no love for the criminals our police were surveying as I believe they were peddling in death for their own greed and gratification.

    It is a hard decision to come to terms with but if you think about it if these policemen and this judge gets away with breaking the law at this juncture then I fear that a red line has been crossed and that there will be another occasion on which such action will be taken and this situation will continue and the law will be eroded until it is ultimately a useless law.

    It was a wrong which, in my humble opinion, one can never make a right.



    1. I agree that a wrong can never make a right however as mentioned in my comment above there may well be occasions when police will have to make a decision for what is deemed to be the greater good. If you read the judgement you will see mention of people being tortured provide evidence. There is no way that bugging a car can be compared with that act and it is almost certain that the prosecution would never agree to prosecute or the court even consider hearing the case if it knew that evidence had been obtained via torture.

      In the Warren case it is apparent that a blind eye approach was adopted, probably for the greater good, it will be for the higher appeal body to consider whether decisions already taken should stand.

      I do agree with the comments in your opening paragraph.

    2. I wonder why the other agencies did not allow bugging within their jurisdiction? There must be a good reason for their decision.

      I have decided and am of the opinion that although the operationn broke the law that, yes, turning a blind eye on this occasion was the best way of proceeding considering how mkuch misery would be let out on the streets by not taking this action.

      The crown officers though should not hide behind the police line and be protected from critiscm whilst the police carry the can for all their actions. I hope the police are dealt with leniently as they caught their men and probably saved a lot of lives.

      Lets hope we can draw a line under this soon and move on and get the whole question of how the judiciary behave under enquiry in the very near future. I would hate to think that the judiciary make things up as they go along.



    3. Hi Ahimsa,

      Thanks for your second comment. If you read paragraph 11 of the Jersey Royal Court Judgement which can found in my Blog above you will see that reference is made to possible Human Rights violations coming into play if an audio system was placed in the car but not in your home which does seem a bit odd.

      I note that after reading the Comments you have come round to taking a pragmatic approach re the Police actions. I agree with your comments re the Crown Officers, but if the police officer’s are taken to task for their actions, I would not be surprised if the Crown Officers were not called as witnesses. I would not mind being a fly on the wall if that happens.

  3. Why didn't the police just wait in Jersey for them to turn up with the drugs? Why all the bugging and complications? It was £350,000 street value when the story broke. How many others have they chased around Europe? Where di the million come from?

    1. I am sure that if it was as simple as waiting in Jersey for Warren and co. to turn up in Jersey the officers would have been rubbing their hands with joy. Alas that was not the case. I don't know how many other people have been chased around Europe, but is is evident that Jersey police were not getting the co-operation from foreign agencies, hence the problem.

      Please see my comment re the £1m in answer to Rico's comment below.

  4. It appears that both the AG and Law Officers give or don't give the advice that others go to them seeking.

    Remember this, from the Napier Report:-

    36. The letter from Mr Ogley to Deputy Lewis dated 11 November refers to the report from Mr Warcup as something which “draws heavily from and reflects the Metropolitan Police report into the investigation” and states that “He [i.e. Mr Warcup] is taking advice from the Attorney General as to whether it is appropriate to release the full Metropolitan Police report to either me or you.”

    That might be read as suggesting that the full report was in the possession of Mr Warcup, but of course that was not the case. All that Mr Warcup had been sent on 10 November was an interim report, qualified as previously noted.

    --------------- and

    I have seen no record of any advice given, but I have not
    explored all sources. The Attorney General does not recollect giving such advice and believes he never saw the Interim Report documents itself. It must therefore remain uncertain exactly what legal advice (if any) was provided, and, if advice was provided at what stage in the proceedings this took place.

    --------------- so never says he didn't, but uses the "does not recollect" although we also see just how good the AG's memory was in:-

    Mr Warcup’s version of events was that he told Mr Power that the version of the script for the press briefing which he (Mr Power)
    had seen was inaccurate, but he (Mr Power) never asked to see the corrected version. Again, I find it very difficult to know where the truth lies as between the conflicting versions of events. But I can say that the Attorney General has confirmed that he can corroborate precisely what Mr Warcup said to me, as he was given by him the same version of events at the time.

    ---- the old memory word perfect this time, just couldn't remember giving advice.

    Which proves the case, nobody can rely on the word of the AG unless it is in writing!!! and I guess that should be followed by the SG and all Law Officers.

    1. Thank you for a well researched comment. The Graham Power suspension will live for infamy. The evidence shows that there was a conspiracy to get rid of the former police chief and those involved with the suspension, if they were honourable should hold their heads in shame. However if they were honourable they would never has carried out the suspension in the first place.

      Re your comments about having things in writing, if you read the judgement in my Blog you will see that the information contained in the AG’s letter to the Dutch Authorities was deemed to be misleading, so it looks as though putting things in writing, unless agreed by both parties is no guarantee that the contents will be accurate.

  5. "Where did the million pounds come from"

    Not sure, but this might help. Good posting Bob

    Armed police for drugs trial
    Monday 20th August 2007, 12:00AM BST.

    ARMED police were on guard outside the Magistrate’s Court this morning.

    They were deployed as five men appeared in the court on drug smuggling charges. Curtis Warren (44), James O’Brien (42), Jon Welsh (40), Paul Hunt (25) and Jason Woodward (20) were arrested in July and are accused of conspiracy to import controlled drugs – £300,000 worth of cannabis – into the Island between 1 May and 23 July. They have all previously been remanded in custody except Woodward, who is on bail. Warren and Welsh are from Liverpool, O’Brien from Glasgow, Woodward from Dertford and Hunt is from Jersey. All five have previously given St Helier home addresses.

    1. Hi Rico,

      You and another reader above have raised a valid point re the drug's value. I can assure you that I have not invented the figure but below is Lord Dyson’s opening paragraph from his full judgement delivered on 28th March 2011. Do you think the good judge was taking inflation into consideration or was the figure increased to give more gravity to the case?

      1. On 7 October 2009, the appellants were convicted of conspiracy to import into Jersey 180 kg of cannabis, a class B controlled drug. The drugs had a street value in excess of £1m. Curtis Warren, who masterminded the conspiracy, was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. John Welsh, whose involvement it will be necessary to describe in more detail, was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. James O’Brien was sentenced to 10 years’ and the other appellants each to 5 years’ imprisonment.

  6. Thanks Rico,

    An interesting report. I don't know if Channel did mention the £300k figure in earlier reports but if it did, there is no mention as to why the figure rose to £1m.

    Also interesting to hear what Mike Bowron had to say. Short prepared report with no comment on the police's actions, which seem to be in stark contrast to the comments made by the AG and Mr Warcup a couple of years earlier.

  7. Dear Bob, I am very impressed by the level of very intelligent responses, in short, if we look at the Warren case, the Crown need to be really looked at. The Police were advised by the Crown. Matthew Jowitt, how on earth did he get a response by The Ministry of Justice as 'being a man of integrity?'. Who is checking his work? who does he answer too? there are a number of other cases that this man has been involved in, in Jersey. Who is he, who does he answer too? I believe once we answer these questions we may infact be able to find out some answers. I also do not like people like Curtis Warren, but I do believe everyone should have a fair trial and I do believe Curtis Warren did not get this. Jersey took the law into it's own hands, a very dangerous thing and it does need investigating as I believe the same people are doing the same think in Jersey over and over and over again....


  8. Thanks for the compliment. There have been a number of interesting comments and this Blog’s title, more questions – than answers just about sums it up. One of the recurring questions is about the role and accountability of the Crown officers and that their role in the affair should be investigated along with the Police officers but there is very little chance of that happening.

    The more times one reads the Judgement the more one finds it incredible that the Judge should hold the Advocate in such esteem. As mentioned in one of the comments above, the officers should have been given the advocate’s advice in writing. The fact that the is nothing in writing does nothing for the Crowm Officer's reputation.

  9. Dear Bob,
    Why is there no chance of this being investigated? Why was there nothing in writing? I believe unless this is looked into and the correct checks and balances implemented Jersey will not have a fair legal system. Who does the Crown answer too? If they know the answer is no-one then, this is where the problem lies, I am afraid.....Minty was a fool, but he is the fall guy.

  10. Thanks for another thoughtful Comment.

    The reason why there is little or no chance of the Crown Officer’s role being investigated is because there is no real mechanism for it to happen. The 2 Blogs I have published on the Curtis Warren affair have drawn attention to the inadequacies of the Jersey legal system and perhaps that is something that could be developed via another Blog. I would also like to know who the Crown Officer’s are accountable to. I did attempt to address the issue when in the States but never found the answer.

    I don’t know Mr Minty but I can understand the dilemma he faced in 2007 but not knowing all the facts it might be a harsh at present to say he was a fool but it does look as though he is the fall guy. Like the Graham Power suspension one wonders how much political interference there has been behind the Minty suspension.

  11. Dear Bob, Is a letter to the Queen the only way forward?, she is our guardian after all. Let me know and a letter will be sent to her via me. Kind regards

  12. I don't think so, because you are likely to receive a short reply saying something like the matter is not within the queen's remit.

    You could try the Ministry of Justice in Victoria Street in London, but from my experience you are likly to receive a reply saying something like they consider the matter to be one best dealt witt within the Island. So the roundabout continues.

  13. Dear Bob, well we have to do something? so what can it be? all we are seeking is that there is accountability and clearly this is not happening.... so what can be done?

