Under oath Detective Sergeant John Ellis told District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe that whilst searching Ian Puddicks flat he found what he believed to be crack cocaine and paraphernalia, he went on to explain that the drugs cache was located throughout Ian’s home, in the kitchen, the bedroom and the loft room.
When robustly challenged by Michael Wolkind QC;
- Sergeant John Ellis was forced to admit that he forgot to confiscate the cache of crack cocaine,
- Sergeant John Ellis said he forgot to mention it to the other 10 Counter Terrorism Directorate officers searching the flat
- Sergeant John Ellis said he forgot to make a note in his note pad about the crack cocaine find
- Sergeant John Ellis said he forgot to call his boss and tell him about the find
- Infact, Sergeant John Ellis kept his major drug find entirely to himself
The IPCC Independent Police Complaints Commission authorised Chief Superintendent David Lawes to investigate this clear case of Perjury. David Lawes did NOT find Ellis’s statement at all dodgy and found in Sergeant Ellis favour.
Police have a unique place in British Society, they swear an oath to uphold the law, they are not and should not be above the law. I do not blame Sergeant John Ellis for his breath taking Perjury, I blame the system and the IPCC that allows corrupt officers such as John Ellis to behave in the way they do.
Throughout my case I have been helped by very very senior officers appalled at the behaviour of these officers from City of London Police. Chris Plumley (C4 Dispatches Correspondent) will fully cover the issue of Police and IPCC accountability in the new documentary How Power Corrupts.
This is the response from Ian Puddicks complaint to the IPCC about John Ellis’ behaviour. The IPcC seem to think that Perjury and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice were NOT serious enough offences to warrant an independent investigation. So the complaint was passed to City Of London Police where Chief Superintendent David Lawes tried to cover this up on behalf of his officers.
Read the letter below and draw your own conclusions.
Strictly Private & Confidential
Mr Ian Puddick
22 Burford Gardens
N13 4LP David Lawes
Professional Standards Directorate
Direct line Direct fax
020 7601 2208 020 7601 2711
Your ref: N/A Our ref: CO/66/10
Dear Mr Puddick
Complaint against Detective Sergeant (DS) John Ellis and Detective Constable (DC) Waine.
I write in relation to your complaint of the 17th September 2010.
Complaints made against police are taken very seriously and your complaint was allocated to Detective Sergeant (DS) Craig Mullish to investigate.
You have made numerous allegations within your letter of complaint, and for ease of reference a copy of your said letter is detailed below (sic):
“This is a short summary designed to cover the main points only.
My complaint encompasses the following Criminal and Police Disciplinary Code Breaches
3. Honesty and Integrity
4. Authority, Respect and Courtesy
On August 12 2009 I was arrested for a minor domestic offence by approx 12 City of London Counter Terrorist Directorate officers, I was taken to Bishops Gate Police Station.
They searched my home, my office and our company accountant’s office. My mobile phone, computers, lap tops, digital cameras and satellite navigation system were seized and sent to the High Tech Crimes Laboratory for forensic examination. (They did not take anything from our company accountants office).
Once in the station I was booked into custody.
I have never been in trouble before so I did not request a solicitor. I was compliant and respectful at all times.
I was interviewed and released on Police bail.
The arrest led me in to contact with Detective Inspector John Ellis. Throughout my dealings with him found him to be aggressive, rude and threatening towards me.
I was taken home in a police car, DS Colin Dawson front passenger, Driver ??? and DI John Ellis in the back seat behind the driver. Throughout the journey home he intimidated me and threatened me. When we arrived home he insisted in very threatening manner, on entering my house and demanded that I supply him with the mobile phone charger for the seized mobile phone. I was very nervous and could not find it; he demanded I find the charger. Eventually I found the charger and he took it, he said again that in a threatening manner, I wish I had interviewed you. He did not place it in an evidence bag, nor did he ask me to sign anything. At the end of the case, when everything was given back to me, this charger was not returned. I feel Detective Inspector John Ellis stole this from me. I now know that he had no right, or need, tom demand it, and once I handed it over he should have filled in the appropriate paperwork.
On 23rd September I went to Snow Hill Police Station to answer my bail and was again taken to the custody area, where I was charged.
After being charged DI Ellis and DS Dawson to me to a secluded room by the custody area.
Once there Ellis started questioning me saying, This is your opportunity to report further crime to me. I asked if I needed a solicitor and he said NO as this was an informal chat.
He then conducted an interview with me.
He did not caution me at any time. He did not tape record the interview, nor did he ask me to sign any contemporaneous account or summary.
He said that they now had the forensic results from my computers and was there anything that I would like to tell him?
