Richard Hill – Inspector

August 16, 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.

Richard Hill was an inspector in the Cheshire constabulary, though it is hard to understand how he ever got the job of constable, let alone promotion to the rank of inspector. He committed willful misconduct in the police and so is, as far as I can discern, a criminal who committed the offence of misconduct in public office.

Hill was appointed to investigate my complaint against PCs Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer that they submitted false statements for my prosecution for a motoring offence that I did not commit. They falsified their statements (unsuccessfully) to try to make it appear that I had committed the offence with which Anderson charged me.

Before we go further, I should explain that there is conclusive evidence that those statements were false, and that criminals Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer now AGREE that they were false, because they radically changed their story when testifying under oath in court. I can easily prove that their later sworn testimony was false, which is why no action has been taken against me or against my publication of the criminality of Anderson and Rimmer.

So there we have it. By their own admission, criminals Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer made false statements. The fact that they changed their testimony to something even more false does not affect their admission that their statements were false.

So why didn’t super sleuth inspector Richard Hill discern that their statements were false? After all, what does an investigator do? He talks to witnesses, he gathers evidence, visits the scene of the crime and whatever else is necessary to discover the truth. So what did inspector Richard Hill do? Sweet nothing. Except he spoke to Sergeant Day who had spoken to Anderson and Rimmer. He never spoke to me, in spite of the requirement that he do so, for an explanation of why their statements could not possibly be true. He never visited the place where my offence was supposed to have happened to know that what Anderson and Rimmer described was physically impossible. And because he hadn’t bothered to collect any evidence, his report, which falsely exonerated Anderson and Rimmer, didn’t meet any of the requirements laid down either.

As stated elsewhere, the Cheshire constabulary standard for investigation of complaints was the IPCC guidance since adopted by the successor organisation the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). But it is a lengthy document, so I have just extracted some of the relevant sections that were violated by Hill and complaint manager Miles Dignam, which you can see here.

So we have very clear misconduct on the part of Hill. He violated all the critical requirements of the IPCC guidance that the Cheshire constabulary required to be followed. And he did it because he was just too lazy and/or crooked – he just couldn’t be bothered.

There is no doubt that a police inspector is in “public office” so it is reasonable to conclude that his deliberate misconduct in the investigation of Anderson and Rimmer constitutes misconduct in public office, which is a criminal offence. This is a link to the CPS guidance on the offence.

It is worth considering the consequences of the misconduct of Hill and Dignam in the matter of the handling of my complaint against Anderson and Rimmer. Had they done their job properly, the matter would have ended with Anderson and Rimmer being given a reprimand and that would have been it. Doubtless they would have carried on and turned into good police officers. Instead, they turned into criminals. Because I was so insulted by the misconduct of Anderson and Rimmer and the disgusting performance of Dignam and Hill, I sued the chief constable for malicious prosecution. The statements used to substantiate the prosecution were falsified to make it appear that I had committed the offence, so the prosecution was undoubtedly malicious. But the constabulary legal department violated the solicitors’ code of conduct by submitting known false statements to the court, Anderson and Rimmer committed perjury, a criminal offence I can now prove, and judge Richard Pearce showed that he is not fit to be a judge because he deliberately ignore evidence, misinterpreted evidence and invented “evidence” in order to say he believed the perjured police evidence and disbelieved mine.

The further consequence is that this has cost the constabulary money and cost me money – effectively stolen by the criminality of PCs Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer. I am sure that they would like to have it all swept under the carpet and forgotten, but instead there is this website to warn people about the crookedness and criminality of the Cheshire constabulary. It is scarcely credible what lack of integrity there is in the constabulary – right up to the chief constable and police crime commissioner. It is true what they say – the leadership of an organisation sets the standard of that organisation. We know that ex-chief constable Simon Byrne was a pretty nasty bit of work. His acting replacement was no better and the latest incumbent of that office, Darren Martland is just as bad. Totally lacking in integrity and happy to lead a band of crooks and criminals.

Next Steps:

I am submitting a formal complaint to the Cheshire constabulary “professional” standards branch about the criminality of ex-inspector Richard Hill. In spite of the overwhelming evidence of Hill’s misconduct in not investigating the misconduct of criminal PCs Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer, the professional standards people will not record the complaint on the basis that it is “”Vexatious, oppressive and otherwise an abuse of the procedures for dealing with complaints”. Not recording a complaint is the way that the police avoid investigating it and in this case investigating it would show that inspector Richard Hill did commit misconduct and that would be embarrassing for the constabulary.

I have the right of appeal to the IOPC and I shall exercise that right. In spite of the overwhelming evidence of the validity of this complaint the IOPC will uphold the constabulary decision not to record the complaint. There are a couple of reasons for this: one is clearly that it would be embarrassing for them because it would highlight their mistakes in upholding previous constabulary decisions relative to the misconduct and criminality of Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer; the other reason is that there appears to be some improper relationship between the Cheshire constabulary and the IOPC office in Sale, Cheshire, whereby the constabulary can commit misconduct and crime with relative impunity. I cannot think of any other explanation for some of their decisions.

I shall publish their response in upholding the constabulary decision. Or completely change what I have written in the unlikely event they uphold my appeal.

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment