|
JO SHINER
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Presiding over, but not necessarily altogether happy with the way his Kingdom is going.
Jo Shiner is the chief constable of Sussex police in 2026, headquartered at Malling House, Lewes. She is believed to have taken over from Giles York, after his resignation, said to have been over a cell death, of a prisoner in custody on his watch, allegedly. Giles York served from 2014 until 4th June 2020.
Like any other police officer, chief constables have a duty to investigate crimes, for not to do so is a criminal offence, as per R v Dytham 1979. Any reasonably well informed officer of the law, is well aware that Sussex police should have recused themselves from any investigation, concerning Victor von Woolfe, after the Petition fiasco, where her force (not under her watch - indeed many years before) handed Wealden's chief executive, and planning officers, a blank sheet of police paper, for them to write what they wanted the police to say, following no investigation at all by DS Keith Lyndsay, who was at the time stationed at Hailsham, Deer Paddock.
There is no statute of limitations on crime, especially conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. And once a police officer is made aware of an offence, and fails to investigate the crime - they become party to the crime.
Given that Sussex police are funded by council taxes, collected by Wealden District Council (WC), and that Sussex police officers had attended Victor's workshop many times at the request of WC's officers, there was a distinct conflict of interests, in the R v Sussex Justices 1924 sense.
Victor is forced to sign the sex offenders register every year. Every year he signs under protest as an innocent man. And yet, no police officer in Sussex will investigate his claims. Why is that? Is it because the management has forbidden it? Because, the management knows the awful truth?
MISCONDUCT
IN PUBLIC OFFICE (Common Law Offense)
Misconduct
in Public Office is a
common law, indictable-only offense carrying a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment, it can be prosecuted at any point in time.
The standard is at Paragraph 3.5 of the Code of Practice issued under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (CPIA) 1996. It explicitly dictates: "In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect." This is compliant with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, but is at odds with the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
NOTE: The victim's name has been changed to Victor von Woolfe in this fictionalized docu-drama based on real events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Where a breakdown in a relationship or a domestic grievance turns into a devastatingly weaponized false allegation—is the nightmare scenario for any defense lawyer, and it lies at the absolute center of debates around reforming sexual offenses law. In this case, Julian Dale and Tim Stirmey, had no stomach for putting up a fight, with very limited legal aid funding to carve up, it appears that instead of challenging the medical evidence, they just took what cash they could, and sold their client down the river. Allegedly. You can make up your mind, as your read and review the evidence for yourselves.
Although pure fiction, Fatal Attraction, The Fugitive, and Double Jeopardy are three films that spring to mind.
...
REFERENCE
https://
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please use our MORAL COMPASS to navigate this story, or revisit our LANDING PAGE
|