I had fully admitted my involvement during the formal previous interview on tape and had nothing further to add. When I told him this he exploded in rage.
He became so aggressive, shouting, swearing and banging the table once with his fist that when he approached me, he was standing over me as the room was so small, I was in fear that he was going to hit me there and then, I was truly terrified, I keep looking at DS Dawson saying I haven’t done anything wrong.
He shouted this is fucking bullshit! And other similar phrases.
He then shouted questions at me, asking me about cocaine use and supply, trying to force me to admit drugs crimes by intimidating and threatening me. I have never, and would never, take or supply drugs. I am a middle aged man with no knowledge of these things. He said so why have we found a photo of your taking cocaine on your pc?
When I denied any knowledge he became so angry that after another series of threats and violence he left the room to calm down.
I felt trapped and terrified, but unaware that I was free to leave because I was not “in custody”. Ellis did not make me aware of this during the interview.
He returned and led me out into the corridor with Dawson present. In the corridor, he suddenly turned to me and said he had found information on my computer with reference to “magistrates”. He said I want the fucking names of the magistrates you are talking to, he said do you know how serious this is, this is perverting the course of justice, I want those names are you going to give them to me? I thought he was going to hit me.
I said I haven’t done anything wrong.
He got very close and gently said, are you going to give me those names?
I said NO as I am not colluding with magistrates or doing anything wrong. I was the released from the station.
6th October, I attended City of London Magistrates court; the hearing could not proceed as the paperwork had been mislaid. The magistrate was concerned about the bail conditions, DC Dwayne attended, the magistrate robustly questioned Dwayne who told the court that I had threatened Mr, Mrs and the children of Haynes + associates of Mr Haynes. Dwayne also confirmed that there was an alleged affair between my partner and Mr Haynes and that it had been investigated and that there was NO affair, I had made it up. (even though they never interviewed my wife).
The magistrate asked Dwayne 4 times the nature of my threats, he did not answer the question, the magistrate asked if my threats were of a violent nature ie is Mr puddick calling and saying I am going to duff you up? I want a Yes or No answer, Dwayne eventually said NO.
The magistrates were angry and removed all the bail conditions, except Do not contact Mr Haynes. On leaving court, Dwayne quietly called me a wanker.
I called Ellis to ask him the name of the officer that had attended the court, he went berserk, asked me how I got his number, I explained that he wrote it down, he denied this and said how the fuck did you get this number, then he said what do you want it his name for….I said that my solicitor wanted it, he said, you tell your solicitor that if he wants it then to write in for it, he then said do not ever call me again, do you understand me, do you understand me. I said sorry and hung up.
I have dealt with many officers throughout this investigation and have found them all, with the exception of Ellis to be professional and courteous. The behaviour of Ellis has left me traumatised and unable to sleep. My crime was a minor one and I was fully compliant at all times. His behaviour has caused me a great deal of stress and has left me with little faith in the Police Service.
My case has been brought to the attention of MP, David Burrowes and I have been invited to a private meeting at Parliament, the Prime Minister whom I had written to separately could not be there as he had to fly to France as his father had had a stroke. I have been invited back to discuss this further with my MP, David Davies MP and the Home Secretary Theresa May. It is on the advice of my MP, a criminal defence lawyer that I file this complaint, as he made me aware of the breaches of the Police and Criminal codes disclosed.
I confirm this email gives my consent to the IPCC to investigate my complaint.
Within DS Mullish’s investigation, he has spoken to and obtained written accounts from DS Ellis, Police Sergeant (PS) Barnett, DS Piper, DC Waine, Trainee Investigator (TI) Fisher, DC Clifford, DC Dawson and DC Briars.
All of the above officers work within the Major Investigation Team (MIT), with the exception of PS Barnett who was the duty custody officer within Snow Hill Police Station on the 23rd September 2009.
DS Mullish has also analysed the transcript of your taped interview of the 12th August 2009, together with your custody record (48C6/2639/09), and copy of the relevant property search and seizure record(s).
In addition to the above, DS Mullish met with you on the 12th October 2010 in order to discuss your complaint in detail.
As you are now aware, statutory guidelines state that complaints against police should be made within a twelve-month period from the date of the alleged misconduct.
Although the majority of your allegations were made outside of the said twelve-month period, the decision was taken to undertake a proportionate investigation, to address all your issues raised, in order to provide you with a fuller understanding of the circumstances and procedures surrounding your arrest.
Within your meeting with DS Mullish, it was explained that the MIT was set up primarily to deal with major incidents, however on occasion, the MIT are tasked to investigate cases that do not fall within the umbrella of a major incident, in order to relieve pressure from other departments within the City of London Police.
