Miles Dignam – Crooked Complaints Manager

August 14, 2019

NOTE: The contents of this page are true and published because they are in the public interest.  My opinions are clearly stated as such and should not be taken as fact.  My opinions are formed on the basis of my observations and my deductions based on what I saw, read and heard.

Miles Dignam has a position as complaints manager in the so-called professional standards branch of the Cheshire constabulary. He committed willful misconduct in that position and so, insofar as his position is a public office, he is a criminal who committed the offence of misconduct in public office. I use as reference the guidance published by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Misconduct:

According to a freedom of information request to the Cheshire constabulary, the quality standard for handling public complaints against the police is “Statutory Guidance to the police service on the handling of complaints” issued by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and since adopted by the successor organisation, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

According to that same information request, the complaints manager within the professional standards department has the responsibility of ensuring that the investigation and report meet the IPCC guidance and the complaints manager signs the report to certify compliance.

Note that the Cheshire constabulary has adopted the guidance as its quality standard, so it becomes a requirement for them to follow it.

The specific complaint was that PCs Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer submitted false statements to make it appear that I had committed an offence that I did not commit.

The assigned investigator was inspector Richard Hill and the complaints manager was Miles Dignam.

I attach a copy of the relevant sections of the IPCC guidance that were violated by Dignam and inspector Richard Hill and a copy of the non-compliant report that he signed as appropriate even though it met none of the IPCC requirements for documenting the investigation and recording facts. The reason that there were no facts recorded is that none were gathered – the full scope of Richard Hill’s investigation was talking to Anderson and Rimmer’s sergeant. Not talking to me to hear my evidence was just one of the violations committed by Hill and approved by Dignam in willful neglect of his duty.

Looking at the report, it is even doubtful whether Hill has the intelligence to know what the complaint was about, which was that their statements were blatantly untrue. Hill has virtually nothing to say about that but a lot to say about whether I should have been charged with something else on the basis of those false statements. It was Miles Dignam’s responsibility to make sure that the investigator investigated and that his report reflected that. Miles Dignam didn’t bother.

How can Hill even suggest that I should have been charged with something else when he hasn’t even done enough investigation to realise that the statements were untrue? Hill is clearly guilty of misconduct too. And Dignam, with his oversight responsibility, accepted that dereliction of duty.

My Conclusion: Dignam had responsibility for managing complaints in accordance with IPCC guidance as mandated by the Cheshire constabulary to ensure the quality of complaint handling. Dignam had responsibility for maintaining quality and certifying that the complaint met those standards. His refusal to ensure that the standards were met and his approval of a report that demonstrated that the standards were not met, were deliberate and calculated misconduct.

Public Office

So there is no doubt that Miles Dignam committed quite serious misconduct in willfully sanctioning an investigation that did not come anywhere near satisfying the IPCC guidance and signing a report which failed to meet any of the guidelines. And on this basis, he rejected a valid complaint that criminal constables Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer lied in the statements that they prepared for my prosecution for a motoring offence that I did not commit.

Whether his conduct was criminal therefore rests solely on whether he is in “public office”. There is no legal definition of public office, but the document issued by the CPS does refer to judgments which give some clue, such as:

“…an office of trust concerning the public … by whomever and in whatever way the officer is appointed”. Obviously complaint manager is an office of trust – the office holder is responsible for ensuring that the public have a trustworthy police service and they decide in the first instance whether a complaint will be upheld or not.

“… does the fulfilment of those duties represent the fulfilment of one of the responsibilities of government such that the public have a significant interest in the discharge of the duty which is additional to or beyond an interest in anyone who might be directly affected by a serious failure in the performance of that duty? If the answer to this last question is “yes”, the relevant employee or officer is acting as a public officer …”. This is key and I think demonstrates that a complaints manager is a public officer. The issue of police conduct and police integrity goes far beyond a single case. The public as a whole do not want crooked police officers making false statements to make it appear that people are guilty of offences of which they are innocent. It is also probable that police forces other than the Cheshire constabulary, do not want crooks and criminals serving as police officers. Both the government and the public want policing with integrity, and complaints managers are given the responsibility of having complaints investigated properly, that facts are discovered and recorded and that proper conclusions are reached. If complaints managers have no integrity, the police complaints process has no integrity and the police have no integrity.

My Conclusion: Miles Dignam is in Public Office and therefore guilty of misconduct in public office

Next Steps:

Having just recently realised that Dignam’s behaviour met the criminal criteria of misconduct in public office, I shall submit a complaint to the professional standards branch of the Cheshire constabulary with a request that they investigate his criminality. There is no time limit on submitting complaints, but it is recommended that they be submitted within a year. Rather more than a year has elapsed, simply because I did not realise closer to the time that Dignam’s behaviour amounted to the offence of misconduct in a public office. I knew that his performance was utterly disgraceful, but not that it was a crime.

