22-10-2025

From: Gareth.Belsey@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk, Cc: VRR@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Re: New VRR Allocation – Due 2nd October 55240098686

Victims Right to Review R v Kowalska

Occurrences: 55240098686 & 55230098162

Victim: Mr Andrzej Majewski

Defendant: Ms Malgorzata Kowalska

Offences: C&CB, Theft and ABH

Date of offence & report: 25-30 November 2021 & reported 24/06/2023

The defendant was interviewed – 16/10/24

Date police notified victim of NFPA – 5^th November 2024

In reviewing this case I have read the OEL and associated reports as attached to the occurrence.

This right to review has been requested by the victim Andrzej Majewski

The defendant is Malgorzata Kowalska referred herein as ‘the defendant.’

My review will focus on the following;

Was the decision made by Sgt Humphry to finalise this investigation with NFPA correct.

A summary of his NFPA decision I have copied below:

ABH – Male party has reported that he was assaulted by the female three years ago causing bruising to his nose. He has stated a friend, who is now his partner can provide a statement saying the S admitted it. S has stated that it did not happen and the possible witness was her best friends, she would of spoken to her about the heated exchange on the night but they have since fallen out and she is now with her ex hence would be highly motivated to lie. It is clear she is not independent and the matter is evidentially weak given the time delay and no supporting evidence.

C&C – I do not feel the offence has been made out in the allegation of the V. They are complaint of actions of the female but this does not show how this has changed and effected his life. The S has also given a very credible account for all matters. NFA – Offence not made out.

Theft – The pair have been in a relationship for a long time. Claims that items were returned or thrown out prior to complaint being made and passport has been returned. There is no way to determine who’s account is the most credible. The female has accepted she still has items that were gifted to her and given how she describes the colour of the watch I am inclined to believe this. This should have been resolved in the court proceeding and it is not a police matter to resolve a property issue. Again I do not believe any offence is made out. NFA.

In review of this case I have used my policing experience, knowledge and professional judgement and considered whether the evidence is sufficient to meet the CPS full code, namely that based on the facts of the case is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. In other words, presented with the evidence, are a jury more likely than not to convict the defendant.

The defendant has been interviewed for this offence. She provided the following account:

INTERVIEW SUMMARY – Malgorzata KOWALSKA (VA)

Location: BOURNEMOUTH POLICE STATION

Date: 16 OCTOBER 2024

Interviewing Officer: PC 904 LAMBERT

Legal Rep: Sharon BOYLAND (Renshaw Derrick)

Start: 10.59

End: 11.41

SUMMARY

KOWALSKA attended VA and gave answers to questions put to her. She made it clear that she feels like the victim and MAJEWSKI is being vindictive and making up allegations following their break up and his arrest in JULY 2023. She stated that he is trying to make her lose her job as a nurse and that he is being malicious.

ASSAULT ABH – NOVEMBER 2021

Denied the allegation and stated that she did not punch MAJEWSKI to the face.

Confirmed that there was an argument where MAJEWSKI was calling her a ‘PSYCHO’ for being on medication for depression, MAJEWSKI was laughing at her and then pushed her while leaving the property. Stated that he returned to the property drunk and said ‘LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE’ in reference to his nose. Confirmed that his nose looked injured on his return but was not like that before leaving the property.

In regards to DARTNALL saying that she was called by KOWALSKA saying that she had punched MAJEWSKI – KOWALSKA stated that DARTNALL was her best friend at the time and they were like sisters so would have likely called her to vent following the argument. Said that MAJEWSKI cheated on her with DARTNALL and are now together so she is likely making it up to support MAJEWSKI.

CONTROLLING AND COERCIVE BEHAVIOUR

KOWALSKA said that MAJEWSKI was the controlling party during their relationship. Denied C&C behaviour

CLOTHING

Said that when they got together MAJEWSKI did not have many clothes and only had a couple of pairs of trainers which were worn out and old. She confirmed that she has bought him new clothes as she loved him and he was happy with this at the tie. Denied that she ever threw away his clothes without his permission. Said that she would get MAJEWSKI presents etc because they were in a relationship and she loved him but this was not to be controlling.

LOCKING OUT OF PROPERTY

Confirmed there were times when she has locked MAJEWSKI out of the property but this was due to his behaviour. This was due to his behaviour and said that she would only do it until he calmed down to protect herself and her son. Sad that this would only ever be for a few minutes.

PHONE PLAN

On getting together with MAJEWSKI he had a PAYG phone. KOWALSKA has a monthly contract on EE where she was offered to add another user and this was cheaper for MAJEWSKI so he was happy to be signed up. KOWALSKA confirmed that she paid for the contract and did allocate data each month as she was given the most so she gave additional to MAJEWSKI and her son.

Said that they would often share phones and MAJEWSKI had all her passwords etc so was able to look at her phone when she wanted.

Stated that following the relationship ending MAJEWSKI has increased the amount of data attached to his phone which has increased the bill KOWALKSA was paying from £10 to £60. Due to this she has cancelled the contract. She did not mean to cancel the number as wanted MAJEWSKI to have this still but was not happy to pay for him as they were no longer together. Stated that EE have cancelled his number but this was an accident.

PHONE MONITORING AND LOCATION TRACKING

Said that she was not able to see apps etc on MAJEWSKI’s phone and would not know how to do this as is not very good at technology. Said that MAJEWSKI was better at technology and he was able to use a computer to log onto the phones.

Said that she would not limit data and that she would give him approximately 40gig a month. Did not limit this and had no way to cut this off.

LIFE 365 APP. Said that MAJEWSKI introduced her and her son to the app and it was his idea following her son going missing. When MAJEWSKI has started to use the app to track her and got controlling she has deleted from the app to which he has been re-added hence the request that he has got. Stated that he asked to be added back into the life 365 group.

FACEBOOK BUSINESS ACCOUNT

When MAJEWSKI has started the FACEBOOK account her has added KOWALSKA as admin. She confirmed that following their separation she has tried to remove herself as admin as did not want anything to do with the business of MAJEWSKI. She said while doing this she has deleted the account but that this was completely accidental.

THEFT OFFENCES

Said that MAJEWSKI left a lot of items in her property and believed this was to play with her emotions. When the civil court case was finalised MAJEWSKI has collected his belongings – she did not want to be there as did not want to see him so friend facilitated this.

PASSPORT AND EDUCATION DOCUMENTS

Said that these have been collected by MAJEWSKI. Following the end of a civil court case she has packed up all of his belongings and put them into the summer house. MAJEWSKI has gone to collect these while a friend of KOWALSKA’s was present. She stated that his passport and documents were in a green folder in one of the boxed which he has collected.

APPLE IWATCH (AM/3)

Said that this was MAJEWSKI’s watch and believes he still has it.

Confirmed she does not know where it would be. Said that if house searched it would not be there. Denied selling it.

APPLE IWATCH (AM/4)

Has the watch – stated that MAJEWSKI gave it to her as a birthday present. It is pink so said that it was not a mans watch. Accepted that MAJEWSKI did pay for the watch.

BOSCH Cv CHARGERS (AM/5)

Does not know where these are. Suggested they have likely been binned as were not working and bought a long time ago. Believes they were for the lawnmower and have not been seen recently.

APPLE IPHONE 12 PRO MAX (AM/6)

Said that MAJEWSKI gave her the phone for her birthday and bought it for her. Since then the phone has been passed down to her son following her getting a newer model. Said that it was agreed that this would happen with MAJEWSKI while they were together and does not know why he would want it back. Confirmed that MMAJEWSKI paid for the phone but that it was gifted to her, she was the user of the phone until it was given to her son. Confirmed the phone is still in working order and that MAJEWSKI has not asked her directly to return it. Fells that he is being malicious.

PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

KOWALSKA stated that she has not lied to police or the civil/ family court. Said that the family court ruled in her favour following hearing arguments from both her and MAJEWSKI.

Said that MAEWSKI is making malicious allegations to destroy her.

As part of the original investigation where Malgorzata Kowalska was recorded as the victim, the reports of assault and theft were put to her by the officer in charge of that case and she provided the following account:

In regards to the incident in November 2021, I had touched base with the V to see if she could recollect what MAJEWSKI was referring to. V states she never assaulted him and has provided an MG11 stating this.

As part of the VRR, I have requested further reasonable lines of enquiry to be explored to determine if these can secure further evidence in order to meet the full code test and produce the evidence to the CPS for a charging decision. This has provided a further delay in providing this update whilst all avenues have been explored. These have produced no further evidence with which to strengthen the case other than confirmation that the date and time of the victims photographs can be evidenced.

Trial Issues – the main issue with this case is the fact that it is one person’s word against the other.  With no independent witness to the actual offences, and the only evidence that would be presented is a victim statement and photograph of injury to his nose taken some days after the offence. The defendant has also denied the theft reports, that items had either been gifted to her or returned.

Re the assault: The proposed witnesses account would only amount to hearsay and would not be admissible in court. Indeed, the defendant has denied that this admission took place. The witness is not able to provide any telephony records to support the phone call, which would assist in corroborating her account but indeed would not confirm the content of the phone call.

Further evidential difficulties exist, namely that the victim has not attended any medical establishment and thereby documented his injury. Hence, there is also no confirmation of the level of injury to prove an ABH has occurred, which would allow any investigation to progress. Based upon the photograph, this would be viewed as an assault by beating, and hence the statutory time limits for the summary only offence would have expired.

No report was made to the police at the time. Hence, there was no police attendance, no house to house enquiries, Body Worn Video capturing the victims account and any suspect account. This would have provided valuable corroborative evidence to support his account. The victim has also not reported the offence to anyone else at the time. Hence there is no supporting disclosure.

Finally, I note the victim has provided the following update: ‘MAJEWSKI reiterated that KOWALSKA had admitted assaulting him to officers as part of her disclosure during his arrest on 24062023’ – this is not the case. It is not documented on any crime report or statement, only the opposite that she did not assault him.

This is not intended as any victim blaming, merely pointing out the evidential difficulties and potential trial issues.

Re the theft: similarly, there are no witnesses to what was returned to the suspect.

The offence has occurred inside the property, hence there is no CCTV. There has been no ability to track the reported stolen items.

The defendant has been consistent with her account to police both during the original report and also during her voluntary interview. There is also no bad character with which to strengthen the case.

Finally, there is no means to track the SIM card on the call logs at the time of the incident.

This is also the same for the C&CB offence. There are no witnesses, no corroborating evidence, no medical records documenting the effect on the victim.

Reviewing the above for all offences, this does not pass the evidential test.

The burden of proof in a criminal court is that beyond all reasonable doubt, and this falls considerably short of that threshold.

Conclusion

Having reviewed the circumstances of this case I agree with the decision made by Sgt Humphrey

The original decision to take no further action is upheld

T/Insp 2258 Belsey

Date 22^nd October 2025

07/10/2025

From: VRR@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Re: Victims Right to Review Request – 55240098686

Good Afternoon Mr Majewski

Thank you for your recent email below .

We have received an update from the VRR reviewing officer to say that there are some queries that they have raised via the original OIC that they require answers to before they can make their final decision. Unfortunately this officer is currently off on sick leave . The outstanding queries will be dealt with upon their return to work .

We appreciate that this can be  frustrating however the 30 day frame is just a guideline and sometimes it is necessary for reviews to take slightly longer . We have diarised this case for further review next week.

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact. 

Yours sincerely

Victim and Witness Care VRR Team

03/10/2025

From: CRO@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Complaint Review Outcome

Dear Mr Majewski,
Request for review of complaint
I write in connection with your request for a review of the outcome of your complaint against
Dorset Police, reference CO/448/25.
In completing this review, I have carefully considered the information you have provided to
me, and the information held by the Complaints and Misconduct Department at Dorset
Police.
My role as the Complaint Review Officer is to take an objective, balanced, and considered
look at whether the outcome to your complaint is reasonable and proportionate.
Reasonable and proportionate means doing what is appropriate in the circumstances,
considering the facts of the matter and the context in which it has been raised. It also
involves considering the seriousness of the matter, and the potential for learning.
Although a review is not legally able to re-investigate the complaint, or indeed the original
incident, I consider your representations, ensuring I give them consideration and provide a
clear explanation of the outcome of the review and the decisions I make.
Circumstances of your complaint
On 5 May 2025, you contacted Dorset Police raising dissatisfaction about the investigation
you reported concerning your ex-partner and the fact that despite raising specific questions
of the officers involved, they had not responded to your questions.
Dorset Police recorded your complaint, 12 May 2025, and allocated your concerns to the
nominated complaint handler, PC Pardey, to progress.
On 22 July 2025, Dorset Police wrote to you to finalise their examination of your complaint.
They informed you that they would not be taking any further action to progress your
concerns about the crime investigation into your ex-partner as this had been examined
under complaint reference CO/1435/23. You had applied to the Independent Office for
Police Conduct (IOPC) to review the handling of this complaint which they did not uphold,
27 May 2025.
In relation to the officers not responding to your emails and not answering your questions,
PC Pardey concluded that the service provided was acceptable.
On 29 July 2025, you made further allegations about members of staff within the Complaints
and Misconduct Department. This correspondence has been accepted as your application
to apply for a review into the handling of this complaint. I have noted your supporting
application, 30 July 2025, where you reiterate the complaints you have previously made.
Review findings
I have examined the overall circumstances surrounding the matter, including all relevant
documentation you have provided and retained by the Complaints and Misconduct
Department.
To progress her examination of your complaint, PC Pardey examined relevant police
records and secured accounts from the officers involved. She also advised that the police
would not be re-examining your complaints about the allegation you had made against your
ex-partner. I have considered your allegations and agree that the decision taken by Dorset
Police not to progress these concerns is reasonable. I have examined the review report
prepared by the IOPC which did not uphold your application as they concluded that your
complaint ref. CO/1435/23 had been responded to appropriately by Dorset Police. I am
satisfied that your latest complaints are substantially the same and are therefore repetitive.
It is therefore appropriate for the police to determine that they will not allocate any further
resources to examine this issue.
In her response to your complaint that the officers had not responded to your emails, PC
Pardey explained that PC Lambert is a response officer, and it would not be reasonable for
an operational officer to respond to emails about a case that was finalised 7 months prior. I
have also noted that PC Lambert was subject of complaint about the investigation they had
conducted and finalised which was being reviewed by the IOPC. Their decision not to
respond to questions about the same issues linked to this complaint are, I conclude,
reasonable. PC Pardey concluded that the service provided by PC Lambert was acceptable
in these circumstances. I conclude that this is a logical outcome, based on the police
explanation and the material I have reviewed.
The other officer who had not responded to your email was DC Pratt. In her account to the
complaint handler, she explained that this was due to receiving your email 11 months after
the case she had investigated being finalised. She stated that you had written several hostile
emails to her during the investigation and a manager had advised her not to respond to your
emails such a long time after closure of the case. PC Pardey concluded that the service
provided was acceptable in these circumstances.
PC Pardey then provided a written response on behalf of DC Pratt to your questions that
you had posed. I acknowledge that you do not agree with the response provided by the
police to these questions, but I conclude that the police have taken reasonable and
proportionate steps to examine these points and provide their response.
I conclude that the outcome provided by Dorset Police to this element of your complaint is
logical, based on the explanation provided by the police and the material I have reviewed.
Review Outcome
Having reviewed the handling of your complaint, I regret that I am unable to uphold your
application to review how the police have responded to it.
Dorset Police had an obligation to understand the complaint that you wished to make, take
reasonable and proportionate steps to examine these concerns, and provide a written
outcome, based on the material collected during the complaint handling process. I am
satisfied that the police have complied with their obligations when handling this matter and
your complaint has been managed ‘reasonable and proportionately.’
Once the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner has conducted a review of a
complaint, and has decided not to uphold it, there is no further right of appeal.
If you remain unhappy at the outcome of the review or the actions of Dorset Police, then
you have the right to seek a judicial review through the high court. You can obtain
independent legal advice on how to proceed with this and how to initiate the pre-action
protocol which is required before seeking a judicial review.
Information on judicial review can be found on Judicial review | Courts and Tribunals
Judiciary.
Yours sincerely
Richard Corrigan
Independent Complaint Review Officer

