** DI Review **
The following reflects a review conducted by DI Horwood. Sent on the 5th April 2016.
This allegation is one of harassment between the victim and what would appear to be a number of internet “Trolls”. In reviewing this matter, I have also considered additional offences under the Malicious Communications Act and the Offence Against the Person Act 1861. One of the suspects resides outside the jurisdiction of the UK police so is beyond possible prosecution at this time. In addition to the evidence, I have also referred to the current CPS charging guidelines in respect of these offences.
The majority of the evidence would appear to be screen shots obtain from a number of internet social sites to which the general public seems to have access, rather than being sent directly to the victim. Therefore, one would suspect that to read the comments, one would need to access these sites/pages where the comments were held.
In my opinion, I have doubts whether these comments, and given the forum in which they exist, are sufficient to fall into the 'malicious communications or harassment category. Certainly, I would suggest they fall well below the required charging guidelines recommended by the CPS. Given that the suspects are 'bloggers' and online commentators, how do we distinguish a course of conduct from their online role? When does comment become abuse? Likewise, the comments are made in a public forum rather than being sent directly to the victim, so it makes proving the intent problematic.
Taking this into account, I feel any successful prosecution of an offence under this legislation would be difficult. As for the physiologic harm that may have been caused, given that I feel the evidence is not sufficient to obtain a successful prosecution for the other two minor offences, there is little possibility of bringing a successful prosecution of an offence under the more serious legislation
(Offences Against The Person Act)
In summary, given the high standard of proof required for any criminal prosecution, I do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to make out these offences or bring a successful prosecution. I understand that similar complaints have been made by others to other Police Services forces that have also come to the same conclusion.
Although in my view the evidence is not sufficient to bring criminal proceedings, I feel that if the victim were to seek a remedy through the civil courts, where the standard of proof is lower, and there exists more suitable legislation, they will be more successful.
05/04/2016 22:55 DC 20--- JW M I have emailed the victim informing them of the decision to close the investigation.
However, in the following few weeks, from April 5th 2016, up to May 17th 2016, Vicky Allen reopened it, and she applied for and obtained a search warrant. Begging the question, what changed? Allen's e-mails during that time span are missing. Nothing between the 5th April and the 17th May.
Soon afterwards, during the summer months, my initial accuser and Allen realised they had no case, as DCI Horwood clearly wrote. It was time to up their game. They needed others who would play the game too. The extra bolstering witness was living in Liverpool. Contact was established, and the local plod fell into the trap. Another dawn raid, of course. More property seized, of course, more bail, more trains, more courts, more hell. The pile-on was actively smothering me.
