Your author is a proven victim of sex crime. Proven in the High Court, not the court of Tumblr, when I was the subject of revenge pornography / falsified pornography by neo-Nazis. Readers might expect the most supportive and appropriate institution to be police. Far from it. In this article I am naming and criticising Investigator Susan Marsh 3253, whose behaviour, in my view brings shame on Cambridgeshire Police and Chief Constable Nick Dean. The failure to support me as a victim of sex crime is consistent with a recent report critical of the force (archive), which criticised how the constabulary deals with calls from members of the public and management of sex offenders.
Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police Nick Dean was planning to retire but then decided to stay. Cambridge deserves better.
On 10 April 2024 I was the victim of a serious, real world crime (not internet crime). I consider this connected to the earlier sex crime referred to. Hertfordshire Police attended. Officers listened, with bodycam active, as I explained my concerns. They asked me to upload documents, which I did, that pointed towards a suspect based on their online publications.
Whereupon nothing happened. When I called to enquire, I was told the crime had been allocated to a police employee. When I updated the crime online because the suspected perpetrator had posted online as being in the area, the police officer who saw my update had no idea of the prior information I had given and closed the investigation. In the meantime, another police force dealing with a similar, likely related, offence in another part of the country, had been hard at work obtaining forensic evidence and CCTV footage. They identified the suspects’ vehicle, a 5 door model.
In light of the failures of Hertfordshire Police, I complained and made a subject access request. It appears that the police officers who attended my home entered none of the information I provided into the police computer and did not make a recording decision about a related crime I reported concerning a former neighbour.
So, I made a police complaint. The police complaints team were initially resistant about recording some of my complaints but after a back and forth recorded what I had asked, including breaches of my Article 3 Rights. It follows that their initial objections were incorrect. I should add that the recording officer has allocated an alleged breach of Article 3 ECHR as, “Other Than by Investigation” (OTBI) and not referred it to IoPC.
Regardless, the matter was then allocated to Susan Marsh, nominally of Cambridgeshire Police, to resolve OTBI. In my opinion, her approach has been inappropriate and hostile from an early stage, repeatedly making incorrect statements of fact and law.
On 29 May 2024 at 11:37 she said, in an email,
“I understand that the alleged offence occurred in Hertfordshire but it is important to establish if there had been any crossover with your complaint in respect of the individual and any other Police Forces that may have investigated and taken any action. You have stated that [Redacted Elsewhere] Police have already gathered evidence so it would be expected that if the CPS Threshold had been reached then charges have and would have been laid against the individual”
The fact that a related crime has taken place in another part of the country is not grounds to not investigate a crime that happened in Hertfordshire.
On 21 June 2024 at 10:06 she asked, in an email for details of one of my complaints, including the date of a conversation and the name of a former neighbour. Those details were included in the letter of complaint. This made me feel the letter had not been read thoroughly.
Nearly three months after the incident and my subject access request, on 1 July 2024, I wrote to the Data Protection Team at Hertfordshire Police to express concern that the police bodycam was not disclosed as well as a recording of a call I made to police. I copied in Ms Marsh. Who started wrongly telling me that the material was not late in an email of 01 July 2024 at 12:15,
“The call relating to the Subject Officer has only just been addressed and I am not in receipt of this as yet, so it would not have been made available at the time you made your SAR request.”
This is, of course, wrong. The records existed before my subject access request, which requested, “all information” relating to the crime report. The Data Protection Team were under a legal obligation to do their own search. What disturbed me is that is not even Ms Marsh’s department! She then emailed me saying she was going to speak to them.
The Data Protection Team then came back saying that the materials were exempt from my subject access request as disclosing them would obstruct the investigation into my complaint. By this stage they had disclosed a large number of materials, so I considered this risible. The only documentation I could find about this online was an issue of IoPC Focus Magazine suggesting sharing information could in fact sometimes be a good practice. There is an internal review procedure for declined subject access requests. When I emailed the Data Protection Team asking to use that procedure, copying in Ms Marsh, she emailed back saying,
“May I also clarify that your complaint is not a review as you have intimated. The review process commences after the report has been concluded. If a complainant remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the report then they can exercise their request for a Right to Review with the relevant body. This process will be explained to you when the report after ratification has been completed and sent to you.”
She seems to have confused my request for a review by the Data Protection Team with the review procedure which exists to review her decision on my complaint. As of 19 July 2024 the Data Protection Team had confirmed that my request for an internal review was indeed effective and is with a supervisor,
“The internal review is with a supervisor at the moment.