29/09/2025

From: pcc@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk, CC: alasdair.keddie@bcpcouncil.gov.uk

Reply from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Dear Mr Majewski,
YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DORSET POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER
I write following your emails to the Dorset Police and Crime Panel and the Dorset Police and
Crime Commissioner on 24 July 2025, raising a complaint against the Dorset Police and
Crime Commissioner (the PCC), David Sidwick.
Thank you for taking the time to write with your concerns, and please accept my apologies
for the delay in response. I also note that the Contact Manager, Rachel Goodwin, has written
to you to pass on her apologies for omitting to acknowledge this Office’s receipt of your
complaint. I also extend my apologies for this oversight.
Complaints regarding the conduct of the PCC are the responsibility of the Dorset Police and
Crime Panel (the Panel). In accordance with the Police and Crime Panels (Application of
Local Authority Enactments) Regulations 2012, the Panel has delegated authority for the
initial managing of complaints to me, the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer for the
Office of the PCC (OPCC). I have sought the Panel’s consent on this approach, and the
relevant officials are copied into this response.
I have formally recorded your complaint under reference 25/PCC/MAJ. I have further
considered the substance of your complaint and will address the points you raise in turn.
For brevity, I will not outline the full details of your complaints against Dorset Police within
this letter – you are, of course, fully sighted on the correspondence that you have previously
sent to the Force. Suffice to say, in accordance with legislation, these complaints were first
handled by the appropriate authority – in this case Dorset Police – with the right of review
then offered thereafter.
Your complaint refers to an ongoing issue relating to your arrest in June 2023, and your
subsequent dealings with Dorset Police since. I am also aware that in recent months you
have received an IOPC outcome regarding your complaint decision from Dorset Police in
October 2024.
The IOPC Casework Manager, Kathryn McCarthy, wrote that: “I have concluded that the
outcome of your complaint was reasonable and proportionate. Therefore, your application
for review is not upheld.” The caseworker did find that the service provided by Dorset Police
in respect of some of the interactions with Dorset Police was unacceptable, and an apology
was issued by Dorset Police, which the IOPC concluded to be a reasonable and
proportionate response.
YOUR REQUEST
You have requested that: “the Police and Crime Commissioner, personally review the
evidence and ensure that an independent criminal investigation – managed outside of the
Dorset Police force – is launched into the conduct of officers DC Rose Pratt, PC 2138
Pardey, and TJ Whittle.”
OPCC COMPLAINTS PROCESS AND ITS STATUTORY LIMITATIONS
To consider your request, I have examined information from a variety of sources, including
the correspondence between yourself and the OPCC, and I have also considered material
you have sent to Dorset Police and the Dorset Police and Crime Panel, which has been
legitimately shared with the OPCC.
Whilst I will come to my determination shortly, I will first share my reflections on the
limitations of the wider police complaints process. Members of the public are, of course,
welcome to raise concerns about the policing service they have received.
Police and Crime Commissioners, as you have recognised in your correspondence, have
the responsibility of holding the Chief Constable to account, but this must be done in
accordance with legislation.
By law, a police force must be able to investigate a complaint and explain, apologise, or put
things right themselves. Should the complainant not be happy with the police force’s
findings, they have the right to appeal.
Importantly, the appeals process is not a re-investigation as the legislation clearly sets out
what is possible to undertake as part of a review, and what is not permitted.
I say importantly because you have requested that the PCC examine material held by Dorset
Police and ensure that an independent criminal investigation is managed outside of Dorset
Police. This is not within the PCC’s power as defined in legislation.
It remains the responsibility of police forces to review complaints made against them. It is
the responsibility of local appeal bodies – the PCC in this case, to review complaints, not to
review police activity, or to re-run investigations whether internally or externally.
FINDINGS
For clarity, I reiterate the OPCC’s role. The OPCC is the local appeals body, and as such
reviews police complaints. It does not review police activity, as by law this is the
responsibility of police forces.
The OPCC confirmed by email on 29 July 2025 that Richard Corrigan will undertake the
review of your complaint to Dorset Police, in line with the above. At the time of writing, I
confirm that this review is still being conducted.
SUMMARY
The remedy you were seeking was for the PCC to personally review the evidence and
ensure an independent criminal investigation takes place.
On the PCC’s behalf I have reviewed the relevant information. I confirm that as the Chief
Executive and Monitoring Officer for the OPCC, I have the delegated authority to do this. I
have also checked and agreed this approach with the Dorset Police and Crime Panel, to
whom your complaint was raised, prior to the issuing of this letter.
I have set out the statutory limitation under which the police complaints process is managed,
and I confirm that it is not possible for a PCC to ensure that a criminal investigation takes
place or does not take place.
I have furthermore confirmed that the role of the PCC relates to managing complaint
appeals, and that you are aware a process is underway at present.
I appreciate that this might not have been the outcome you were seeking, but I hope that
this response has proved helpful and does not affect your desire to engage with either Dorset
Police or the Dorset PCC in future. If you would like to appeal the handling of this complaint,
please let me know within 28 days.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Bullock
Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer
cc. Cllr Alastair Keddie, Chair, Dorset Police and Crime Panel
Marc Eyre, Service Manager for Assurance, Dorset Council

16/09/2025

From: enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk

IOPC Acknowledgement

Dear Andrzej Majewski

Thank you for your email to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) dated 05 September 2025.

I have checked our system for an update on your cases, please see below.

IOPC Reference 2024/0199375 relates to police complaint CO/1435/23

It is noted that you requested a review to the IOPC which was subsequently not upheld. As such, you have reached the end of the police complaints process.

The correct way to challenge the complaint further is through a Judicial Review. For further information on this process, please seek independent legal advice or visit the Judiciary website: www.judiciary.uk

IOPC Reference 2025/011524 relates to police complaint CO/448/25

It is noted that you have been offered the right to request a review to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) for this complaint. We notified you of this via email on 11 August 2025.

If your review has been not upheld, you will again have to seek a Judicial Review to take it further.

I appreciate that this may not be the response you were hoping for, however I do not see how the IOPC can be of any further assistance for those 2 complaints.

If you wish to make a new complaint against Dorset Police, you should do so by writing to the PSD. Please be aware that any new complaint should not contain allegations that have previously been considered.

Dorset Police Professional Standards

Winfrith

Dorchester

Dorset

DT2 8DZ

Tel: 01202 222222

Email: complaints&misconduct@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Upon receipt of your complaint, the PSD will usually respond within 3 weeks to let you know what action they propose to take. If you do not receive a response within this time, you should contact them directly for an update.

Please see the following links to our Complaint Guide and FAQs on our website:

A guide to the complaints process | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Frequently asked questions | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Kind regards

James Cropper

Customer Contact Advisor

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

PO Box 473

Sale

M33 0BW

13/09/2025

To: complaints-misconduct@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Re: FW: FW: 55230098162

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to request the disclosure of specific documents related to an investigation that was concluded with ‘No Further Action’ on 12th June 2024.

The investigation pertains to incidents that occurred on 24th June 2023. To assist you in locating the relevant files, please note that the case involved myself and my former partner, Ms Małgorzata Lidia Kowalska.

I formally request the following information:

1. A copy of the medical documentation relating to the injuries sustained by Ms Małgorzata Lidia Kowalska in connection with the allegation of ‘Battery’ on 24th June 2023.
2. The reference number of the PPN (Public Protection Notice) document, or any other official record, in which my former partner accused me of ‘Intentional Strangulation’ on 24th June 2023.

I require this information for my personal records. I am prepared to provide any further details or proof of identity that may be required to process this request.

I look forward to your response within the statutory time limit.

Yours faithfully,

Andrzej Majewski

10/09/2025

To: tom.hayes.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Mr Hayes,

I am writing in response to the correspondence received from your office, signed by Mr Tim Hickling. Whilst I appreciate the acknowledgement that a case has been opened, I must categorically reject the assumption that my issue falls within the scope of routine enquiries, or that any potential delays are due solely to administrative caseload. The matter I am raising is not a procedural query but a fundamental and documented failure by a state agency—Dorset Police—to fulfil its duties, which in turn activates the constitutional obligation of parliamentary oversight.

Therefore, this letter is not a standard request for assistance but a formal submission of an evidentiary dossier. This document details allegations of potentially criminal actions, systemic obfuscation in proceedings, obstruction of justice, and a breakdown of accountability mechanisms within the structure of Dorset Police. This case transcends the standard framework of constituency casework and falls directly within the scrutiny function that Parliament exercises over executive bodies. Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom serve a dual role: representing the interests of their constituents and holding the government and its agencies to account. In a system based on parliamentary sovereignty, a profound and vital responsibility rests upon MPs to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. To ignore credible evidence of systemic abuse by a state institution would be an abdication of this crucial duty. I am therefore approaching my representative not as a petitioner, but as a citizen demanding action in line with their constitutional mandate.

Justification for Prioritisation

The communication from your office indicates that priority is given to “…the most urgent and time-sensitive cases such as those involving housing, health, or safeguarding concerns.” My case not only meets each of these criteria but represents their catastrophic epicentre, the direct and sole cause of which is the unlawful conduct of Dorset Police. Standard constituency office procedures, based on case categorisation, may be inadequate for identifying situations where a state agency is itself the source of a citizen’s crisis. The system is designed to resolve issues with external entities (e.g., disputes with a landlord, delays in the healthcare system), not to respond to instances where the state becomes the aggressor. My case is therefore a test of the effectiveness of an MP’s oversight function.

• Housing: The allegation of “Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023,” which, as will be demonstrated, was most likely fabricated, served as the legal pretext for my immediate and unlawful removal from my home. The loss of my residence was not an indirect consequence but the intended and direct result of police actions, which led to my homelessness.
• Health: A year-long, bad-faith criminal investigation, the loss of my home and business, and the trauma of being systematically ignored and misled by the very bodies meant to protect victims, have caused a severe and documented detriment to my mental and psychological health.
• Safeguarding: The collapse of my home-based business, Phones Rescue, was a direct result of being unlawfully removed from my place of residence and business operation. The loss of my primary source of income directly translated into my inability to provide financial support for my daughters. The actions of Dorset Police have therefore created a tangible safeguarding risk to my children, a flagrant example of a safeguarding issue caused by the actions of a state body.

My case is a textbook example of how an abuse of power in one area (the justice system) leads to a cascade of devastating consequences in all other spheres of a citizen’s life. I therefore expect it to be treated with the utmost urgency, in accordance with the criteria set out by your office.

Deconstruction of the Criminal Proceedings: A Legal and Factual Analysis of the “Intentional Strangulation” Allegation

The foundation of the entire criminal case against me, which led to the destruction of my personal and professional life, was the allegation of “Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023.” The following analysis demonstrates that this charge was, from the outset, legally and factually baseless, and that the subsequent, documented actions of Dorset Police bear the hallmarks of a conscious attempt to cover up these fundamental flaws, which may constitute the offence of perverting the course of justice.

Lack of Legal and Factual Grounds

The charge of Intentional Strangulation was formulated in the Impending Prosecutions on 13th September 2023, nearly three months after the alleged incident on 24th June 2023. The key fact undermining the credibility of this accusation is that nowhere—not in the police reports disclosed to me, not in my former partner’s written statements, nor during her testimony under oath at the Bournemouth Family Court—did she ever make any statement concerning “Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023.”

Furthermore, the initial police reports from the scene describe the situation as a “verbal DA” (verbal domestic argument), and officers noted that “no offences were identified.” The narrative only changed diametrically following the intervention of the Officer in the Case (OIC), DC Rose Pratt. This means that criminal proceedings were initiated and pursued for a year without any evidentiary basis in the form of a consistent and credible account from the alleged victim.

Prima Facie Evidence of a Cover-Up

The most damning evidence of institutional misconduct comes from the very unit tasked with upholding police integrity—the Complaints & Misconduct Unit. In July 2025, in response to enquiries, PC 2138 Pardey from this unit provided two completely contradictory versions of events within 24 hours, indicating a desperate attempt to conceal the original procedural failings.

22nd July 2025: In the first email, the officer formally admitted that a key document—the Public Protection Notification (PPN) cited by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)—was “missed off the case file and the unused material schedule by DC Pratt” and was consequently not disclosed to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The officer stated unequivocally: “the service level on this occasion is not acceptable.” This was a formal admission of a serious procedural failure.

“[…] I have reviewed the occurrence 55230098162 and case file 55CHO259223 attached. The Public Protection Notification (PPN) the IOPC Review Officer is referring to was attached to a different occurrence not 55230098162. It was missed off the case file and the unused material schedule by DC Pratt therefore, not in the CPS disclosure bundle. I believe this was an oversight on her part, it was overlooked because it was not attached to the occurrence relating to 55230098162 she was working on, I do not believe it was a deliberate act. However, having reviewed the file, there is evidence by way of statements on the file relating to the charge.

I am very sorry this has happened, the service level on this occasion is not acceptable. DC Pratt, has reflected on this and will be more diligent in the future”

23rd July 2025: Just one day later, the same officer completely retracted the previous statement. In the new version, he claimed that the PPN document was allegedly created “on 12 June 2024,” nearly a year after the incident and after the case file had been sent to the CPS. Based on this, he concluded, “There has not been an error made by DC Pratt” and “the service level on this occasion is acceptable.”

“[…] Following your email dated 22 July 2025, I have today, reviewed this in more detail. I have reviewed all the occurrences and related reports. I believe the Public Protection Notice (PPN) the IOPC Review Officer is referring to in point 22 of her report, was created on 12 June 2024 on Dorset Police Niche system. The PPN states “Has previously grabbed her by the throat and pushed onto the bed (this has already been reported, investigated and NFA’d by CPS)”. Therefore, I conclude this PPN document would not have been included in the disclosure of unused material in your case file to CPS because it was created after the case file was submitted by DC Pratt to CPS. There has not been an error made by DC Pratt, I conclude the service level on this occasion is acceptable, no further action will be taken.”

The assertion that a document supposedly created in June 2024 could form the basis of an investigation and charges from 2023 is a logical and chronological absurdity. Such a sequence of events goes beyond a simple correction of an error. The creation of a chronologically impossible alibi for an officer’s mistake by the Complaints & Misconduct Unit points to a conscious, coordinated attempt to fabricate official records in order to mislead and evade accountability. This action is all the more damning as it originates from the oversight unit, which actively protected the officer who was the subject of the complaint, rendering the entire internal appeals process a farce. This fact alone undermines the fundamental credibility of any internal proceedings conducted by Dorset Police.

Date of Communication	Author (PC 2138 Pardey)	Official Statement	Logical Implication
22nd July 2025	PC 2138 Pardey	“The Public Protection Notification (PPN)… was missed off the case file… the service level on this occasion is not acceptable.”	Formal admission of a serious procedural error by DC Pratt.
23rd July 2025	PC 2138 Pardey	“…this PPN document… was created on 12 June 2024… There has not been an error made by DC Pratt, I conclude the service level on this occasion is acceptable…”	Complete retraction of the admission of error. Presentation of a new, chronologically impossible version of events to exonerate the officer.

Deliberate Manipulation of Evidence

The actions of Dorset Police also bear the hallmarks of deliberate evidence manipulation. In its communication, the Complaints & Misconduct Unit used a fragment of my ex-partner’s alleged statement, taken out of context: “Has previously grabbed her by the throat and pushed onto the bed.” However, the crucial context was omitted. The full entry in the police report from June 2023 reads: “During PPN questions the victim also disclosed that around 3 months ago, during an argument the suspect lost the temper and he grabbed her round the throat with one hand pushing her to the bed.” This manipulation is multi-layered: first, the alleged incident took place three months before 24th June 2023 and is unrelated to the charge brought against me; second, it contradicts my ex-partner’s repeated assurances that there had never been any previous domestic violence on my part. Such an action is not a simple oversight but a conscious manipulation intended to construct a false criminal charge where the evidence directly contradicted it.

The Inverted Narrative: Documenting My Status as a Victim of Domestic Abuse

Whilst Dorset Police focused its resources on prosecuting me based on a fabricated charge, it systematically ignored a substantial body of evidence that clearly indicated I was the victim of a protracted and multi-faceted campaign of domestic abuse. This “institutional blindness” on the part of the police, perhaps stemming from unconscious gender bias or an inability to comprehend complex, modern forms of abuse, allowed the perpetrator to “weaponise” the legal system and use it as a tool in her campaign of harassment.

Categorisation of Evidence of Abuse

The documented acts of abuse and control extend far beyond isolated incidents, forming a pattern of systematic abuse that the police completely ignored.

• Physical Violence: In November 2021, my ex-partner assaulted me, breaking my nose. This incident is supported by my testimony, photographs of the injuries, the perpetrator’s admission of guilt, and witnesses to the events. Despite this, Dorset Police took no action on the matter for over a year and never interviewed key witnesses.
• Coercive Control and Technological Abuse: My ex-partner used sophisticated methods of control. She convinced me to move my phone number to her family plan, giving her complete control over my calls, messages, and internet access, which was blocked as a form of “punishment.” Ultimately, on 25th June 2023, she unlawfully had my number removed from the network. Furthermore, through harassment and intimidation, she forced me to install location-tracking apps (Life360, Microsoft Family Safety), which is documented by screenshots and emails.
• Economic Sabotage: In an act of pure malice, on the night of 24th-25th June 2023, while I was in custody based on her false allegation, she deleted my business page, “Phones Rescue,” from Facebook. This calculated act, aimed at destroying my livelihood, is a classic example of economic abuse and the action of a perpetrator, not a frightened victim.
• Digital Stalking and Harassment: After our separation, she hacked into my Instagram account and, for at least three months, spied on my browsing history. The proof of this is her own statement, in which she refers to a specific search from 15th September 2023, which has been confirmed in my browser history.

I have presented a full list of the allegations against my former partner here: https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/en/nhs-nurse-from-poole-hospital-domestic-violence-false-testimony-and-lies-in-court/

A Pattern of False Allegations and Perjury

A central element of the campaign of abuse was the weaponisation of the legal system. The police call on 24th June 2023 was not a cry for help but, as the evidence suggests, an act of “jealousy, hatred, and a desire for revenge.” The credibility of the strangulation allegation is further undermined by a key fact: my ex-partner never repeated this allegation under oath during the family court proceedings. Her reluctance to give this testimony under penalty of perjury strongly suggests it was false. Moreover, during the court hearing on 15th April 2024, she denied making statements that were recorded in official police reports, placing her in direct contradiction with the officer’s records and bearing the hallmarks of perjury.

The police’s failure to understand these complex forms of digital, economic, and legal abuse demonstrates a dangerously outdated and simplistic approach to domestic violence. This institutional blindness allowed the perpetrator to use the police as a tool in her campaign of harassment, making them an unwitting (or wilfully ignorant) accomplice in the harm done to me.

Diagnosis of Systemic Pathology: Institutional Bias and Obstruction of Justice

My experience is not the result of the errors of individual officers but is symptomatic of a deeply entrenched, flawed institutional culture within Dorset Police. A comparative analysis of the investigations, alongside the context of publicly documented misconduct within this force, points to a systemic pathology that requires intervention at the highest level.

A Two-Tier System of Justice

The contrast in how two parallel investigations were conducted exposes systemic bias and a police motivation to protect its own interests rather than pursue the truth.

• The investigation against me: Lasted a year, involved significant resources, and saw the police repeatedly attempt to convince the CPS to press charges, which ultimately collapsed due to a complete lack of evidence (NFA – No Further Action).
• The investigation of my complaint against my ex-partner: Initiated after significant delay, it lasted only about two months, was hastily closed without consulting the CPS, and key witnesses and extensive evidence were ignored. This fact was confirmed by the IOPC, which stated, “[…] the service level determined for the investigation into you as a victim was found to be not acceptable. […]”

The decision not to refer my case against my ex-partner to the CPS was a strategic act of institutional self-preservation. The CPS, as an external body, had already demonstrated its independence by rejecting the police’s weak case against me. The police were aware that my complaint was supported by strong evidence. Referring this case to the CPS carried a high risk that prosecutors would decide to charge my ex-partner. Such a turn of events would have been a devastating indictment of the original investigation, exposing the incompetence or bad faith of OIC Rose Pratt and her team. By closing the case “in-house,” Dorset Police prevented an independent, external review that would have revealed their original failings. This was a calculated action to avoid accountability, constituting a profound conflict of interest and a perversion of the justice process.

Investigation Parameter	Investigation Against Me	Investigation of My Complaint Against My Ex-Partner
Duration	~12 months	~2 months
CPS Involvement	Repeated attempts by police to persuade CPS to charge.	None. Case closed internally by police.
Evidence Considered	Focused on a single, unsubstantiated allegation.	Key witnesses and extensive digital and physical evidence were ignored.
Outcome	NFA (No Further Action) due to lack of evidence.	Closed by police, no action taken.

Lack of Control by the Chief Constable over Subordinate Officers

Furthermore, the evidence presented raises a fundamental question about the purpose and effectiveness of the entire police oversight system. How is the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) supposed to perform its constitutional scrutiny function when Dorset Police, as I have proven, lies to this institution with impunity, fabricates evidence, and creates false narratives to conceal its own failings? In such a situation, the entire complaints system becomes a facade, devoid of real power and legitimising the pathological actions of the police. I have repeatedly informed Chief Constable Amanda Pearson directly about the details of my case. The lack of any effective response from her suggests that she either condones these methods or has no real control over her subordinate officers, which in itself constitutes a serious threat to the rule of law.

Unlawful Obstruction and Denial of Rights

In June and July 2023, I made three attempts to report a crime committed by my ex-partner. On each occasion, including once in person to the OIC, Rose Pratt, I was unlawfully refused the right to have an investigation opened against her, being falsely informed that as a suspect, I had no such right. This is a fundamental violation of my civil rights and a flagrant breach of police procedures, as confirmed by the IOPC report, which stated that the report concerning my counter-allegation:

“[…] was closed prematurely, and it required multiple efforts on your part to have this recorded.”

Additionally, Dorset Police is flagrantly violating the right to information by delaying its response to a Subject Access Request by over five months, for which the force has already been admonished by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The Context of a Culture of Misconduct in Dorset Police

This case fits into a wider, publicly documented pattern of misconduct within Dorset Police, proving it is not an isolated incident.

• Documented cases of misconduct: Public records of disciplinary proceedings reveal cases such as the dismissal of PC Alex Skidmore for lying, SC Barrie Leigh-Anderson for abuse of authority, and PC Lorne Castle for excessive use of force.
• Systemic lack of professionalism and bigotry: The high-profile IOPC investigation into a WhatsApp group, which led to dismissals and sanctions for sharing racist and misogynistic content and a general failure to challenge inappropriate behaviour, reveals deep-rooted cultural problems within the force.
• Whistleblower confirmation: These claims are corroborated by the account of a former Dorset Police officer, Mike Henstridge, who, in his book, describes a strikingly similar pattern of manipulated investigations arising from false allegations in domestic cases. This indicates the existence of an established pattern of conduct within this force.

The statements made by the Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) about the importance of public trust and “policing by consent” stand in stark contrast to the actions of this force in my case. Dorset Police has fundamentally violated this social contract.

Conclusions and Formal Demands for Parliamentary Action

The evidence presented demonstrates unequivocally that my case is not the result of a single error but is symptomatic of a catastrophic breakdown of procedure, integrity, and accountability within Dorset Police. The internal complaints processes, including the actions of the Complaints & Misconduct Unit, have proven not only ineffective but have become an active participant in the cover-up of the truth. Having exhausted all other available avenues for seeking justice, I am turning to my representative in Parliament as the final instance of democratic scrutiny.

Although an MP cannot directly intervene in police operations, a profound and vital responsibility rests upon them to hold state agencies accountable for systemic failings and to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. The evidence presented points to a situation that demands precisely such an intervention.

Consolidated List of Demands

In light of the evidence presented, I hereby formally demand that you, as my Member of Parliament, take the following specific actions:

1. Personal Review and Substantive Response: I expect a formal, written response from you personally, not from a caseworker, which addresses the specific points of evidence raised in this letter, particularly the contradictory statements made by the Dorset Police Complaints & Misconduct Unit on 22nd and 23rd July 2025.
2. Intervention Regarding the Subject Access Request: I demand that you formally intervene regarding the unreasonable delay in responding to the Subject Access Request I submitted on 28/05/2025, citing the ICO’s prior admonishment of Dorset Police on this matter and stressing that the withholding of data is an unacceptable obstruction.
3. Formal Request for an Independent External Audit: I demand that you immediately forward this dossier to the Chief Constable of Dorset Police and the Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner, with a formal demand for a full, external, and independent audit of the investigation into my case and the handling of my complaint.
4. Escalation to Government Level: I demand that you raise this matter directly with the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing, presenting it as a case study of systemic failings in accountability and safeguarding within Dorset Police.
5. Submission of Parliamentary Questions: I demand that you submit written parliamentary questions regarding: (a) the effectiveness of independent oversight mechanisms for police Professional Standards Departments, citing this case as evidence of their fundamental flaws; and (b) national statistics on the number of Intentional Strangulation charges that have resulted in a No Further Action (NFA) decision, in order to investigate potential patterns of misuse of this offence.
6. Initiation of a “Super-Complaint” Referral: I demand that you formally refer this dossier to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) with a strong recommendation that it be treated as evidence justifying the initiation of a “super-complaint” investigation into the systemic issues of evidence manipulation and obstruction of justice within Dorset Police.

I await your urgent and substantive feedback on the specific actions taken in response to these formal demands. Kind Regards

Andrzej Majewski

09/09/2025

From: pcc@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Dear Mr Majewski,

I acknowledge receipt of your complaint, dated 24 July, against the Police and Crime Commissioner, and your subsequent enquiry on 5 September asking for an update.

Firstly, I must apologise for not sending an acknowledgement to your initial enquiry on 24 July; not doing so was an oversight on my part for which I apologise.

I can confirm that, in line with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) processes, your complaint is currently being reviewed by the OPCC Chief Executive. 

I understand that, separately, your complaint review, which is dealt with by an independent Complaint Review Officer, is still being investigated and you will receive a separate response in relation to that review.

Yours sincerely,

R.Goodwin

Rachel Goodwin | Contact Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner | Force Headquarters | Winfrith | Dorset | DT2 8DZ

From: tom.hayes.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Andrzej,

Thank you for getting in touch with the office of Tom Hayes MP.

My name is Tim, and I oversee Tom’s small but dedicated casework team. We’re here to support constituents with a wide range of issues — from housing and benefits to immigration, health, and more. We’ll do our best to guide you through the process, offer advice where we can, and raise your concerns with the appropriate authorities when needed.

Your case has now been opened and assigned to me, and I will be your main point of contact.

We aim to respond to enquiries within three working days. However, as a small team supporting thousands of constituents, we receive hundreds of emails each day and must prioritise the most urgent and time-sensitive cases — such as those involving housing, health, or safeguarding concerns. It can sometimes take longer than we’d like to respond, simply due to the volume of need in our community.

To help us manage cases as fairly and efficiently as possible, we kindly ask that you avoid sending multiple follow-up emails unless there’s a significant update. This helps us focus on progressing each case and ensures everyone gets the attention they need.

We’ll be in touch with an update or a full response as soon as we can. Thank you again for reaching out — we’re here to help.

Kind regards,

Tim Hickling
Caseworker

Office of Tom Hayes

Labour Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East

05/09/2025

To: tom.hayes.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Mr Hayes,

Thank you for the previous response from your caseworker, Tim Hickling, regarding my ongoing complaint against Dorset Police.

I am writing to you again as the situation has not progressed, and the continuing delay is causing me significant distress. Following Mr Hickling’s advice, I have contacted Dorset Police to ask for a timeline for their final decision, but I am yet to receive a substantive response or the decision itself.

I must stress the gravity of this situation. This is not a minor grievance. The actions of the police officers involved, which are the subject of my complaint, directly led to the catastrophic failure and bankruptcy of my business. The lack of a decision from Dorset Police is preventing me from proceeding to the next steps of the process, such as a review by the IOPC or taking the necessary legal action to seek justice and address the financial ruin I have suffered.

I understand and respect that your office cannot intervene in the outcome of the complaint. However, I believe that as my Member of Parliament, you can make representations on my behalf regarding procedural delays and ensure that my case is being handled diligently.

Therefore, I would be very grateful if you could officially write to the Chief Constable of Dorset Police on my behalf to inquire about the status of my complaint (Police Complaint Reference: CO/00448/25) and to ask for an explanation for the considerable delay in providing a final decision.

Your assistance in ensuring due process is followed would be invaluable.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

To: enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk, Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Gross Human Rights Violations by Dorset Police Officers

Related Case References:

• Dorset Police Complaint Ref: CO/00448/25
• IOPC Review Ref: 2024/199375

Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Andrzej Majewski. I am writing to submit a formal notification of a reasonably held suspicion that the serious criminal offence of Perverting the Course of Justice has been committed, alongside gross violations of my human rights, by officers of Dorset Police.

Introduction: A Failure of the Oversight System

For over two years, Dorset Police has been lying, manipulating evidence, and obstructing my path to the truth. I have filed complaints against the Police and Crime Commissioner, Mr David Sidwick, as I believe he is failing in his oversight duties. On 24 July 2025, I submitted a detailed complaint to the Dorset Police and Crime Panel. I received an acknowledgement of receipt, but as of today, 5 September 2025, my complaint has been ignored. The entire complaints process in Dorset is illusory and fails to provide a route to justice for victims of crimes committed by Dorset Police. I am therefore turning directly to the IOPC.

Part 1: Systemic Violations and Cover-Up

My experience indicates a systemic pattern of conduct, not isolated mistakes:

• In June and July 2023, I reported crimes committed by my ex-partner on three separate occasions, seeking justice. Each time, Dorset Police unlawfully refused to investigate, attempting to cover up the matter. This failure was later confirmed in your review report (ref: 2024/199375), which deemed the service I received as a victim “not acceptable”.
• An investigation into my ex-partner was only opened a year later after my numerous complaints and the IOPC report, only to be closed again without consulting the CPS and without interviewing key witnesses – including my neighbours and a person who was present in my home from 16/06/2023 to 24/06/2023, the very day the false allegations were made.
• When I submitted a Subject Access Request, I was informed the waiting time for my data would be 5 months, another flagrant violation of my statutory rights.

Part 2: The Fabricated ‘Intentional Strangulation’ Charge – A Chronology of Manipulation

The central point of my notification is the suspicion that the key allegation that formed the basis of my arrest – ‘Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023’ – was fabricated.

1. Information Provided to IOPC: In your report, you stated that Dorset Police informed you of a PPN document where my ex-partner allegedly made this accusation.
2. Lack of Evidence: This allegation was never made by my ex-partner in court.
3. Contradictory Police Explanations:
   • On22 July 2025, when I demanded to see this document, PC 2138 Pardey wrote that the PPN had been mistakenly attached to a different case by DC Pratt and that the service level was “not acceptable”.
   […] I have reviewed the occurrence 55230098162 and case file 55CH0259223 attached. The
   Public Protection Notification (PPN) the IOPC Review Officer is referring to was attached to a
   different occurrence not 55230098162. It was missed off the case file and the unused
   material schedule by DC Pratt therefore, not in the CPS disclosure bundle. I believe this was
   an oversight on her part, it was overlooked because it was not attached to the occurrence
   relating to 55230098162 she was working on, I do not believe it was a deliberate act.
   However, having reviewed the file, there is evidence by way of statements on the file relating
   to the charge.
   I am very sorry this has happened, the service level on this occasion is not acceptable. DC
   Pratt, has reflected on this and will be more diligent in the future. […]
   
   • Just one day later, on 23 July 2025, the same officer, on behalf of TJ Whittle, completely reversed this story. He stated that no error had occurred and that the PPN was only created on 12 June 2024, containing a different, historical allegation (“Has previously grabbed her by the throat…”) which was also quoted out of context.
   […] Following your email dated 22 July 2025, I have today, reviewed this in more detail. I have
   reviewed all the occurrences and related reports. I believe the Public Protection Notice (PPN)
   the IOPC Review Officer is referring to in point 22 of her report, was created on 12 June 2024
   on Dorset Police Niche system. The PPN states “Has previously grabbed her by the throat and
   pushed onto the bed (this has already been reported, investigated and NFA’d by CPS)”.
   Therefore, I conclude this PPN document would not have been included in the disclosure of
   unused material in your case file to CPS because it was created after the case file was
   submitted by DC Pratt to CPS. There has not been an error made by DC Pratt, I conclude the
   service level on this occasion is acceptable, no further action will be taken. […]

The full quotation from the police records dated June 2023 reads as follows: “During PPN questions the victim also disclosed that around 3 months ago, during an argument the suspect lost the temper and he grabbed her round the throat with one hand pushing her to the bed.”

1. The Impossible Timeline: PC Pardey’s explanation is factually impossible. I am in possession of an official ‘Impending Prosecution’ report dated 13 September 2023, which already lists the charge “INTENTIONAL STRANGULATION ON 24/06/23”. How can a charge from September 2023 be based on a source document allegedly created in June 2024?

Conclusion and Demands

The timeline and contradictory explanations indicate a deliberate manipulation of facts and evidence by PC 2138 Pardey, acting on behalf of TJ Whittle (Head of Complaints & Misconduct Unit), and other officers. These actions represent a fundamental attack on my human rights, including my Right to a Fair Trial (Art. 6 ECHR), Liberty (Art. 5 ECHR), and Respect for Private Life (Art. 8 ECHR). Therefore, I demand:

1. That the IOPC launches an independent criminal investigation into the actions of the officers, including DC Rose Pratt, PC 2138 Pardey, and TJ Whittle, for the offence of Perverting the Course of Justice.
2. That this letter is treated as a formal report of a crime.

Yours sincerely, 

Andrzej Majewski

05/09/2025

To: CRO@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dear Jacqui,

On 24 July 2025, I submitted a detailed and evidenced formal complaint to this Panel regarding the failure of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset, Mr David Sidwick, to fulfil his statutory duties.

Despite more than a month having passed, I have received no response or even an acknowledgement of my correspondence. This passivity in the face of allegations of systemic pathology and potential criminality within Dorset Police is unacceptable. It reinforces my concern that the entire system of oversight for Dorset Police is illusory and incapable of protecting citizens’ rights.

This letter serves as an urgent follow-up and a formal notification of the extreme gravity of my allegations.

Notification of Suspected Fabrication of Charges as a Gross Violation of Human Rights

My previous complaint detailed how officers of Dorset Police, including DC Rose Pratt, destroyed my business and personal life. The central justification for their actions was an allegation of ‘Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023’. I have provided irrefutable evidence that the timeline presented by the police for this allegation is impossible, which leads to the reasonable suspicion that the allegation was fabricated by Dorset Police officers to justify my unlawful arrest and eviction.

The fabrication of charges by police is not a mere procedural error. It is one of the most serious offences a public official can commit and a fundamental attack on human rights, as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The actions of Dorset Police have, in my view, violated the following fundamental rights:

1. The Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6 ECHR): The fabrication of charges is a direct assault on the presumption of innocence, my right to a defence, and the principle of equality of arms. I was forced to defend myself against false evidence, placing me at a gross disadvantage while the police abused their privileged position.
2. The Right to Liberty and Security of Person (Article 5 ECHR): My arrest, predicated on a suspicion derived from fabricated evidence, was by definition not “reasonable.” My subsequent deprivation of liberty was therefore unlawful.
3. The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (Article 8 ECHR): The baseless accusation and the resulting police actions—arrest, eviction, the loss of my home and business—constituted a devastating and unlawful interference in my private and family life, destroying my reputation and relationships.
4. The Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (Article 3 ECHR): The stress, trauma, and psychological consequences of being targeted by an unlawful state-sanctioned attack can be considered a form of inhuman and degrading mental treatment.

An officer who fabricates evidence commits the serious criminal offence of Perverting the Course of Justice, which is punishable by up to life imprisonment. A failure by oversight bodies to act on such allegations is a form of complicity in lawlessness.

Demands

Given the lack of response to my complaint of 24 July 2025 and the gravity of the allegations outlined above, I demand:

1. Immediate written acknowledgement of both my original complaint of 24 July and this subsequent notification.
2. The formal commencement of an investigation by the Panel into the failure of Commissioner David Sidwick to act on these documented signals of potential criminal conduct by his officers.
3. A clear plan and timeline of the actions the Panel intends to take to resolve my complaint.

I must inform you that in the event of your continued silence, I will be forced to take further legal steps, including lodging a complaint against the inaction of the Panel itself with the relevant superior authorities. I will also publicise this matter in the media, highlighting the failure of the entire police oversight system in Dorset.

I await your urgent response.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

30/08/2025

To: DataProtectionAlliance@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding the undue delay in processing my Subject Access Request (SAR), submitted to Dorset Police on [Please insert the date of your original request].

In your correspondence dated 30 May 2025 (reference: 01/DPR/25/008873), you informed me that due to a “significant increase in requests,” the response time might exceed five months.

I wish to formally object to this timeframe. Under Article 12(3) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), you are obliged to respond to a SAR “without undue delay” and at the latest within one month of receipt. The reason you have provided – a high volume of requests – is not a lawful justification for an extension under the Data Protection Act 2018 and constitutes a breach of my statutory rights.

Clarification of the Scope of My Request

To avoid any ambiguity, I hereby clarify that my request pertains to ALL personal data concerning me that is held or controlled by Dorset Police. This includes, but is not limited to:

1. Audio and Video Recordings:
   • All Body Worn Video (BWV) footage in which I am present or discussed, including recordings that contain allegations made against me by my former partner.
   • All recordings of telephone calls (both emergency and non-emergency) made by me, or made by my former partner, where those calls concern me.
   • Any audio or video recordings of police interviews in which I participated, as well as interviews with my former partner to the extent that her statements constitute my personal data.
2. Written and Digital Documentation:
   • All police reports, operational notes, records held on police systems (such as PND, PNC), internal emails, and any other form of internal correspondence containing my personal data.
   • All correspondence (including emails, reports, and notes) between Dorset Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that contains my personal data.
   • Any analyses, risk assessments, decisions, or recommendations made by officers that relate to me.

I assert that the content of any allegations, opinions, or information about me constitutes my personal data under the UK GDPR, regardless of the author or format.

I am aware that some of this material may contain third-party data. To protect third-party privacy, I am willing to receive this data in a redacted format (e.g., via transcription, image blurring, or voice distortion), provided that such redaction does not obscure the meaning and context of my personal data.

Access to the full spectrum of this information is essential for me to pursue legal action for material and non-material damages.

Formal Demand

In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol, this letter constitutes a Letter Before Action. I hereby demand that you:

1. Immediately process my SAR and provide a full response, including all requested data, within 14 days of the date of this email.
2. Confirm that all categories of data specified in the “Clarification of the Scope of My Request” section will be included in your response.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

If I do not receive a satisfactory response within the specified timeframe, I will commence legal proceedings against you in the County Court without further notice. I will seek a court order to compel you to comply with my request and claim damages for the breach of my rights under the UK GDPR.

I await your urgent response.

Yours faithfully,

Andrzej Majewski

24/08/2025

To: VRR@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence dated 22nd July 2025 and for taking steps to consider my request for a case review.

I can confirm that the case reference number to which this request pertains is most likely 55240098686, concerning the case of Andrzej Majewski vs Małgorzata Lidia Kowalska. I must stress that confirming this number is difficult for me, as the investigating officer, Matt Lambert, never used this reference number in his correspondence with me, which demonstrates his lack of professionalism and ignorance in handling this matter.

I wish to express my profound concern and disappointment with the handling of these proceedings to date. What my former partner has done—falsely accusing me and using Dorset Police to destroy my life while she is the actual perpetrator—is abhorrent. However, the actions of Dorset Police in this matter are even more shocking. These are no longer simple mistakes or oversights. In my opinion, this constitutes blatant assistance to my ex-partner in breaking the law, helping her evade responsibility, and deliberately perverting the course of justice.

I want to state unequivocally that I am the victim of domestic abuse and false accusations. If Dorset Police once again denies me justice, I will be forced to initiate civil proceedings against my former partner. Such a turn of events would place Dorset Police in an exceptionally awkward position, especially when I prove in court that I was ignored and denied help despite presenting irrefutable evidence. This situation will undoubtedly become a public scandal.

Therefore, once again, as a tax-paying citizen, I politely but firmly request that you initiate proceedings against Małgorzata Lidia Kowalska. It is the duty of the police, not mine, to bring her to justice.

I have presented you with very serious allegations, supported by extensive evidence (details in the attached PDF document). My ex-partner herself admitted to officers that she physically assaulted me and broke my nose. Despite this, Dorset Police failed to take key investigative steps – neither the neighbours nor a key witness, who was staying in our home for a week leading up to the day of my alleged assault, were interviewed. This is a mockery of justice.

Officer Matt Lambert allegedly interviewed my ex-partner, after which he merely stated that “The account that Ms KOWALSKA has given was deemed to be credible and there is no realistic prospect of conviction…”. When I objected to this decision within seven days and requested a detailed justification, I was completely ignored. My detailed response, in which I pointed out numerous breaches of the Victim’s Code and filed a formal complaint (COM-66412-24-5500-00), also went unanswered.

I will not let this matter rest. As a law-abiding citizen, I cannot remain indifferent when law enforcement is being used for personal revenge. It is terrifying to me that, despite the evidence, witnesses, and negative decisions from the IOPC, Dorset Police not only fails to provide me with assistance but also tries at all costs to silence me to cover up its own incompetence. This is unacceptable in any civilised country governed by the rule of law.

Further complaints to the IOPC regarding serious breaches of the law by Dorset Police officers are already in progress. I sincerely hope I will not be forced to file more. I expect a thorough, objective, and fair review of my request, and I trust that the officers of Dorset Police will finally begin to uphold the law they are sworn to enforce.

Yours faithfully,

Andrzej Majewski

21/08/2025

From: VRR@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Dear Mr Majewski,

Crime Reference Number: 55240098686

Thank you for your request on 22^nd July 2025 to have your case reviewed following the decision by Dorset Police not to prosecute. We apologise for the delay in actioning this request, however since no crime reference number was provided, we looked into all possible occurrences reported around the report date stated. We believe the occurrence you are requesting a review on, which is eligible, is 55240098686.

Your case has been forwarded to an Inspector who will deal with this review within the next 30 working days, namely by, 2^nd October 2025 and make contact with you directly to advise you of their decision.

If you have any further queries regarding the Victim Right to Review process, please contact the Victim Right to Review team, which is part of the Victim & Witness care Unit.  Our contact details are listed below and the team is available to assist you Monday to Thursday 8.30am to 5pm, and Friday 8.30am to 4.30pm.

Yours sincerely

Victim and Witness Care VRR Team

11/08/2025

FROM: enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk

Thank you for contacting the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 23 July 2025. The IOPC reference number is 2025/011524 which you should quote in all future correspondence to us regarding this matter.

We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly.

I am very sorry to hear what you have experienced.

The complaints process is set out in legislation, covered by the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The IOPC must act according to its role as set out in this legislation. It cannot usually act where the relevant authority to deal with a complaint or a review is the police force.

I note from your email that you had a complaint against Dorset Police, under the reference CO/00448/25 and attached PDFs that contained the outcome letter for this complaint. In the outcome letter, dated 23 July 2025, the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Dorset Police offered you a right of review to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) for Dorset should you remain dissatisfied with the complaint outcome.

Under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the relevant review body (RRB) is decided by the police force concerned. They are obliged to look at the nature of the complaint that has been made. They then apply a legal test under Regulation 32 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 to determine which organisation is the RRB.

The IOPC cannot usually change the decision that the force has made. It is advised that you submit your review request directly to the OPCC along with any concerns you have regarding the RRB selection:

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset Force Headquarters

Winfrith

Dorchester

Dorset

DT2 8DZ   

Tel: 01202 229084 

Email: ​pcc@dorset.pnn.police.uk

All the information you need about the review process is available on our website: Reviews and appeals | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

Once the review is finalised, should you remain unhappy with the outcome, the correct way to challenge this will be through the process of Judicial Review, where you ask a judge to review the handling of the complaint to ensure that correct processes have been followed. You can find some details on the following link: www.judiciary.uk. For further information on this process please seek independent legal advice.

Please see the following links to our Complaint Guide and FAQs on our website:

A guide to the complaints process | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Frequently asked questions | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Please see the following links to our Complaint Guide and FAQs on our website:

A guide to the complaints process | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Frequently asked questions | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Kind regards

Peter Hughes

Customer Contact Advisor

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

PO Box 473

Sale

M33 0BW

30/07/2025

To: CRO@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dear Jacqui,

Further to my previous email sent today, to which I attached my completed Review Application Form (Ref: CR25.26.046), I am writing to provide supplementary materials that I omitted to include.

For Mr Corrigan’s full consideration of the context and evidence supporting my application, please find below links to articles and documents that detail the history of my case and the specific failings of Dorset Police.

IOPC Decision:

https://phonesrescue.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/IOPS_Decision.pdf

Comparision of testimonies:

https://phonesrescue.co.uk/courtcase/Comparison_of_Testimonies.pdf

Police Disclosures:

https://phonesrescue.co.uk/courtcase/police.pdf

Statements:

https://phonesrescue.co.uk/courtcase/statements.pdf

Series of articles on the incompetence of Dorset Police:

Series of articles on the incompetence of Dorset Police, Crown Prosecution Service, and Bournemouth Crown Court

I apologise for not including these in my initial email. I believe this information is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the grounds for my review.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

NoFalseAccusation.org

To: CRO@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dear Jacqui,

Thank you for your email of 29th July 2025 and for the attached letter from Mr Richard Corrigan. I acknowledge receipt and understand that Mr Corrigan will be undertaking the review of my complaint (CO/00448/25).

As invited, I am providing further information to detail the grounds for my dissatisfaction and the outcomes I wish to see.

Please find attached the completed Review Application Form. I have used the relevant sections of the form to provide a comprehensive account of my position and the resolutions I am seeking.

I trust this information will provide a clear basis for a thorough and just review.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

Review Request Form

Where to send this review and appeal form

This form should be completed and sent to the Police Complaints Review Officer by
Email: CRO@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Mail: Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Force Headquarters, Winfrith, Dorset, DT2 8DZ

Section 3 – Review/appeal details

Please attach the final decision letter from the police force and any additional documents that are relevant. The final decision letter from the police can help us process your review/appeal more quickly.

*Tell us which organisation handled the complaint?

Dorset Police

Force reference number: This should be on any correspondence you have had from the
force.

CO/00448/25 KP

Please explain why you want to apply for a review/appeal. Please outline if you are unhappy with the way your complaint was recorded or handled, the way it was investigated or the final outcome of the complaint. Please provide details explaining why:

I am applying for a review because I am extremely dissatisfied with the manner in which my complaint (ref: CO/00448/25) was recorded, investigated, and particularly with its final outcome. I believe that the internal investigation conducted by the Dorset Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) is not credible, is internally contradictory, and blatantly avoids addressing the key allegations. Furthermore, the explanations provided by the police, combined with the documents in my possession, raise a reasonable suspicion of evidence manipulation and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

My objections are based on the following documented facts:

1. A fundamental and inexplicable contradiction in the timeline of evidence concerning the allegation of ‘Intentional Strangulation’.

The primary reason I consider the PSD’s investigation to be a sham is the impossible timeline of events.

• In an official police document, an ‘Impending Prosecution’ report dated 13th September 2023, which I possess, there is an unequivocal charge of “INTENTIONAL STRANGULATION ON 24/06/23”. This document was the basis for my arrest and subsequent police actions that destroyed my professional and personal life.
• Meanwhile, in a letter dated 23rd July 2025, PC 2138 Pardey of the PSD claims that the Public Protection Notice (PPN) document, which allegedly contained this accusation, was only created on the police system on 12th June 2024.
• This timeline is physically impossible. The police could not, in official records from September 2023, rely on an allegation originating from a document that, according to their own latest claims, was created nine months later. This glaring contradiction undermines the credibility of the entire internal investigation and suggests that the ‘intentional strangulation’ charge may have been fabricated by Dorset Police officers to justify unlawful actions against me, and that the PSD’s current explanations are a clumsy attempt to cover this up.

2. Misleading the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and suspicion of lying to a public official.

The issue of the alleged PPN document is all the more shocking because Dorset Police cited its existence before an independent oversight body.

• In the official IOPC decision dated 27th May 2025 (ref: 2024/199375), in paragraph 22, caseworker Kathryn McCarthy unequivocally states that the allegation of ‘intentional strangulation’ “was disclosed during a PPN (Public Protection Notice) with your ex-partner and officers.” This means that someone from Dorset Police formally informed the IOPC that such a document existed and contained specific testimony.
• However, as I have demonstrated in point 1, the existence of this document at the time the charge was made against me is logistically impossible. Combined with the fact that the police are denying me access to this alleged evidence (point 3), this leads to the only logical conclusion: there is a high probability that no such PPN document exists, and that Dorset Police knowingly misled and lied to an IOPC official to justify their prior actions. This is an extremely serious accusation that undermines any credibility the force may have.

3. Deliberately obstructing access to the truth by ignoring a Subject Access Request (SAR).

To definitively clarify the matter of the alleged PPN document, I took legal steps to obtain it directly from the police.

• On 30th May 2025, I submitted a formal Subject Access Request (SAR, ref: 01/DPR/25/008873), demanding access to all personal data held about me, with a specific focus on the aforementioned PPN.
• Dorset Police ignored the statutory one-month deadline for a response, which expired on 30th June 2025, and to this day has failed to provide me with my data.
• This is not a mere administrative delay – especially in the context that the ICO has already issued a reprimand to this force for similar practices. I consider this to be a deliberate obstruction of my access to my own data and an unlawful act intended to prevent me from verifying the authenticity of police documents. This is further proof that the police are actively trying to hide evidence of their own misconduct.

4. Chaotic and mutually exclusive explanations from the Professional Standards Department (PSD).

The unreliability of the PSD’s investigation is further confirmed by the fact that I received two official, completely contradictory final outcome letters in the same case within 24 hours.

• 22nd July 2025: In the first letter, PC Pardey admitted that the key PPN document had been mistakenly omitted from the case file sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). He stated that the level of service was “not acceptable” and apologised for the error.
• 23rd July 2025: Just one day later, the same officer, PC Pardey, completely retracted his previous findings in a subsequent letter. He claimed that no error had occurred after all, and that the suddenly found PPN document related to a different, historical event and was created on 12th June 2024 (which leads to the contradiction described in point 1).
• Such a drastic and illogical change of position within a single day is proof of the investigation’s lack of integrity and chaos. It appears to be a desperate attempt to fit a narrative to the inconvenient facts I was challenging, rather than a genuine effort to resolve the matter.

5. The systematic violation of my rights as a victim by PC Matt Lambert and the attempt to cover up the case.

The actions of PC Matt Lambert, who took over the investigation of my reports against my ex-partner, are another blatant example of the violation of law and procedure.

• Unjustified case closure: On 4th November 2024, PC Lambert closed the investigation, despite the existence of strong evidence, including the perpetrator’s admission in a police report to assaulting me and breaking my nose (“after she had hit him”).
• Ignoring witnesses and bypassing the CPS: The decision to take No Further Action (NFA) was made unilaterally, without interviewing key witnesses and without the required referral of the case for independent assessment by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
• Violation of a victim’s rights: In a terse email on 4th November 2024, PC Lambert merely stated that my ex-partner’s account was “deemed to be credible”. He ignored my formal request for a detailed justification for this decision, to which I was entitled under the Victims’ Code. He also failed to inform me of my right to challenge his decision under the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme. PC Lambert’s actions are not an isolated mistake but fit a pattern of systemic disregard for my rights and appear to be a deliberate attempt to cover up the matter.

6. A systemic problem and a lack of oversight.

This issue is not limited to this single complaint. It is part of a wider, systemic problem within Dorset Police, which I have reported to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). My reports of domestic violence I experienced have been consistently ignored, and my complaints against specific officers have not been met with an appropriate response. The lack of effective oversight from the PCC, David Sidwick, has led to a situation where I feel completely defenceless against a state body that, instead of protecting, destroys a citizen’s life based on fabricated or manipulated evidence.

In light of the above, the manner in which my complaint was handled was scandalous. The final outcome, contained in two contradictory letters, is illogical and not credible. The internal investigation did not clarify but only deepened the chaos and confirmed my conviction that serious misconduct was committed by officers in my case. I demand a thorough, external, and independent review that will finally address the evidence of a possible criminal offence committed by police officers.

Please explain what you would like to happen. What can happen depends on the circumstances of the complaint and whether it is a review or appeal. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your complaint or the way it was investigated, you may want to suggest an alternative final outcome.

Given the gravity of the failings and the evidence of misconduct, I expect the following outcomes:

1. An end to unlawful practices: First and foremost, I demand that Dorset Police cease breaking the law and begin to operate with transparency and integrity.
2. Fulfilment of statutory duties and justice for the victim: I demand that Dorset Police begins to fulfil its statutory duties – to maintain public order, prevent crime, and to detect and prosecute offenders – and to finally start protecting me as a victim of domestic violence and false accusations. I demand that the investigation against my ex-partner is reopened and that she is brought to justice.
3. Accountability for misconduct: I demand that all Dorset Police officers who have been found to have broken the law, misled investigations, or violated my rights are dismissed from the service.
4. Compensation for damages: I demand that Dorset Police pays compensation for the destruction of my life and for driving my company into bankruptcy as a direct result of their unlawful actions and baseless allegations.
5. Full disclosure of information: I demand that Dorset Police immediately complies with my Subject Access Request and provides me with all documents it holds about me, especially the PPN document in which my ex-partner allegedly accuses me of ‘Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023’.
6. Identification of the source of misinformation to the IOPC: I demand to be informed which Dorset Police officer provided the IOPC with the information about the alleged PPN document containing my ex-partner’s accusation of ‘Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023’, and I demand to be provided with the reference number of this specific PPN document.

In light of the above, the manner in which my complaint was handled was scandalous. The final outcome, contained in two contradictory letters, is illogical and not credible. The internal investigation did not clarify but only deepened the chaos and confirmed my conviction that serious misconduct was committed by officers in my case. I demand a thorough, external, and independent review that will finally address the evidence of a possible criminal offence committed by police officers.

Section 4 – Confirmation that information provided is correct

I confirm the information I have provided is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Name: Andrzej Majewski

Date: 30/06/2025..

29/07/2025

From: CRO@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dear Mr Majewski,

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for a review of your recent complaint to Dorset Police. I also acknowledge receipt of your email dated 23 July 2025 sent to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) via the CRO email. I will forward this to Dorset Police as the subject of your email is ‘Formal Complaint and Notification of a Suspected Crime’. The OPCC does not deal with these issues, we only carry out the complaint review function.  

Please find attached a letter from Richard Corrigan who will undertake the review. This explains more about what a review of your complaint will consider. 

We will begin to undertake the review based on the information you have supplied so far. If you wish to provide further information, for example more detail around why you are dissatisfied with the outcome of your complaint and what you wish to see as an outcome, this will also be considered.

I attach a Review Application Form for you to use to provide any further detail should you wish, however the review can be undertaken without it. If you wish to use this form, please return it within 14 days of receipt, either via email to CRO@dorset.pnn.police.uk or in the post to the Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner, Force Headquarters, Winfrith, Dorset DT2 8DZ.

Please note that there is no statutory timeframe for completing police complaint reviews. We will endeavour to complete your review within 30 working days, and if there is likely to be any significant delay I will keep you regularly updated as to our progress.

Kind regards,

Jacqui

Jacqui Kinch| Support Officer

REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DORSET POLICE COMPLAINT CO/00448/25
OUR REF: CR25.26.046
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to request a review
of the outcome of your complaint to Dorset Police.
My name is Richard Corrigan, and my role is delegated by the Police and Crime Commissioner
to carry out the review of your complaint.
I will endeavour to complete my review of your complaint as soon as practically possible following
receipt of the application form, however if it appears that the review will be significantly delayed,
I will contact and update you with an estimated timeframe for completion.
What to expect
A review of your complaint is not just a quality check of what has happened; it offers the
opportunity to consider whether the complaint outcome is reasonable and proportionate, and if
not, to put things right.
The types of things a review process will consider include:

• Whether any findings, determinations or the outcome to the complaint were reasonable
  and proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint.
• Whether any actions proposed were reasonable and proportionate
• Whether the process and method used to handle your complaint was reasonable and
  proportionate
• Whether you were provided with sufficient information during the process, and about the
  outcome of your complaint.
  If your complaint has been subject to an investigation undertaken by the police force and I find
  that the outcome is not reasonable or proportionate, I may recommend that your complaint is re-
  investigated, referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, or make recommendation
  with regards to the action that should be taken such as referring the matter to be dealt with under
  criminal, disciplinary or performance proceedings.
  I may take other actions which I consider appropriate to resolve your dissatisfaction, for example
  requiring that an explanation and / or apology is made.
  If your complaint has been handled without the need for formal investigation, and I find that the
  outcome of your complaint is not reasonable or proportionate, I may recommend that your
  complaint is referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, recommend that the matter
  is investigated by the Police Force, or take other appropriate action to resolve your
  dissatisfaction.
  I will notify you of the outcome of my review, and the reasons for my decision. If I recommend an
  investigation, or re-investigation of the matter, I will provide you with an outline of what I require
  to be addressed in the investigation.
  Depending on your wishes, I can provide you with updates in both writing and by another method.
  Consideration will be given to whether it is appropriate to offer or grant requests for a meeting if
  this is the best way to keep you properly informed. As soon as practicable after any such meeting,
  you will be sent a written record of the meeting with an explanation of how any concerns raised
  will be addressed.
  If you would prefer me to communicate this to you by other means, as well as in writing, I will do
  our best to accommodate your needs.
  Data Protection
  For details about the processing of your personal data, and your data protection rights, please
  refer to our Privacy Policy – community contact and correspondence, which can be accessed
  on our website: https://www.dorset.police.uk/news-information/legal-privacy/. A printed copy
  can be provided on request.
  If you require further information at this stage, please contact me.
  Yours sincerely
  Richard Corrigan
  Police Complaints Review Officer
  Email: cro@dorset.pnn.police.uk

24/07/2025

To: Karen.Pardey@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Dear Karen (PC 2138 Pardey),

Thank you for your email.

However, your response does not address the specific and direct questions I raised in my email dated 23 July 2025 (19:31 hrs).

My email was intended to formally clarify that my report, logged under reference 55250107745, is a criminal allegation of Perverting the Course of Justice against a named individual, Małgorzata Lidia Kowalska. This report is not a complaint against the police, but an allegation of a criminal offence prompted by newly disclosed evidence. It is a separate and distinct matter from my ongoing complaint against Dorset Police (ref: CO/00448/25).

Your response appears to conflate these two separate issues and treats my formal crime report as merely an element of my complaint against the police. The referral of this matter to the Professional Standards Department, rather than a criminal investigation department, reinforces this misunderstanding.

For the avoidance of all doubt, and to ensure this matter is handled correctly, I require a direct answer to the following questions which you have so far failed to provide:

1. Is the assigned reference number 55250107745 a Crime Reference Number (CRN)? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice.
2. If it is not a CRN, please provide a formal explanation as to why my allegation of a serious criminal offence is not being recorded as a crime, in line with the Home Office Counting Rules.
3. What steps will be taken to investigate this matter as a criminal allegation against the named suspect? Your reference to a “right of review” is applicable to police complaints, not to the investigation of a crime reported by a member of the public.

I insist that this report be treated as a formal crime report, assigned a valid CRN, and transferred from the Professional Standards Department to the appropriate criminal investigation department for action.

Please provide a substantive response that addresses these specific points.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

To: Karen.Pardey@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Dear PC Pardey,

I refer to your letter dated 23 July 2025, in which you presented a new version of events regarding the key Public Protection Notice (PPN) document. I am writing to draw your attention to a fundamental and seemingly impossible contradiction in the timeline you have presented.

In your letter, you state that the PPN document, in which my ex-partner allegedly accuses me of ‘Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023‘, was only created on the police system on 12 June 2024. To quote your letter:

“the Public Protection Notice (PPN)… was created on 12 June 2024 on Dorset Police Niche system.”

This explanation is factually impossible. I am in possession of an official police document, titled ‘IMPENDING PROSECUTION (S)’, which is dated 13 September 2023. This document, which I can provide at any time, already lists the specific charge of

‘INTENTIONAL STRANGULATION ON 24/06/23’ as of September 2023.

In light of this, please explain:

How is it possible that a charge of ‘Intentional Strangulation’ was officially recorded on my police record in September 2023, if the PPN document you claim is the source for this allegation was supposedly created nine months later, in June 2024?

This gross discrepancy in the dates further undermines the credibility of all explanations I have received from Dorset Police to date. Therefore, I must insist once again: please provide me with the official reference number for this PPN document that you claim was created on 12 June 2024.

Please be advised that this new and significant discrepancy will form a key part of my formal request for review by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

To: David.Sidwick@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dear Mr Sidwick,

My name is Andrzej Majewski. I am writing to you as a Bournemouth resident and a local entrepreneur. For over two years, I have been fighting for justice in a case where the actions of Dorset Police officers have not only led to the bankruptcy of my company, Phones Rescue Ltd, but also bear the hallmarks of a criminal offence. My attempts to seek clarity have been met with hostility, reluctance, and what evidence suggests is a cover-up by the force’s Professional Standards Department.

I am appealing to you for your urgent intervention as I have lost all faith in the internal accountability mechanisms of Dorset Police. My case illustrates a systemic problem, comprised of documented facts:

• Unlawful Action & Business Collapse Based on Fabricated Allegations: I was unlawfully arrested and evicted in June 2023 based on an allegation of ‘Intentional Strangulation’ on 24/06/2023. The allegation was baseless – my ex-partner never raised it in court, and the entire case ultimately resulted in an NFA decision due to a lack of evidence. Nevertheless, these actions led to the collapse of my company, violating my right to property (Human Rights Act 1998).
• Suspected Evidence Forgery and an Impossible Timeline: The Dorset Police PSD has provided contradictory and factually impossible explanations regarding the evidence for the above allegation. They claimed a PPN document, its supposed source, was created in June 2024. This is in stark contradiction to an official ‘Impending Prosecution’ police report from September 2023, which already lists the charge. This discrepancy indicates evidence manipulation. BCA-81385-25-5555-IR04
  
• Systematic Gender Discrimination and Violation of Victim’s Rights: As a male reporting domestic abuse, my rights were systematically violated. My reports were ignored, which the IOPC determined was an “unacceptable” level of service. I was refused a police escort to retrieve my property, and officers knowingly misled me by stating my counter-allegation could not run concurrently with the case against me, a claim the IOPC report confirmed was false. This constitutes a breach of the Victims’ Code and the Equality Act 2010.
• Data Protection (GDPR) Breaches: Dorset Police officers committed at least two serious data breaches, sending sensitive information to a wrong address where I have never lived, and leaving a voicemail containing personal data on an incorrect phone number. Crucially, the officer responsible failed to report these breaches to the ICO as required by law.

The evidence in my case points not to isolated mistakes, but to a pattern of behaviour, including the potential criminal offence of Perverting the Course of Justice committed by officers.

Therefore, I request your urgent and direct intervention. I ask that you, as the Police and Crime Commissioner, personally review the evidence and ensure that an independent criminal investigation – managed outside of the Dorset Police force – is launched into the conduct of officers DC Rose Pratt, PC 2138 Pardey, and TJ Whittle.

After two years of fighting for justice, I trust that you will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves and act to ensure that those responsible are held accountable.

Yours sincerely,

To: policeandcrimepanel@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Andrzej Majewski. I am writing to lodge a formal complaint against the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset, Mr David Sidwick, concerning his failure to fulfil key statutory duties, including the duty to effectively scrutinise Dorset Police and hold it to account.

My two-year fight for justice, documented in numerous reports and official correspondence, has uncovered systemic problems within Dorset Police, including suspected evidence manipulation, gender discrimination, and gross violations of victims’ rights. These actions led to the bankruptcy of my company, Phones Rescue Ltd, and the destruction of my personal and professional life. Despite the Commissioner’s office being informed of these gross irregularities, no effective intervention has been taken.

Specific Allegations Against the Police and Crime Commissioner

1. Failure to Ensure Community Needs are Met and to Restore Trust (Community needs and relationships)

The Commissioner’s office, after receiving my detailed letter describing the misconduct, limited its response to a bureaucratic referral, taking no action to protect me as a victim or to restore my trust in policing.

• Evidence: In an email dated 12 December 2023, Nicola Senior from the Commissioner’s office acknowledged that the difficulties I faced were “not in keeping with the Commissioner’s expectations”. Despite this, the only action taken was to refer my case back to the same, flawed Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Dorset Police. This is a passive response to a signal of deep-seated pathology.

2. Failure to Hold the Chief Constable to Account

The Commissioner is responsible for the oversight of the Chief Constable. The systemic problems I have documented demonstrate a failure of this oversight.

• Evidence: The office of the Chief Constable, Amanda Pearson, has long been aware of my case¹¹¹¹. Nevertheless, under her command, officers have:

• • Manipulated evidence by creating an impossible timeline (an allegation from September 2023 allegedly originating from a document created in June 2024).
  • Repeatedly breached the law, as confirmed by the IOPC which judged the level of service as “unacceptable”.
  • Lied in official police reports. The lack of a visible response from the Commissioner to these facts is a dereliction of his duty to hold the force’s leadership to account.

3. Failure in Oversight of the Police Complaints System (Complaint functions)

The complaints system in Dorset, which the Commissioner is supposed to oversee, has proven to be unreliable and likely dishonest.

• Evidence: Two official, mutually exclusive letters from PC Pardey of the PSD, sent within 24 hours (22 and 23 July 2025). In the first letter, PC Pardey admits to a critical error and apologises. In the second, he retracts everything and denies that an error occurred.

4. Failure to Uphold the Police and Crime Plan

The practices of Dorset Police are in stark contrast to the Commissioner’s official objectives.

• Evidence: The Commissioner’s office states that a priority is to “fight violent crime” and for “the victim’s voice to be listened to”². Meanwhile:

• My repeated reports of a violent assault (a broken nose), confirmed by the perpetrator’s own admission, are ignored.
• My voice as a victim was systematically disregarded, and officers (PC Chubb, PC Pratt) lied to me that my report could not be progressed, which was untrue³³³³.

5. Failure to React to Complaints Regarding the Attempt to Cover Up the Case by PC Matt Lambert

The actions of PC Lambert, who took over my reports against my ex-partner, indicate a continuation of systemic problems and a potential attempt to cover up the entire matter.

• Evidence:
  • Unjustified Case Closure: On 4 November 2024, PC Lambert closed the investigation into Malgorzata Kowalska, arbitrarily deeming her account “credible” despite the police being in possession of her admission of guilt for a prior assault and the details of a witness who was never contacted ⁴.

Bypassing the CPS: The decision to close the case was made unilaterally by PC Lambert and his supervisor, without the required referral of the case for independent review by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) ⁵.

• • Systematic Disregard: PC Lambert repeatedly ignored my emails asking about the status of the investigation and my stolen property (including my passport), violating my rights under the Victims’ Code.
  • Lack of Action on Formal Complaints: I was forced to file a formal complaint against PC Lambert (ref: COM-66412-24-5500-00), which was also ignored, and his improper conduct continued.

Conclusion and Demands

The evidence clearly indicates that the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset, Mr David Sidwick, is failing to fulfil his fundamental duties. His passivity in the face of documented, systemic pathologies within the force he oversees undermines the purpose of his office.

In light of the above, I demand that the Police and Crime Panel:

1. Formally investigate the presented allegations concerning the dereliction of duty by Commissioner David Sidwick.
2. Issue an official recommendation for the Commissioner to take immediate steps to ensure an independent, external criminal investigation is launched into the suspected offence of Perverting the Course of Justice by officers DC Rose Pratt, PC 2138 Pardey, TJ Whittle, PC Matt Lambert, and others.
3. Oblige the Commissioner to conduct an audit and reform of the Dorset Police Professional Standards Department.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

23/07/2025

From: complaints&misconduct@dorset.pnn.police.uk

COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE
I refer to the final outcome letter I sent to you yesterday dated 23 July 2025 concerning officers
in this force.
When handling your complaint, I took reasonable and proportional lines of enquires to
establish whether the service level was acceptable or not when answering your complaint
regarding DC Pratt answering your email enquiry dated 28 May 2025. I found the service level
acceptable and offered an explanation.
I have then answered the question you posed to DC Pratt in your email dated 28 May 2025
and found the level of service by Dorset Police on this occasion was not acceptable.
You question to DC Pratt was:
Concerning the charge of Non-Fatal Intentional Strangulation which was deemed no
further action (NFA) by the CPS on 12 June 2024. You state you have not found any
direct statement from your former partner regarding this specific allegation. However,
the report you received from the IOPC states “This was disclosed during a PPN (Public
Protection Notice) with your ex-partner and officers.” You would like to know why the
PPN was not disclosed to you in the evidence bundle provided directly by Dorset
Police.
Following your email dated 22 July 2025, I have today, reviewed this in more detail. I have
reviewed all the occurrences and related reports. I believe the Public Protection Notice (PPN)
the IOPC Review Officer is referring to in point 22 of her report, was created on 12 June 2024
on Dorset Police Niche system. The PPN states “Has previously grabbed her by the throat and
pushed onto the bed (this has already been reported, investigated and NFA’d by CPS)”.
Therefore, I conclude this PPN document would not have been included in the disclosure of
unused material in your case file to CPS because it was created after the case file was
submitted by DC Pratt to CPS. There has not been an error made by DC Pratt, I conclude the
service level on this occasion is acceptable, no further action will be taken.
I apologise for the wrong information and then conclusion being drawn with regards to your
question to DC Pratt from your email dated 28 May 2025 in my letter dated 22 July 2025.

Following your email dated 22 July 2025, I wanted to re-examine the reports and subsequently
update you on my findings to ensure openness and transparency.
The remainer of my letter dated 22 July remains unchanged.
You have the right to request a review of this decision to the Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner. There is no right of review to the IOPC.
The review will consider whether the complaint was handled reasonably and proportionately.
You have 28 days within which to make your application for a review. The 28th day is 19 August

Requests for reviews received after 28 days may not be allowed unless there are
exceptional circumstances.
If you do decide to apply for a review, please email CRO@dorset.pnn.police.uk or write to the
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner at the following address:
Complaints Review Officer
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
Force HQ
Winfrith
Dorset DT2 8DZ
Yours sincerely
PC 2138 Pardey
on behalf of
T J WHITTLE
Head of Complaints & Misconduct Unit

To: complaints-misconduct@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Dear PC Pardey,

Thank you for your latest letter dated 23 July 2025, which attempts to correct the conclusions from your letter of the previous day. Unfortunately, your new explanation raises even more questions and reinforces my conviction that this matter has been handled in a chaotic and unprofessional manner.

I will begin with your phrasing: ‘I believe the Public Protection Notice (PPN) the IOPC Review Officer is referring to…’. Police reports and decisions cannot be based on an officer’s ‘belief’, but on hard, verifiable facts. The use of such language in an official document is unacceptable and undermines the credibility of the entire complaint handling process.

Furthermore, the passage you quote in your latest letter – ‘Has previously grabbed her by the throat and pushed onto the bed’ – is taken out of context in a way that completely misrepresents the facts. The full quotation from the police document (Police Disclosure Page 16) reads: “During PPN questions the victim also disclosed that around 3 months ago, during an argument the suspect lost the temper and he grabbed her round the throat with one hand pushing her to the bed. She also disclosed that he has kicked her in the stomach previously, she thinks this was around 1 year ago. She could not provide any more details for either assault.”

The above quotation unequivocally refers to an alleged, unsubstantiated incident from three months prior, not the incident for which I was arrested. The allegation that led to my unlawful eviction and the destruction of my business concerned a charge of: ‘Intentional strangulation on 24/06/2023’. Your attempt to conflate these two separate matters is misleading.

Most disturbing, however, is the complete reversal of your position within 24 hours. In your letter of 22 July, you wrote: “The Public Protection Notification (PPN) … was attached to a different occurrence… It was missed off the case file … by DC Pratt therefore, not in the CPS disclosure bundle. … I am very sorry this has happened, the service level on this occasion is not acceptable.”