  14. I agree that something should be done to ensure that there is proper accountability and in particular when Crown Officer’s are giving advice.

    The purpose of the Blogs was to raise people’s awareness in the hope that improvements are made when failings are identified. I know from my statistics that both this and the previous Blog that readership has been extremely high therefore it is apparent that the Blogs’ purpose, to a degree has been achieved. However we must await the outcome of the Hampshire Police’s report and the Minty suspension.

    The matter is still alive and kicking and you may recall that at the end of my Blog below published on 10th October I said; “I have a feeling that we shall be hearing a lot more about Mr Warren and Mr Minty, so watch this space.” It is looking as though my prediction is correct.

  15. Dear Bob, let's keep an eye on the Crown and what they are going to do in the future, the decisions they make, if they know they are being looked at they may not be so 'untouchable'. One can only seek that those in power do not take that power into their own hands! this is the tragedy of so many problems in Jersey and the world! let's keep an eye on things while the Warren and Minty saga unfolds.....

  16. I'm very interested to hear your views Mr Hill as to why the Cannabis trade is still in the hands of Criminals like Warren?

    All the evidence says that the "War On Drugs" is counter productive and causes a lot more problems than it solves.

    Scientific studies from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in the UK (not to be confused with the Jersey ACMD, which is quite frankly a joke) and other agencies such as the UK Drug Policy Commission and the Global Commission on Drug Policy suggest that Cannabis and other drugs like Ecstasy are significantly less harmful that Alcohol and Tobacco and should be legalised and controlled by the State, or at the least decriminalised as is happening in many other countries around the World with great success!

    It seems very clear that these drugs are still illegal for Political reasons more than anything!

    1. You have raised an interesting issue which has been the subject of much debate in the past and it will continue. I can well recall as a very young police officer in the East End of London in the early 1960’s when the street cannabis trade was in its infancy and some dealers were arrested selling cannabis which sometimes was very akin to or actually grass seed. Perhaps that is how term the term “selling grass” came into being. If one goes just a little further back in time the Opium Trade was big business and even led to wars. Therefore the drug situation is nothing new and like alcohol it only became the subject of legislation well after they were in the public domain.

      America introduced prohibition in the naïve belief that people would over night stop drinking alcohol. History shows that prohibition led to greater evils and prohibiting the sale of drugs is causing the same problems. Perhaps if alcohol and cigarettes were being introduced to today they too would be banned. However governments see the value of both and heavily tax both on the pretext that the tax will lead to a reduction of use. If governments really were honest they would levy much heavier taxes but then that would be an own goal.

      Having a friend with MS I know of the efforts being made to make available cannabis based medicines like Sativex to MS sufferers, however whilst Sativex can now be prescribed it has to be purchased but it is too expensive for the ordinary member of the public.

      I have digressed from your question but the drugs issue is not a simple one and as long as it remains in the political arena the matter will be kicked around for ever. It does seem that a disproportionate amount of police and court time is given to drugs misuse and if cannabis was legalised there may be saving in cost at one end but who has quantified the health cost should cannabis become legalised?

    2. The statistics from Holland where Cannabis has been tolerated since the 70's, show that Cannabis use is in fact a lot lower than the UK and other countries. Probably due to the fact that it has become "normalised" and the forbidden fruit aspect no longer applies.

      The main problem in Holland has been one of drug tourism, and pressure from other countries has led to the introduction of the "Weed Pass" in towns close to the German and Belgium border, which only allows access to the Coffeeshops by Dutch residents. However, within only a few months these towns have discovered (as was warned by many beforehand) that street dealing and the problems associated have risen significantly, and as such the Dutch Government are in the middle of a u-turn and are letting individual towns and cities decide whether to introduce the pass.

      As for Jersey, it has saddened me to see a number of medicinal Cannabis users imprisoned over the last year or so at considerable expense to the taxpayer. I know for certain that at least one of these people had applied for a Sativex prescription and been denied, and could not afford a private prescription at a cost of more than £500 a month.

      The really sad thing is that the UK Government still refuses to admit that Cannabis has any medicinal value, whilst at the same time issuing GW Pharmaceuticals the license to produce Sativex and make huge profits from peoples pain..

    3. Thanks for covering the Holland situation. Holland has got itself in a mess because it failed to be consistent and treat locals and visitors alike. Like Jersey with its Housing qualifying situation both systems become discriminatory but people find ways of getting run them, particularly if you have the money.

      I agree re medicinal benefits from cannabis based products but greed gets in the way and I know that your mention of £500 for Sativex is correct.

  17. Dear Bob,
    Sorry but I can write not good English, but I have a question, mister Warren gets 13 years and he is going in in 2009, when do they release him, here in Holland you get 1/3 off, is he not coming free these days???

