Sorry for delay in responding.
The evidence I have is a written statement by PC. 'A' which is a
statement after caution i.e. with the forerunner under the CJ Act 1967
the MC Act 1980. ans MC Rule 1981. where the writer will be liable
for prosecution if they have wilfully stated anything which they to be false.
In the statement which he wrote, read through and signed he states
" I took the blood sample immediately to the Royal Mail posting
office on Wainwright Road, Worcester where I sent the sample by
recorded delivery to the forensic laboratory at Chorley"
This is false. Following a Freedom of Information request it was
found that another officer posted it 2 days later. When it was
discovered in a fridge at another police station.
We have a statement to that effect.
The blood sample was never analysed at Chorley for alcohol
because no forms were sent with the sample. We have a statement
from the scientist at Chorley who states. again misconduct.
Scientist statement states
" a completed MGDDE form which is
required in all cases was not received with the sample , an attempt
to obtain this information has been unsuccessful".
Do you think this is sufficient proof of gross misconduct in public
office at least ?
We do not have a solicitor dealing with this.
The incident was in March 2006 the conviction was in September 2006.
Our son has served his time and is now in full time employment
he does wish to appeal.
We have evidence that three officers in total withheld evidence,
made false statements and their actions go to the heart of the legal
system. Perjury is not only giving false evidence but also failing to
tell the whole truth on facts that are material to any charge.
The incident was where our son was called up late at night to go and
collect a friend who was freezing on the street unable to get a taxi.
He collected them in his car lost control at a roundabout where there
was black ice and hit a wall. The girlfriend had not put on her seat belt
and received fatal injuries. She was responsible for putting on her
seat belt not the driver. Had she been wearing it, the outcome would have been different.