Page 1345 - Driving Ban Simulation 1

Lorraine Cordell
From: Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk
[mailto: Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk]
Sent: 22 September 2017 16:35
3505,3506,3507,3508,3509,3510,3511,3512,

2
The Enfield Gov / Email’s Issue:
843. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Our meeting today_ (1)
/ Page Numbers: 3513,3514,3515,3516,3517,3518,3519,3520,3521,3522,3523,
From: Lorraine Cordell
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 31 October 2017 15:55
To: 'Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk'
Subject: RE: Our meeting today.
Dear Jamie Newman
➢ Thank you for the update.
➢ What I cannot understand is how your supervisor could say PC G’s actions likely did not constitute a
criminal offence.
➢ PC G wrote his statement around 2 hours after this took place, knowing he left facts out so he had a case
against my son to take him to court, thinking we could not get the audio recording which you have copies
off, now from what I know he wrote down the person’s name he spoke to in his notebook,
➢ and I believe that would be in his notebook,
➢ and I believe when a police officer is writing his statement, he would also use his notebook to make sure he
did not forget anything in his statement, so how could he have written the statement the way he did
forgetting so much out?
➢ Maybe it was because he knew we had already put a complaint in?
➢ I am sorry but a police officer would not forget what he said to the insurance company when he lied to them
to void Mr Cordell's insurance which he nearly did.
➢ He then carried on with the lies to take my son to court, and due to us not having the recordings at that 1st
hearing my son was found guilty due to these lies, and PC G lying in court.
➢ We then took it to appeal, but this time I did have the audio tapes, he stood in that court and admitted he had
not even searched the van, but yet he told the insurance company there was loads of tools and Mr Cordell
was going round doing odd jobs, so know he lied to my son's insurance company, in the lower court to get
my son found guilty, then lied in the Crown Court at the appeal hearing, how much more lies is needed so it
would be classed as a criminal offence?
➢ At the appeal hearing if we did not have them audio tapes, I am 100% my son would have been found guilty
again.
➢ If this was my son that done this and not a police officer my son would have been charged and would have
had to face the courts and would likely have gone to prison, because Judges do not like any person lying in
their courts.
➢ I am upset as I do know if this was my son who did this he would have been charged by the CPS and had to
face a court, why is it when the police do something wrong nothing ever happens.
➢ I do know I will have the right to Appeal to the IPCC once I get your report, but if this investigation was
done correct the 1st time and the DPS did not breach their own codes of conduct to allow this police officer
off with a slap on the hands and by not giving us the right of appeal before this was done and I had been
allowed to take this to the IPCC before this process happened, this police officer would have not been
allowed to leave the police force as he would have been under investigation still.
➢ As it stands this police officer who lied in 2 courts, wrote a statement that was not the truth and full facts,
has now been able to get a job as head of criminal justice.