As we know in the case of criminal constables Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer, the Cheshire constabulary protects it criminals and even profits from their criminality. So although dishonesty and criminal behaviour is contrary to the police code of ethics, it is sanctioned as a professional standard in Cheshire and is supported by the new chief constable Darren Martland.

The result of this acceptance of police crime in Cheshire is that the professional standards branch will not record my complaint on the grounds that it is vexatious, repetitious or otherwise an abuse of the complaints process. If a complaint is recorded, it has to be investigated and there is no way that the Cheshire police are going to investigate a complaint of criminality against one of their own, so they will choose not to record it.

There is an avenue of appeal to the IOPC against a non-recording decision, which I shall take.

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

The IOPC has full power to reverse a non-recording decision of a police force. To forecast what they will do, let us look at there past performance and wonder if it has anything to do with their location in Cheshire.

I was falsely charged with a motoring offence that I did not commit, and criminal PCs Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer submitted false statements for my prosecution. I was acquitted. I complained to the Cheshire constabulary. In my naivety, I thought that the Cheshire police would think that this was extremely serious misconduct and that they would not tolerate such behaviour by their officers. How wrong I was! And as shown above, Miles Dignam thwarted any investigation into their dishonesty, so these criminals were exonerated without any investigation being conducted, other than the investigator talking to someone who had spoken to the perpetrators, but not the victim who could demonstrate that their statements were false.

I made a claim against the chief constable for malicious prosecution, as it undoubtedly was. By rights it should have been an open and shut case because the police statements were false and easily proven to be so. So what went wrong? Criminals Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer changed their story to something radically different. Thanks to no help from the judge, and thanks to his dishonest judgment, I lost my case.

Subsequently, by very close examination of the evidence, I realised that I could absolutely prove that Anderson and Rimmer committed perjury. They realise that too, which is why there has been absolutely no reaction from them or their legal representatives to me calling them out as criminals on this website.

Anyway, I thought that the police might actually be concerned about provable criminality, so I submitted a complaint. But no! All the Cheshire police want to do is cover up criminality, so they chose not to record my complaint.

So I appealed that decision to the IOPC, making clear that their perjury (a new set of lies under oath) was different from their old lies previously complained about and not properly investigated.

So what did they do? They upheld the non-recording on the basis that my complaint was vexatious (as if reporting crime that you can prove is not something that people should do) and a repetition of my previous complaint which was for different misconduct with a different set of lies. As an additional excuse for their decision, the IOPC raised the fact that I had lost my case in court. Yes, I did, because PCs Anderson and Rimmer committed the crime of perjury and the judge ignored evidence and made up evidence so as to say that he believed them.

One can hardly say that the IOPC was anything like independent and impartial in this matter. I think the fact that their office is in Sale, Cheshire bears investigation. I cannot think of any good reason why the IOPC would make a decision that protects criminal police constables.

So what will happen when I appeal the non-recording decision that the Cheshire constabulary are going to make in the case of Dignam? They will uphold that decision. Their excuse will be interesting and will be published here, along with their previous decision to let criminals Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer escape justice.

FOLLOW-UP EVENTS

Formal Complaint Against Dignam

Following on from initial publication of this page, I submitted a complaint that Dignam committed the crime of misconduct in public office. I submitted that complaint by email, referencing this page. I received a reply from someone calling himself DS Freeman-Dean, for whom I shall have to use the gender neutral pronoun “it” because I don’t know whether it is male or female.

It’s response can be seen here, but I have dissected and analysed it below (it’s words in quotes with my analysis in bold following each quotation):

“Dear Mr Thornton,”

I don’t know whether he is trying to be polite or ironic. There is no way that I am “dear” to the crooks and criminals of the Cheshire constabulary, any more than they are to me.

“I have considered your complaint against Mr Dignam.”

Untrue. As we shall see, he hasn’t even bothered to read it properly.

“Having reviewed your previous involvement with the complaints system and having consulted with the IOPC statutory guidance, I am not recording your complaint on the basis I consider it to be ‘Vexatious, oppressive and otherwise an abuse of the procedures for dealing with complaints’.”

No surprise there then. What has the previous involvement with the complaints system got to do with it? Every complaint should be dealt with on its merits and the evidence is that Dignam committed deliberate misconduct in public office, which is a criminal offence. The fact that I have made previous complaints about misconduct and criminality, none of which have been investigated, has no bearing on the validity of this complaint.

“Your original complaint (CO/474/14) regarding a motoring offence issue was recorded and dealt with in 2014. In his role of complaint manager, Mr Dignam has simply finalised the complaint process and provided you with your right of appeal. Having reviewed our database, I am satisfied the correct process was followed and you were given right of appeal. You did appeal, but the appeal was not upheld.”

Why did it review the database and not the evidence provided? The evidence is that Dignam signed off on an insufficient investigation and a report that violated the requirements. It should be noted that the appeal was improperly handled by Dignam’s boss, superintendent John Armstrong who was head of the crooked professional standards branch. If it is satisfied that the correct process was followed, it has to be either stupid or dishonest. Probably both. What he fails to say was that that original complaint was that criminal PCs Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer submitted false statements for my prosecution and that they agreed that their statements were false by concocting different false testimony (aka perjury) later when I sued the chief constable. The fact that Dignam managed the complaint improperly so as not to discover that the statements were false is further evidence of his misconduct. The criminals say that their statements were false and Dignam found that they weren’t. Brilliant.

“Since that time you have submitted a number of vexatious complaints, which have been subject of non-recording decisions.”

I haven’t submitted any vexatious complaints and if I had it wouldn’t affect the validity of this one. The fact that the Cheshire police feel vexed at legitimate complaints of misconduct and criminality does not make the complaints vexatious. The police have never properly investigated any complaint otherwise they would have it on record that PCs Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer are criminals as outlined elsewhere in this website, and neither they, nor anyone else, ever disputed the veracity of what is contained within this website.

“Notably in March 2018 you complained about Mr Dignam. This matter was recorded under MI/123/18. You were given a right of appeal to the IOPC and having appealed the decision not to record your complaint, the IOPC did not uphold your appeal.”

This idiot has its wires crossed. It is saying that the complaint was recorded and that I appealed the decision not to record it. Doh!

“Raising further complaints of a similar nature that have already been dealt with is an abuse of the complaints process.”

I have never complained about Dignam’s criminality before because I didn’t realise that his misconduct was criminal, so I am clearly not raising a further complaint of a similar nature.

“Your latest email has been forwarded to our legal department and I have asked them to take a view on whether or not your actions and terminology of Mr Dignam being ‘corrupt’ constitutes harassment warranting further action.”

It is hard not to laugh at this piece of utter stupidity. But it also casts light on the nasty, spiteful mentality of the Cheshire police. I am a victim of Cheshire police crime, a fact that I have documented in this website that they are unable to refute, and the scum are looking for an excuse to charge me with something because I complain about their criminality and misconduct. The funny side though is that I never described Dignam as corrupt, showing that this person is an idiot who did not read what I wrote and, on top of that, he is referring it to their legal department which doesn’t want anything related to criminals Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer going anywhere near a court. There are two very good reasons for that, one is that Anderson and Rimmer will have to testify, which puts them at risk of going to prison where they belong, and the other is that the legal department’s own misconduct in submitting false information to the court will come to light.

“Clearly we refute any suggestion that Mr Dignam has been corrupt in his dealings with you and you have not provided any evidential basis to show this is the case.”

It made the suggestion that Dignam had been corrupt, not me, so they can refute it all they like. I did however provide an “evidential basis” (assuming that means evidence) that Dignam committed misconduct. The evidence was the non-compliant report that he approved; a summary of the sections of the IPCC guidance that he and inspector Richard Hill violated; a response to a Freedom of Information request that showed Dignam’s responsibility with respect to managing complaints in accordance with IPCC guidance; and also a link to the CPS charging standard on Misconduct in Public Office so that they could verify the category into which Dignam’s misconduct falls. DS Freeman-Dean clearly has limited intelligence and was unable or unwilling to comprehend the extent of Dignam’s misconduct and the constabulary’s criminality.

“You have a right of appeal against my decision not to record your complaint to the IOPC which must be received by them within 28 days. I have attached the relevant form.”

I shall of course exercise my right of appeal. I do not know why the IOPC always agree with the Cheshire constabulary and why they are content for Cheshire to be policed by criminal constables Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer who have committed gross misconduct and criminal perjury, yet never had complaints against them investigated, thanks to the IOPC. It is probably too much to expect the IOPC to change their ways at this stage. I shall publish their response along with their excuses for not investigating Eoin Anderson’s and Nicola Rimmer’s criminal actions.

“Yours sincerely

“DS Freeman-Dean

“Complaint Manager.”

Not much one can comment on there, except for the insincere sincerity. Not just my experience but the experience of others, “complaint manager” means someone who has been given the responsibility of rejecting complaints, especially if the misconduct is insufficiently bad for the matter to be referred to the IOPC, in which case the department manager rejects any appeals itself.

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment