Bournemouth, UK – A local Bournemouth entrepreneur and former owner of Phones Rescue is continuing his fight for justice, demanding detailed explanations from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) regarding a series of troubling issues related to the actions of Dorset Police and the assessment of these actions by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The case, which has shaken the entrepreneur, casts a shadow over the functioning of local law enforcement agencies and the justice system.
In a letter addressed to a CPS representative, Mr Holden, dated 1st June 2025, the entrepreneur refers to previous correspondence, including a letter from the CPS dated 29th May 2025 (CPS reference CRN00056898 / Case Reference Number 55CH0259223), and to an article titled “When the System Fails: The Voice of a Bournemouth Entrepreneur on Police Actions and the IOPC’s Assessment.” This article details his objections to the IOPC report authored by Kathryn McCarthy. The man emphasises that his goal is to obtain a full picture of the decisions made in his case, which were intended to protect his rights as a victim.
Questions Regarding Chronology and Evidence
One of the key points raised by the businessman is the chronology of his case being passed by the police to the CPS. Documents indicate that the case was submitted three times: on 25th August 2023, then again on 5th December 2023, and finally on 23rd May 2024. The Bournemouth entrepreneur is asking what new evidence, which allegedly could not have been provided with the initial submission, justified the subsequent submissions, particularly those in December 2023 and May 2024.
Omissions Concerning Witnesses?
The former owner of Phones Rescue is particularly concerned about the issue of potential witnesses. He expresses doubt as to whether Dorset Police ever interviewed his neighbours from the adjoining semi-detached house. Furthermore, he points out that in the period immediately preceding the alleged incident on 24th June 2023, a person whose testimony could have been crucial to the case was staying at his home. To the entrepreneur’s knowledge, the police made no attempt to contact her. The man asks whether the CPS ever instructed Dorset Police to obtain statements from these witnesses, and if so, who issued this instruction and to which Dorset Police officer it was conveyed. If not, he demands an explanation for this omission, especially in the context of striving for a “full and thorough police investigation.”
Contradictions in Allegations and Lack of Examinations
The former owner of Phones Rescue also draws attention to a fundamental contradiction concerning the allegation of “intentional strangulation” on 24th June 2023. This allegation, as indicated in the IOPC report, emerged during the creation of a Public Protection Notice (PPN) and was one of the grounds for his arrest. However, as the entrepreneur emphasises, this allegation was never raised by his former partner, either on the day of the incident, in her numerous and extensive statements, or in the formal allegations later presented in court. The man asks why such a serious allegation, supposedly crucial to the arrest decision, “vanished” from the alleged victim’s later, formal testimony. He also wonders why the IOPC report by Kathryn McCarthy did not recognise this glaring contradiction as an alarming signal indicating potential evidence tampering or, at the very least, extreme unreliability in the police’s drafting of the PPN. In connection with such a serious allegation, the entrepreneur asks whether any medical examinations of his former partner were commissioned or carried out to document the alleged injuries.
Denial of Access to Key Documents
Another significant accusation is the fact that the businessman was never granted access to the content of the aforementioned Public Protection Notice (PPN). This, in his view, prevented him from mounting an effective defence and constitutes a violation of his fundamental right to information and a fair trial. “How can proceedings be considered proper when key documents, forming the basis for such drastic actions as arrest, were withheld from me?” the man asks rhetorically.
Ignoring Counter-Allegations and Gender Discrimination
The entrepreneur’s case concluded with a No Further Action (NFA) decision due to insufficient evidence. Despite this, he claims, Dorset Police and the CPS completely ignored his counter-allegations against his former partner, concerning, inter alia, domestic abuse he suffered (e.g., a broken nose, which his former partner admitted to causing) and her making false statements. The former owner of Phones Rescue asks whether the officer in charge, Matt Lambert, ever contacted the CPS regarding his counter-allegations and who from the CPS is supervising this matter. The article he refers to also details his concerns regarding gender discrimination as a male victim of domestic abuse. An example given is the attitude of PC Rose Pratt, who allegedly demanded additional medical documentation from him for a broken nose, whilst there is no information regarding similar scrutiny of the “strangulation” allegation against his former partner.
The Problem of Non-Disclosure of Undermining Material
Finally, the entrepreneur refers to the non-disclosure of key material that could potentially undermine the allegations. The CPS explained this by the fact that he was never formally charged with an offence. However, the man points out that Dorset Police did provide him with some investigation documents for the Family Court proceedings. He is therefore perplexed as to why this specific piece of material, namely the PPN concerning “Intentional Strangulation,” which was a basis for his arrest and which, he contends, contained false information, was withheld.
The Bournemouth entrepreneur awaits detailed explanations on the issues raised, which, he stresses, are further documented in the aforementioned article analysing the IOPC report. His determination to seek truth and justice shows that he does not intend to rest until he receives satisfactory answers from the authorities responsible for his case.