One day later, on 23 July, you wrote something entirely different: “…this PPN document would not have been included … because it was created after the case file was submitted … There has not been an error made by DC Pratt, I conclude the service level on this occasion is acceptable…”

Such a 180-degree reversal of your narrative appears to be a desperate attempt to cover up negligence and incompetence. The manner in which Dorset Police manages citizens’ critical personal data will be reported by me to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

In light of the above, I demand a clear answer to the following questions:

1. What is the occurrence number of the ‘different occurrence’ to which, as you originally stated on 22 July, DC Pratt mistakenly attached the PPN document?
2. Please provide me with the reference number of the PPN document in which my ex-partner allegedly reports the specific act of ‘Intentional strangulation on 24/06/2023’.

I completely reject the conclusions of your latest letter. Due to the gross contradictions, misrepresentation of facts, and the constant changes in the official police position, I hereby submit a formal request for a full and independent review of my complaint by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

To: enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk

Formal Complaint and Notification of a Suspected Crime: Evidence Manipulation and Perverting the Course of Justice by Dorset Police Officers

Regarding the conduct of:

• OIC Rose Pratt (Constable number 0105)
• PC 2138 Pardey
• TJ Whittle (Head of Complaints & Misconduct Unit)

Related Case References:

• Dorset Police Complaint Ref: CO/00448/25, CO/01435/23
• IOPC Review Ref: 2024/199375

Summary of Notification: I hereby submit a formal notification of a reasonably held suspicion that the above-named police officers have committed the criminal offence of evidence manipulation and Perverting the Course of Justice. Evidence indicates that a key allegation, which formed the basis of my arrest and unlawful eviction, may have been fabricated or was knowingly misrepresented in official documentation, and that a subsequent attempt was made to cover up this matter by providing me with contradictory and misleading explanations.

Chronology of Events and Evidence:

1. The Basis of Arrest: My arrest and eviction on 24 June 2023 was justified by Dorset Police based on a single, key, and most serious allegation: ‘Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023’.
2. Information Provided to the IOPC: Your review decision (ref: 2024/199375) makes it clear that Dorset Police informed the IOPC that this specific allegation was disclosed during the creation of a Public Protection Notice (PPN) document. This establishes that Dorset Police claimed to be in possession of evidence for this specific allegation.

Lack of Corroboration: The allegation of ‘Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023’ was never raised by my ex-partner in any court filings or during her testimony under oath in the family court in Bournemouth.

The ‘Disappearing’ Evidence and Contradictory Explanations:

• In a letter dated 22 July 2025, PC Pardey admitted that the PPN document had been attached to the wrong occurrence by DC Pratt and missed from the CPS bundle , describing the service level as ‘not acceptable’.
• Just 24 hours later, in a letter dated 23 July 2025, the same officer completely retracted this finding. He then claimed that no error had occurred and that the PPN in question actually contained a different, historical allegation ( ‘Has previously grabbed her by the throat…’). The original, specific allegation was substituted with an out-of-context quote concerning a different matter.

Conclusion: This sequence of events is alarming. Dorset Police first informed the IOPC that it possessed evidence of a specific, serious crime. When asked to produce this evidence, the force first claimed it was lost due to an error, then a day later denied the error and substituted the original allegation with a completely different one.

The key evidence for the ‘Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023’ allegation, upon which my arrest was predicated, has, in effect, ‘disappeared’, and in its place, the police are providing contradictory and illogical explanations.

The actions detailed above raise a reasonable suspicion that the allegation may never have existed in the form presented by the police, and that its supposed existence was used to justify unlawful actions against me. The subsequent actions of PC Pardey and TJ Whittle, involving the sudden reversal of official findings, bear the hallmarks of an attempt to cover up this matter.

Demand: I demand that the IOPC launch an independent criminal investigation into the actions of the named officers to determine whether the offence of Perverting the Course of Justice has been committed.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

To: complaints-misconduct@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Dear Karen,

Thank you for your prompt response and for assigning the reference number 55250107745 to my report.

I am writing to clarify the nature of my report to avoid any misunderstanding, particularly in light of its referral to the Professional Standards Department.

My report is a direct consequence of receiving official information from both Dorset Police (in letters dated 22 and 23 July 2025, complaint ref: CO/00448/25) and from the earlier IOPC report. According to these documents, Dorset Police is in possession of a PPN document in which my ex-partner allegedly accuses me of ‘Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023’. As I have stated in previous reports, this allegation was never raised by her under oath in the family court, which creates a fundamental contradiction and forms the basis for suspecting that a criminal offence has been committed.

Therefore, I wish to formally clarify that my report under reference 55250107745 was intended as a formal allegation of the criminal offence of Perverting the Course of Justice by my ex-partner, Malgorzata Lidia Kowalska. Whilst this information is of course relevant to my complaint against Dorset Police, I insist that it be treated as a separate crime report and that a criminal investigation into her actions be opened. Can you please confirm what steps will be taken to investigate this as a criminal matter?

In light of this, please provide unambiguous confirmation: is the assigned reference number 55250107745 a Crime Reference Number (CRN)? I ask because the official confirmation I received after submitting my report stated that within 5 days I would receive ‘a crime reference number or, if we can’t take action, an explanation as to why’. If the provided number is not a CRN, then, in accordance with your own stated procedure, I demand that a CRN is formally assigned to this case, or that a formal explanation is provided as to why you are refusing to treat my submission as a crime report.

Please confirm that my report will be forwarded to the appropriate criminal investigation department and not merely treated as another element of my complaint against the police.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

22/07/2025

From: complaints&misconduct@dorset.pnn.police.uk

COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE
I refer to the complaint which you made on 5 May 2025 concerning officers in this force.
Thank you for bringing your complaint about Dorset Police to my attention, as it has allowed
me to review the standards of the service we deliver.
Your complaint has been formally recorded within the provisions of Part 2 of the Police Reform
Act 2002.
I am PC 2138 Pardey of Dorset Police. My role in your complaint is to determine, based on
the relevant evidence, whether the issues raised in your complaint have identified that the
level of service you have received from Dorset Police was acceptable or not.
In carrying out my determination of your complaint, I have to consider all of the issues
surrounding this matter and decide on the most appropriate course of action. Evidence is a
key factor in determining my decision, but I also consider our service delivery and the context
in which the matter you raised occurred. I also have to consider what is reasonable and
proportionate, the relevant law and the standards of professional behaviour expected of
people who work for Dorset Police.
On 5 May 2025 you made a complaint about PC Lambert regarding his handling of the
investigation involving your ex-partner. In your complaint you state, your ex-partner assaulted
you. PC Lambert failed to take the appropriate action or initiate criminal proceedings against
your ex-partner.
This concern has already been dealt with under complaint CO/1435/23, it was reviewed by
the IOPC reference 2024/199375 and not upheld.
On 19 May 2025 I sent you a letter advising you that part of your complaint had already been
dealt with and would not be covered again. I requested specific information you wished to
bring to my attention to review in your new complaint; I did not get a response from you;
therefore, a second letter was sent to you on 18 June 2025.
On 22 June 2025, you replied to my letter stating your current concerns are the ongoing lack
of response to your emails from DC Pratt and PC Lambert. You expect immediate intervention to obtain responses to your emails dated 28 May 2025. You attached copies of
the emails you sent to DC Pratt and PC Lambert.
(I will address the questions you have raised in your emails to DC Pratt and PC Lambert
separately).
PC Lambert received your email asking reasons why the case under reference 55240098686
was not prosecuted, the reviewing supervisors’ details and whether the case went to CPS.
This case was filed 8 November 2024, PC Lambert is a response officer who works shifts
and carries his own workload. It is not reasonable or proportionate for him to respond to your
emails seven months after a case is closed. Between you sending him your email and you
raising your complaint, it was 25 days; you had not sent you email to PC Lambert when you
first raised your complaint with Dorset Police on 5 May 2025. The service level is acceptable,
not further action will be taken.
DC Pratt received your email on 28 May 2025 concerning the charge of Non-Fatal Intentional
Strangulation which was deemed no further action (NFA) by the CPS on 12 June 2024.
DC Pratt has informed me she received several hostile emails from you during the
investigation, she was advised from her Detective Inspector not to reply to your emails unless
it was to update you on the investigation. The investigation concluded on 12 June 2024 when
the case was deemed no further action (NFA) from the CPS. This is why she has not replied
to your email from 28 May 2025 and has asked me to reply on her behalf. The time from you
emailing DC Pratt and raising your concern is 25 days, the service level is acceptable, no
further action will be taken.
Questions raised to PC Lambert via email on 28 May 2025:

Was the case at any stage consulted with, or formally referred to, the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) for a charging decision? If so, when did this occur and
what was the outcome of this consultation/CPS decision? If not, why was it not
considered appropriate to refer the matter to the CPS?
The CPS was not consulted, the review supervisor applied the ‘Full Code Test’.
This is a two-stage test which must be applied each time a charging decision is made,
whether it is made by the police or the CPS – the evidential stage and the public interest
stage. The evidential stage must be met before the public interest stage can be considered.
Question raised to DC Pratt via email dated 28 May 2025

What specific aspects of Ms Kowalska’s account were deemed credible, and on
what basis?

What specific information, from that which was supplied, led to the conclusion that
there is no realistic prospect of conviction, especially in the context of the evidence I
presented.
I believe this has already been answered in the IOPC review 2024/199375 under point 31.
Why do they refuse to initiate an investigation against your ex-partner?
I would challenge that there was a refusal to investigate the allegations made against your
ex-partner, as demonstrated by crime report 55240098686. The decision to NFA was
communicated to you in an email and explained by PC Matt Lambert. I believe you were
provided with a sufficient about why this had been decided.

Who exactly (what position/role within Dorset Police) conducted the “supervision
review” and made the final NFA decision in this matter?
The supervisor reviewing the case was PS 416 Humphry.

Was the case at any stage consulted with, or formally referred to, the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) for a charging decision? If so, when did this occur and
what was the outcome of this consultation/CPS decision? If not, why was it not
considered appropriate to refer the matter to the CPS?
The CPS was not consulted, the review supervisor applied the ‘Full Code Test’.
This is a two-stage test which must be applied each time a charging decision is made,
whether it is made by the police or the CPS – the evidential stage and the public interest
stage. The evidential stage must be met before the public interest stage can be considered.
Question raised to DC Pratt via email dated 28 May 2025:

DC Pratt received your email on 28 May 2025 concerning the charge of Non Fatal
Intentional Strangulation which was deemed no further action (NFA) by the CPS on 12
June 2024. You state you have not found any direct statement from your former
partner regarding this specific allegation. However, the report you received from the
IOPC states “This was disclosed during a PPN (Public Protection Notice) with your ex-
partner and officers.” You would like to know why the PPN was not disclosed to you in
the evidence bundle provided directly by Dorset Police.
I have reviewed the occurrence 55230098162 and case file 55CH0259223 attached. The
Public Protection Notification (PPN) the IOPC Review Officer is referring to was attached to a
different occurrence not 55230098162. It was missed off the case file and the unused
material schedule by DC Pratt therefore, not in the CPS disclosure bundle. I believe this was
an oversight on her part, it was overlooked because it was not attached to the occurrence
relating to 55230098162 she was working on, I do not believe it was a deliberate act.
However, having reviewed the file, there is evidence by way of statements on the file relating
to the charge.
I am very sorry this has happened, the service level on this occasion is not acceptable. DC
Pratt, has reflected on this and will be more diligent in the future.
You can complete a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the PPN document, I have attached
the request form to this letter.
You have the right to request a review of this decision to the Office of the Police and Crime
Commissioner. There is no right of review to the IOPC.
The review will consider whether the complaint was handled reasonably and proportionately.
You have 28 days within which to make your application for a review. The 28th day is 18
August 2025. Requests for reviews received after 28 days may not be allowed unless there
are exceptional circumstances.
If you do decide to apply for a review, please email CRO@dorset.pnn.police.uk or write to the
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner at the following address:
Complaints Review Officer
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
Force HQ
Winfrith
Dorset DT2 8DZ

Yours sincerely
PC 2138 Pardey
on behalf of
T J WHITTLE
Head of Complaints & Misconduct Unit

To: VRR@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Formal Request under the Victim’s Right to Review Scheme My Name: Andrzej Majewski Involved Officer: PC Matthew Lambert

I am writing to formally request a review under the Victim’s Right to Review scheme.

I do not have a Crime Reference Number as it was not provided to me. The case concerns an incident I reported on 23rd June 2023.

This request concerns the decision of ‘no further police action’ in the case against Ms Malgorzata Lidia Kowalska.

I am aware that this request is being submitted after the standard time limit. This delay, however, is a direct result of a series of significant procedural failures by Dorset Police, which have been officially confirmed.

My case was only formally accepted on 2nd August 2024 due to gross violations of procedure by Dorset Police officers, a fact substantiated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in report number 2024/199375.

The subsequent handling of my case continued this pattern of disregard for my rights as a victim. The decision to close the investigation was communicated to me by PC Matthew Lambert in an email on 4th November 2024. This email failed to provide any explanation for the decision and my follow-up email demanding clarification was ignored. Furthermore, I was not informed of my right to a review. These actions are a clear breach of my right to information under the Victim’s Code.

Given these documented failures by Dorset Police, I formally request that the time limit for this application be waived and that my case be accepted for a full and impartial review.

Please acknowledge receipt of this request and inform me of the next steps.

Yours faithfully,

Andrzej Majewski

To: complaints-misconduct@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

With reference to the letter dated 22nd July 2025 (Ref: CO/00448/25), signed by PC 2138 Pardey, I wish to address the conclusions presented and hereby submit a formal request for the matter to be reviewed by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

I do not agree with the assessment that the level of service provided by Dorset Police has been mostly acceptable. I outline my key objections below:

1. Incorrect findings regarding communication with PC Lambert and breach of the Victim’s Code.

Your letter states that 25 days passed between me emailing PC Lambert and filing the complaint, which is untrue. The case under reference 55240098686 was closed on 8th November 2024. My email requesting an explanation was sent to PC Matt Lambert on 10th November 2024, i.e., almost immediately after receiving the one-sentence notification that the case was closed. PC Lambert completely ignored my message, which constitutes a breach of my rights under the Victim’s Code of Practice, specifically the right to receive information about the case. My complaint of 5th May 2025 concerned this very lack of response and the manner in which the investigation was concluded.

2. Insufficient explanation for the No Further Action (NFA) decision.

The email I received from PC Lambert contained only the following statements:

“A supervision review has been completed on the case following interview of Ms KOWALSKA and a decision of no further police action has been made. The account that Ms KOWALSKA has given was deemed to be credible and there is no realistic prospect of conviction given the information which has been supplied.”

The assertion in your letter that “you were provided with a sufficient about why this had been decided” is unacceptable. The email above contains no substantive explanation. Furthermore, the email did not contain any information about my rights, including the Right to Review the decision, which is another flagrant breach of the Victim’s Code of Practice.