Reference DPR-IR2024/04715”
Marsh had advised me incorrectly. It is now four weeks on from my review request on 3 July 2024 and the police have yet to identify any way in which giving me the remainder of the sought documents would obstruct the internal, ‘investigation’ that Ms Marsh is purportedly doing.
Finally, Ms Marsh accused me of attempting to exert, “improper pressure”, which appears to mean my threatening litigation, criticising the way she was conducting herself or asserting my legal rights. I consider this inappropriate and in my opinion, her behaviour is not such I would expect from someone employed in her role.
Overall, I have been left with no updates for just under a month now, and when I wrote two weeks ago to Chief Constable Nick Dean asking for a different investigator to be appointed, he did not reply. I had not written to him before. Dean was apparently, according to the BBC, planning to retire last year but then changed his mind (archive). Perhaps if he intends to delay his retirement he should be more active?
My interactions with Marsh and Dean’s failure to respond, have left me with no confidence in his leadership or integrity and a belief that the criticisms directed at the force have some validity. I am concerned that Marsh comes across as hostile, not having read the letter of complaint in relation to what she is supposed to investigating and a person who will not properly investigate concerns about handling of crimes – in this case the matters are related to my being a victim of sex crime.
I put the allegations to Ms Marsh and the Chief Constable, directly and via the Cambridgeshire Police press office. That included a full, early draft of this article. The response was as follows:
“The complaint you have made is still in the process of being handled, therefore it would not be appropriate for us to say anything further at this time.”
I consider this to be an incredibly arrogant and inappropriate response – and of course, one wholly lacking in any denial of the facts I allege. There is no answer on when I will get an update, how Marsh’s behaviour will be addressed, when the Data Protection Team will complete their internal review, or whether Ms Marsh will be removed from the case and another investigator appointed. It seems to me that the criticisms of police set out in the recent report have some validity. Furthermore, the Chief Constable has had the opportunity to rectify matters and it is fair for me to opine that the problem stems from the top.
Marsh’s insensitivity, inappropriate communication and absent communication in my opinion aggravate the distress occasioned by the underlying offence. It is tantamount to participating in the abuse herself. Matters have not been improved by her Chief Constable.
Cambridge and Hertfordshire deserve better.
It would appear Sam, that this isn’t only a matter that highlights police failures but also systemic failures across forces. You state that there is another alleged, possibly linked, offence in another area – but we know from recent events [the riots] that forces do not automatically share intelligence.
This is exceptionally lax and, bluntly, fecking dumb, especially when take into account the number of crimes that cross “county” boundaries. It appears that there is a political issue that needs resolving too – if police are not routinely sharing or investigating linked crimes across such “county” boundaries then they are letting the public [in a wider sense] down. It is little wonder therefore that the police were somewhat caught with their “pants down” regarding the plotting in the riots on social media.
From what you’ve said, even if the OTHER force had identified a suspect or possible suspect then that wasn’t necessarily going to be the same suspect as with the alleged offences against you and indeed Hertfordshire Police should not have made an assumption [even if you have a belief of linkage] that the same suspect(s) are involved. It could be that they are but by equal measure it could be that they are separate incidents with separate suspects albeit the timing of the incidents raises the distinct possibility of linkage. Without Hertfordshire doing a proper investigation then they are also letting criminals escape, especially if the other force is unable to identify a suspect despite gathering evidence.
This sounds to me like an issue that needs to be also raised in parliament at the earliest opportunity. Many years ago there was a proposal sent by me to the then Home Secretary that this country needs a centralised unit to tackle crimes online – because if the incitement was online to commit offline offences then the online evidence is absolutely crucial. It is evident also that many forces lack the “intelligence” at a PC/First Response level to even understand the nature and methods of social media incitement.
This isn’t as some would say “restricting freedom of expression” because there is no absolute freedom of expression anyway. ECHR Article 10 and Human Rights Act regarding Article 10 have TWO clauses, clause (a) allows freedom of expression but clause (b) restricts clause (a). In other words, Article 10 has to be read in full not selectively. What we’ve seen in terms of police response following the riots should’ve been robustly applied previously anyway and in fact, that difference in response pre-riots to post-riots now highlights a massive problem looming for the police, why? Because they’ve failed to enforce the law previously and allowed matters to get to boiling point when a whole load of inciters, misinformers, influencers etc should’ve been shut down months/years ago.
There is therefore an opportunity, I believe, for political measures to make sure that police forces regardless of postcode all act properly in regards to online incitement resulting in offline offences. That can only happen I believe with proper sharing of intelligence COUNTRY wide and also by creation of a centralised unit to deal with such matters rather than the current postcode lottery. Perhaps the current government and opposition parties may be able to agree on the need for such now.