I understand that you also believe that you were arrested by the “Murder Squad” in connection with Anti Terrorism Legislation. I can confirm that you were not arrested by the Murder Squad, or in connection with Anti Terrorism Legislation.
In addition to the above, I understand that you believe that the City of London Police had spent some £1.5 Million investigating the allegations made against you.
You have not been provided with any information in this regard from the City of London Police, and I am therefore unsure as to what your calculations are based upon. This figure is hugely over inflated and bares no reflection upon the costs incurred.
You were arrested by DS Ellis of the MIT on suspicion of causing harassment to Mr Haynes and others, by putting them in fear of violence, contrary to Section 4 (1) Protection from harassment Act 1997, and also on suspicion of causing criminal damage to Mr Haynes’s oil tank at his home address on the 10th June 2009, Contrary to Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
Upon conclusion of the investigation you were charged with the offences of Harrassment Without Violence contrary to Section 2 (1) and (2) of the protection from harassment Act 1997, and Possession of weapon(s) for discharge of noxious liquid/gas/electrical incapacitation device(s), contrary to section 5 (1) (B) of and schedule 6 to the firearms act 1968.
I note that you state that throughout your dealings with DS Ellis, he was said to have been aggressive, rude and threatening.
Within your taped interview of the 12th August 2009 that took place between 08:55hrs and 09:41hrs, you were asked by interviewing officers, DS Piper and DC Clifford, if you were happy in the way in which you had been treated by police, in which you replied “Very much so, yeah”.
Following the conclusion of this interview, you were transported home by DS Ellis, DC Dawson and DC Waine, in order to further search your Black Range Rover, Index P70 LOO.
This vehicle had been searched upon your arrest, but due to the fact that officers could not secure your vehicle, DS Ellis arranged for TI Fisher to remain with the vehicle, until your return from Bishopsgate Police Station, where you granted permission for officers to further search the rear of this vehicle.
You were said to have continuously talked throughout this journey home, and voiced your concerns as to how you would break the news of your wife’s said affair and arrest to your parents. All officers present, including DS Ellis, were said to give you various suggestions, and that you appeared to be appreciative of the advice.
Throughout this journey, you were described by officers as polite and inquisitive, and in turn officers were polite and professional and that no threats were made towards you.
You were also said to have wanted to engage in conversation with regards to the offences that you had been arrested for, and was politely informed that the matter could not be discussed outside of a formal setting.
Upon arrival at your home address, the above officers were introduced to your parents and have described their behaviour as impeccable.
DC Dawson does not recall any officers going back into your house, or DS Ellis asking you for a mobile phone charger.
Furthermore, no officers on scene observed DS Ellis asking you for your mobile phone charger, or observed DS Ellis taking your mobile phone charger.
DS Ellis stated that at no point throughout your contact with him did he display intimidating or threatening behaviour towards you and did not demand or seize your mobile phone charger.
DS Mullish has inspected the Property Search Record (s), all of which appear to be in good order. There are no details of a mobile phone charger being seized.
Within your meeting with DS Mullish, you stated that DS Ellis said to you “I wish I had interviewed you”, in an aggressive manner, as if he would have been able to obtain a confession from you.
There is nothing from the officers accounts that corroborates this comment, and it is not clear as to why DS Ellis would have said this, due to the fact that you had given a full and frank admission within interview.
I understand that you informed DS Mullish that in your opinion, DS Ellis’s reasons for stating the above was that he wanted you to be charged with harassment, using violence, Section 4 (1) Protection from harassment Act 1997-putting people in fear of violence, as opposed to harassment without violence, contrary to Section 2 (1) and (2) of the protection from harassment Act 1997, in which you were charged with.
DS Mullish could find no corroborating evidence to confirm the above.
With regards to the allegations made against DS Ellis in relation to his alleged oppressive behaviour on the 23rd September 2009 at Snow Hill Police Station, our records confirm that DC Dawson was present within the Intelligence Interview. However, due to the passage of time, DC Dawson has no recollection of being present and was therefore unable to provide an account in this regard.
The Intelligence Interview took place within the custody area of Snow Hill Police Station is predominately used as a consultation room for detainee’s to speak with their solicitors. This room is situated immediately opposite the custody desk, where PS Barnett was highly likely to be situated.
There is no CCTV available within Snow Hill Custody to ascertain if DS Ellis had left the interview room/consultation room where the Intelligence Interview was conducted.
However, DS Mullish has made contact with PS Barnett, but also due to the passage of time, PS Barnett could not recall the behaviour in which you have alleged.
