Page 1316 - Driving Ban Simulation 1

2
The Enfield Gov / Email’s Issue:
820. Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police (3)
/ Page Numbers: 3420,3421,3422,3423,3424,3425,
From: Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 16 August 2017 12:20
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: RE: Our meeting today.
Hello Lorraine,
➢ Many apologies again for my delayed reply, it’s been a busy week or so.
➢ I’ve had no response from PC G, the letter was sent recorded delivery.
➢ So far, there’s nothing to say he no longer resides at the address etc.
➢ I’ll keep you updated on that front.
➢ As it stands, should PC G choose to not assist then presently there is little we could do to compel him to
provide an account in the furtherance of the investigation.
➢ I note all of your comments in your email,
➢ I can assure you they will be taken into account when I come to write my report. Re PC G’s current
occupation, I note your views.
➢ All I can say is that my review of the evidence will be objective and governed by the information available
to me.
➢ If you’ve any questions for me at this stage, as ever, please do put them to me.
Kind regards
Jamie Newman | Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit (SMIU) | Directorate of Professional Standards |
Met Phone 786675
Telephone 0207 161 6675
Email Jamie.newman@met.pnn.police.uk
Address Empress State Building, 22nd Floor, Lillie Road, London, SW6 1TR
'Setting the bar and upholding standards without fear or favour’

From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 07 August 2017 17:31
To: Newman Jamie M ‐ HQ Directorate of Professional Standards <Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: RE: Our meeting today.
Dear Jamie
➢ Thank you for the update reply.
➢ Due to never seeing PC G statement written after what happened on the day, and never having access to any
documents since,
➢ I rely on what was said in court from PC G and also the 1st report after the 1st investigation that the DPS
did, which you are now redoing due to what the IPCC said.
➢ PC G stated there was no notebook in court; he stated Mr Cordell was arrested due to him not giving his
details so they could be confirmed he stated Mr Cordell had said he was homeless.
➢ But Mr Cordell knew there was a notebook he saw PC G writing in it on the day he was arrested and knew
he had given his details as if he had not how would PC G have been able to speak to the insurance
companies.
➢ In the Crown Court Appeal in went a lot deeper my son had a barrister, and he knew what to ask.
➢ When PC G got into trouble after the audio tapes was played and the judge got really upset due to knowing
that PC G had not told the truth the Judge asked for all documents the police office had replied on in this
case. PC G passed a statement to the judge he had in his hand that he had been using in court.