    Thanks, and Greatings Henk Rotterdam

    1. Hi Henk,

      Good to hear from you and well done with your English.

      As far as I am aware sentences of 4 years or more (but not life) are subject to Discretionary conditional release (DCR), which means that the prisoner becomes eligible for release at the half way stage. It is not automatic, but is at the discretion of the Parole Board. If release is approved, they are released on licence. If not, they serve two thirds of their sentence in prison and are then released on licence. The final quarter of the sentence is spent in the community ‘at risk’. If released on DCR licence they remain on licence until the three quarter point of their sentence.

      Therefore it appears that Curtis Warren and co will also receive 1/3 off provided they have complied with the prison regulations they too should be entitled to the 1/3 off.

      I understand that Curtis Warren was sentenced to 13 years so it will be some time before he is released, but other members of his team must be coming to the end of their sentence.

  18. Thank you very much, and here from Holland we follow you're blog's,

    Greatings, Henk.

    1. Good Evening Henk,

      Thanks for your continued interest and I note that people in Holland read my Blogs. In view of this Blog and my latest Blog above I would be interested in your thoughts regarding the events leading to the arrest, the decision to charge, the decision to allow evidence obtained illegally and the Court's verdict. Do such events occur in Holland?

  19. Dear John,

    Ok, let me try to explain, and be honest.

    I was for 5 years in gail here in Holland and that was because I protect my house and that goos to far because there was somebody very hurt when he was in my house stealing things (an addict) burglar in English??? But anyway, I was Curtis his neighbor for 2 years. That was in 2003. Now what happens in Jersey with the illegal bugs in the car and al the observations of Curtis that's normal, but I think that all the people in England 1 very big ,mistake make, so here is my thoughs and what I see and hear in the 2 years, when somebody is in gail for more than 10 years, how much money you have, believe me, its all gone and everybody things that you never come back and I hear and see how they do with him in gail in Holland, bugs in his cell, camera's in the visitroom, serious. He had a very hard time and believe me, I hate for where he was in gail, the drugs and all, but I think that it is the plan to let him never out because they think he's a big man. A big man with so much money go smuggling cannabis to Jersey, no no , there is nothing left for him and what I think about the way this case go is the same as in Holland, hang him on the biggest tree, from the government and his formal partners. There is 1 thing what he say many many times, "my body is made for prison" so ........... in he's Liverpool's accent. And I hope that you also know that it is not my friend or something, I only know that dirty playing with him is normal for justice, never had they 100% evidence and always he's convicted. Here in Holland and now in England.

    Grantings, Henk.


    1. Dear Henk,

      Sorry to hear of your problems and of your experiences. It should be remembered that within days of being released from prison Curtis Warren was again involved with the drugs scene, why? I do not support any unlawful tactics to arrest him but he made the decision to continue with his drug involvement not with standing the difficulties he encountered in prison and previous arrests, so one could say when will he ever learn?

  20. Dear John,

    I have now a good life, I became a father from a beautiful doghter, I get married and have a good job as a taxi driver. But you say when Curtis will learn, I think never, because I think that the money that he had before he go in prison in Holland is gone, and that he must do it, come on, everybody knows that this is not his way he handle, I see its not a stupit man, he is serious high intelligent. And I think that he's fear for his life, the people who owns his money when he get in want him ( I think dead ) because paying back is no option. I am not old but there is a rapsong " the more money, the more problems " its made for him, from all directions , the court, the bad people, and so long off the street, HE NEVER LEARN AND NEVER CAN.

  21. Dear Bob Hill, I do feel that Minty has been made a 'scape goat'. Matthew Jowitt and the Law Officers need to be brought to account. If Minty is saying he went on 'what he was advised' to do then surely we have to investigate the Law Officers and Matthew Jowitt? getting to the bottom of this is surely the correct way? so Jersey can learn from it's mistakes?

    1. The issue of investigating the advice given by the Crown Officers is a recurring theme.

      As you know the Disciplinary hearing is taking place this week, should the officers be found not guilty this will bring added pressure for an investigation.

      It is my intention to publish a Blog on the Disciplinary finding.

    2. Dear Bob,

      With this al whats going wrong, and the investigaters are work with illegal evidence. Do you think that they open the case again of Curtis? If something like that happened here in Holland, they wil release him direct, if court says that it was illegal what the police did.
      So I hope you have an answer because here in Holland have the citizen ruls but also the police and I see people go and they were 100% guilty only justice make a mistake and they walk outside.

      Greatings, Henk.

    3. Good Evening Henk, can I refer you to my latest Blog because events have now moved on and the disciplinary action taken against the 3 police officers was dismissed.

      In the Comments section in my latest Blog a number of interesting points have been raised which include those you have raised above.