PS Barnett has stated that in the event that he did witness such behaviour, he would have immediately addressed the situation and ensured that such behaviour was documented on the relevant custody record of the detainee in question.
Your custody record confirms that nothing had been documented in this regard.
An Intelligence Interview is conducted at the end of the investigative process. This is not a formal interview, and detainees are therefore not cautioned. An intelligence interview is not tape-recorded and the detainee does not sign any notes that may have been made within.
Such an interview is conducted to enable detainee’s to provide information of any known criminal activity and not in connection with the offence in which the detainee has been investigated.
Your Intelligence Interview was conducted prior to you being charged, whilst PS Barnett undertook relevant administrative duties. I am therefore satisfied that your release from custody was not unduly delayed.
Within the accounts provided by DS Ellis and DC Waine, a photograph was said to have been found at your home address, containing various drug paraphernalia, together with a flat piece of glass with a razor blade and tooting stick (hollow tube used to snort cocaine), which was not seized.
DS Ellis therefore asked you questions within your Intelligence Interview if you had any information with regards to persons supplying controlled drugs.
I am satisfied that DS Ellis did not conduct a formal interview and followed the correct procedures put in place.
Following the conclusion of your Intelligence Interview, DS Ellis was alleged to have sworn at you and aggressively demanded the name of the magistrate that was said to have been detailed on a seized computer belonging to you and also accused you of perverting the course of justice by speaking to a magistrate with regards to your case.
DC Dawson confirms that although he was not part of this conversation, he did over hear you informing DS Ellis that you were taking advice from some friends, whom were magistrates.
DS Ellis states that you raised the topic of magistrates and that he advised you not to speak with a magistrate about your case and that it would be more beneficial for you to appoint a solicitor, as discussing your case with a magistrate could compromise your friend/magistrate and also raise concerns by other magistrates and police.
DC Dawson describes this conversation as being conducted in a normal and non-threatening manner.
DC Waine recalls that when you were being conveyed back to your home address, you mentioned that you were currently being considered as a local magistrate and asked the question of whether your arrest would have had any negative implications on your application. You were informed that you should declare the details of your arrest.
You were also said to have asked the question of whether you should discuss your case with friends of yours whom were magistrates, and informed that you should not do so, as there could be a conflict of interest.
With regards to the allegations made against DC Dwaine within the City of London Magistrates court of the 6th October 2009, our records indicate that it was DC Briars who had attended court.
DC Briars stated that he attended the City of London Magistrates court on the 7th October 2009 and that he did not inform the magistrate that your wife was not having an affair with Mr Haynes. Your wife’s said affair was said to have no bearing on the bail conditions imposed, which was the reason for your attendance in court, following your application to vary the said bail conditions imposed.
The bail conditions imposed were in relation to your alleged behaviour, following your knowledge of your wife’s said affair, and not the facts surrounding it.
It has not been considered proportionate to obtain a copy of the magistrate’s clerk’s record in this regard.
With regards to DC Briar’s alleging to have sworn at you upon leaving court, there is no CCTV available that may have shown DC Briar’s conversing with you. However, even if CCTV were available, audio would not have been revealed.
DC Briars denies these allegations.
With regards to your final allegation that DS Ellis swore at you when you made contact with him on his mobile phone following the above court appearance, DS Ellis states that he provided you with his contact details on a business card, when he had originally arrested you on the 12th August 2009. DS Ellis was said not to have informed you that he was Detective Inspector (DI) Ellis.
DS Ellis does recall receiving telephone calls and texts from you throughout the investigation, and being asked questions with regards to the investigation and what would be the likely outcome for you.
DS Ellis states that you were informed that he could not discuss the case with you, and that you should go through the correct channels of your appointed legal advisor.
DS Ellis further states that at no point was he rude or swore at you.
On the 17th November 2010, DS Mullish e-mailed you, requesting contact details of your parents, whom were present at your home address upon your return, following your arrest of the 12th August 2009.
DS Mullish informed you that he wished to obtain an account from your parents with regards to the allegations that you have made, but to date has not received a response.
DS Mullish has therefore been unable to pursue this avenue of investigation.
A proportionate investigation has been undertaken, and I can find no corroborating evidence to uphold the allegations that you have made against DS Ellis, DC Briars, or any of the above named officers.
No misconduct has been identified and I therefore consider this matter to be closed.
In accordance with the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002, you have an opportunity to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) against the outcome of the investigation. In that regard, I enclose an IPCC appeal document for your information. Please note that should you choose to appeal, the appeal must be made within 28 days of the date of this letter.
Professional Standards Directorate