3. Lack of answers to key questions.

Your letter states that my question regarding the credibility of my ex-partner’s account was already answered in the IOPC review. This is untrue. Point 31 of the IOPC decision, which you refer to, merely states that PC Lambert had allegedly provided me with a sufficient explanation. This is not an answer to my question: “What specific aspects of Ms Kowalska’s account were deemed credible, and on what basis?”. To this day, I have not received an answer to this fundamental question.

4. The failure to refer the case to the CPS and unequal treatment in light of the evidence provided.

I consider the decision not to refer this case to the CPS to be highly biased and discriminatory. When proceedings were brought against me, the case was referred to the CPS despite a lack of any evidence (which was ultimately confirmed by an NFA decision).

This decision is all the more incomprehensible given that I provided Dorset Police with extensive evidence indicating the commission of a number of serious offences by my ex-partner. This evidence has been largely ignored. It concerns, among other things:

• Domestic violence and controlling behaviour:
  • Assault: An attack in November 2021, which resulted in a broken nose. The police are in possession of my testimony, photos of my injuries, the perpetrator’s admission of guilt, and the details of a witness to these events.
  • Controlling behaviour and stalking: A documented process of taking control of my phone number, blocking my internet access, monitoring my communications, coercing me into installing tracking apps (Life360), hacking my Instagram account, and spying on my Browse history for at least 3 months after the end of our relationship.
  • Intimidation and harassment: Repeated threats of harm, blocking my access to our shared home (confirmed by the intervening police officers), threats to destroy my property, hiding my property (a bicycle), and deliberately deleting my company’s Facebook page.
• Perverting the course of justice:
  • My ex-partner falsely accused me of assault and strangulation. During the investigation, she herself admitted that she had attacked me in 2021 and that, apart from that incident, there had been no physical violence from my side, which contradicts her initial accusations.
• Wasting police time:
  • During a hearing at the Bournemouth Family Court on 15th April 2024, my ex-partner admitted under oath that when she called the police on 23rd June 2023, she did not feel threatened, and her motive was jealousy.
• Perjury:
  • I have also presented evidence indicating the act of committing perjury under oath in court when she denied her previous statements made to the police.

Given the extensive evidence listed above, the supervisor’s decision to apply the ‘Full Code Test’ unilaterally and conclude that “there is no realistic prospect of conviction” without consulting the CPS, is entirely unjustified and demonstrates profound irregularities in the investigation.

The list of evidence can be found at: https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/nhs-nurse-from-poole-hospital-domestic-violence-false-testimony-and-lies-in-court/#1_Domestic_violence_controlling_behaviour

5. Negligence regarding the Public Protection Notification (PPN) document.

The letter admits that DC Pratt made an error, resulting in a key PPN document being missed from the case file and not sent to the CPS because it was attached to a different occurrence. This was deemed an “oversight” and the service level “not acceptable”.

This negligence is a serious breach of the law, specifically the disclosure duties under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. The explanation that it was an “oversight” is insufficient. I, therefore, request answers to the following questions:

• What is the reference number of the occurrence to which the PPN was incorrectly attached?
• What persons and what case does that occurrence relate to?
• Which officer incorrectly attached the PPN to the wrong case?

I also wish to inform you that I intend to file a separate, formal complaint regarding the conduct of DC Pratt in this matter.

In light of the above, I request a thorough, independent review of my complaint. I believe that the investigation by Dorset Police into my case was conducted unreliably, in breach of my rights as a victim, and that the decisions made were unjustified and biased.

Yours sincerely,

Andrzej Majewski

13/07/2025

To: Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk , tom.hayes.mp@parliament.uk

Good Afternoon

I am writing to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to lodge a formal complaint against Dorset Police and other institutions involved in my case. Despite exhausting all available complaint procedures and obtaining a critical IOPC report, my rights have been and continue to be systematically violated, leading to the collapse of my business and severe personal and family consequences.

This letter presents a condensed chronology of events and detailed, grouped allegations against Dorset Police, supported by citations and documentation. I request a thorough and independent investigation of my case and a response to the presented violations of law.

1. On 24/06/2023, in the morning hours, I decided to go for a bike ride. During the ride, at 11:55 AM, I received three messages from my then-partner: “You miss her, don’t you?”, “Are you messaging her on Instagram?”, “I knew it, you little bastard, don’t even show your face to me.” Knowing that my partner had finished a weekly alcohol binge the day before, which recurred every one to two months, and also knowing that she could be very aggressive after stopping alcohol, I ignored these messages. (Witness: her friend, who was in our home from 16/06/2023 to 24/06/2023, photographic documentation).
2. I returned home around 7 PM. The house was locked from the inside, preventing me from entering my own home (which had happened before), to which I had tenancy rights – thereby violating my rights: Occupation rights, Protection from Eviction Act 1977, Domestic Abuse Act 2021. I did not break the law in any way, which is also confirmed by police reports: Evidence – Police Reports: Female party confirms 1) She has not been assaulted or threatened. 2) Male party has not damaged or threatened to damage property belonging to the victim 3) Both her and the male party are named on the address. Police Disclosure Page 27. Male party was spoken to and presented as reasonable. Police Disclosure Page 27 […] Suspect was calm and compliant. Police Disclosure Page 33. My partner had no reason to call the police, as I posed no threat to her.
3. My partner’s motive was jealousy, due to alleged infidelity – (Evidence: They split up yesterday (Friday 23/06/2023) as he was cheating with inft’s best friend – 24/06/2023 19:09 Police Disclosure Page 20.)
4. Throughout the entire time from my return home until the police arrived, my then-partner was safe inside the house, while I remained in the garden. Evidence – Police reports: He has sat in the garden in an apparent attempt to goad her. Police Disclosure Page 27 He just has a cigarette in his hand and his earphones. Police Disclosure Page 32. Caller states he is sitting in front of the back door laughing […] Caller states he is sitting and smiling (smirking?) at her. […] Caller says she wants him to leave and that they will talk, but he is just smiling (smirking?). Police Disclosure Page 32. There was no danger to her from my side whatsoever. My then-partner’s actions stem from jealousy and a desire to harm me, and fall under a breach of law – Public Order Act 1986 – Section 5 causing harassment, alarm or distress”, Criminal Law Act 1967 – Section 5(2) – Wasting police time, Malicious Communications Act 1988 – Section 1.
5. The police officer who arrived suggested I go for another bike ride so my then-partner could calm down, which I agreed to.
6. When I returned home around 9 PM – 10 PM, my house was still locked from the inside. I entered the house through the bathroom window. My then-partner, seeing me, rushed towards me, starting an argument. After a brief exchange of words, seeing that no rational arguments would sway her, I ignored her and went to take a shower. When I finished, neither my then-partner nor her son were in the house.
7. Around 11 PM, police officers arrived and arrested me.

At no point that day, or any other, did I threaten my then-partner. On the contrary, I felt threatened and was a victim of domestic abuse. This I have documented on the website:

NHS nurse from Poole Hospital, domestic violence, false testimony, and lies in court

From the very beginning of the investigation, I experienced hostility and disregard for my rights from Dorset Police. Dorset Police officers fabricated false accusations against me, lied in official police reports, discriminated against me based on gender, violated the Victims’ Code, violated GDPR, and committed many other offences.

My then-partner committed many offences, but Dorset Police officers are primarily responsible for the destruction of my business and my life. My partner was unable to unlawfully evict me from the house where I ran my business. Therefore, she decided to use Dorset Police for this purpose, and Dorset Police is directly responsible for the destruction of Phones Rescue Ltd.

I have exhausted practically all possible avenues for justice, but feeling ignored, I was forced to publicise my story on the website: https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/series-of-articles-on-the-incompetence-of-dorset-police-crown-prosecution-service-and-bournemouth-crown-court/

I also created the website https://nofalseaccusation.org/ to find other people in similar situations who are victims of false domestic abuse accusations and to fight for our rights together.

Dorset Police officers, even after I received an IOPC report critically evaluating police actions, continue to deliberately violate my rights as a victim of false accusations and a victim of domestic abuse. Such a situation is unacceptable to me in a democratic rule of law state to which Great Britain aspires.

In response to your questions, I have gone through the entire complaint process regarding both Dorset Police and the CPS. In the case of Dorset Police, I received an IOPC decision, and regarding the complaints against the CPS, instead of answers to my questions and concerns, I received the following response:

10/06/2025

From: complaintsandVRR.wessex@cps.gov.uk

Unfortunately, there is nothing further that we can usefully add to the comprehensive replies that you have already received.

Further correspondence from you which raises no fresh issues, and which cannot be addressed by the CPS, will be filed without response.

Kind regards,

Charlotte Harrison | Complaints Co-Ordinator CPS Wessex | Crown Prosecution Service

Crown House, Winston Churchill Avenue, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO1 2PJ

I would like to lodge a formal complaint against Dorset Police, citing a series of egregious violations of my rights that occurred as a result of their actions. Below, I present a detailed description of the allegations.

1. Unjustified intervention and violation of right to reside Dorset Police intervened in my case despite a lack of evidence of threat or violence. I had full right to reside at the indicated address (“Occupation rights”), and my partner locking me out of the house was unlawful. In my opinion, the police failed to take appropriate steps to secure my rights, which is contrary to:
   • Protection from Eviction Act 1977
   • Domestic Abuse Act 2021
2. Fabrication of false accusations and lies in police reports Dorset Police officers fabricated false accusations against me and included untrue information in police reports. From my information, it appears that the initial charge presented to me by Dorset Police: “Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023” was most likely fabricated. This charge never appeared in the documents my then-partner presented in Bournemouth Family Court, and the entire investigation against me was based on this charge. Such actions violate:
   • Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
   • Criminal Law Act 1967 (Section 5(2) – Wasting police time)
   • Public Order Act 1986 (Section 5 – causing harassment, alarm or distress)
   • Malicious Communications Act 1988 (Section 1)
3. Gender discrimination I was treated in a worse manner solely due to my gender. The police uncritically accepted my partner’s version, ignoring evidence of violence against me and my reports. This is a violation of:
   • Equality Act 2010
4. Ignoring my rights as a victim and violating the Victims’ Code Despite presenting evidence that I was a victim of domestic abuse and false accusations, Dorset Police ignored my rights, failing to fulfil their obligations under:
   • The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (Victims’ Code)
   • Domestic Abuse Act 2021
   I did not receive confirmation of my report being accepted by Dorset Police in any form (crime reference number, official notification, designation of a contact person). I was not informed of my rights as a victim or available forms of support (Victim Support), which is contrary to the Victims’ Code.
5. Violation of data protection regulations (GDPR) During the proceedings, my data was processed and transferred unlawfully. My sensitive personal data, including detailed personal information, my address, and details of my case and allegations, were sent to an address where I never lived, to third parties who should never have received them, which constitutes a violation of:
   • UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR)
   • Data Protection Act 2018
6. Destruction of business by Dorset Police actions The unlawful actions of Dorset Police resulted in the destruction of my company, Phones Rescue Ltd. I believe my right to property protection was violated in accordance with:
   • Human Rights Act 1998 (Protocol 1, Article 1 – protection of property)
7. Disregard for the IOPC report and continued violation of my rights Despite the issuance of a critical report by the IOPC, Dorset Police implemented no changes and continued to violate my rights. Such an attitude violates:
   • Police Reform Act 2002
8. Improper handling of the complaint procedure and closing of the appeal route After exhausting all possible complaint procedures and obtaining a decision from the IOPC, Dorset Police and the CPS took no remedial actions, which is inconsistent with:
   • Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Principles of Good Administration
9. Refusal of police escort for property retrieval On the day of my release from custody, I asked Dorset Police for a police escort to safely retrieve my personal belongings (including my passport). Dorset Police refused me such assistance, exposing me to further risk and preventing me from securing basic personal possessions, which is also contrary to the Victims’ Code and fundamental principles of victim protection.
10. Lack of ongoing information and support Despite the IOPC report stating irregularities in Dorset Police’s adherence to the Victims’ Code, I continue to be ignored by their officers and am not provided with information that should be made available to me by law. This is a clear violation of the Victims’ Code, according to which I have the right to ongoing information about the progress of the case.
11. Discrimination and gender bias My reports of being a victim of domestic abuse were systematically disregarded. Dorset Police explained this – while violating the law – by stating that I was subject to my own proceedings, which was used as a pretext to ignore my rights. I believe this is a manifestation of gender discrimination, violating the Equality Act 2010 and the Victims’ Code.
12. Fabrication of evidence and lies in police documentation I have repeatedly noticed discrepancies between my statements and witness statements and the version of events presented in Dorset Police reports. Examples include false statements about alleged “pushing the victim,” “infidelity,” and consistently referring to me as an “offender,” despite a lack of basis. I consider this deliberate falsification of evidence and a violation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), as well as standards of honesty and professional integrity.
13. Disregard for police professional ethics standards The conduct of some Dorset Police officers, especially Rose Pratt, was contrary to the Standards of Professional Conduct. My requests for evidence were ignored, and correspondence was sluggish and dishonest. This type of attitude undermines public trust in public institutions and violates the Police Reform Act 2002.
14. Failure to act in accordance with the IOPC report (disregarding recommendations and ignoring supervisory criticism) After receiving the critical IOPC report, Dorset Police implemented no real changes. My experience showed that: “Despite the IOPC’s findings, Dorset Police did not contact me to offer any form of apology, explanation, or information about how they intended to rectify the issues raised.” I believe that such an approach disregards the supervisory institution and violates the principles of accountability and transparency within the police force.
15. Multiple standard violations by Dorset Police confirmed by IOPC The IOPC found that Dorset Police violated many of its duties and procedures during the handling of the case – it was not just a single incident, but a systemic problem and multiple errors at various stages of the proceedings. “The IOPC investigation identified a series of failings by Dorset Police, including improper handling of evidence, inadequate investigation, and failure to treat me as a victim.”
16. Unacceptable level of service in proceedings where I was a victim “the service level determined for the investigation into you as a victim was found to be not acceptable.” The IOPC confirmed that the level of service from Dorset Police, when I was treated as a perpetrator rather than a victim, was unacceptable.
17. Premature closure of my report – the report regarding the “counter-allegation” was closed prematurely The IOPC report states: “Based on the available information, the officers’ initial decision to remove you from the property and proceed with an arrest following further reports of non-fatal strangulation appears to align with the relevant guidance. It is evident that you were presenting a counter-allegation; however, the crime report prepared by PC Pratt was closed prematurely, and it required multiple efforts on your part to have this recorded, particularly regarding the incident involving a broken nose.” My report (counter-allegation) was prematurely closed, and I had to intervene multiple times just to have it recorded.
18. OIC Rose Pratt misled me, falsely claiming that my counter-allegations against my then-partner could not be investigated while proceedings were ongoing against me. The IOPC report states: “I hope this review has provided clarity on certain aspects, including the confirmation that two domestic abuse cases can proceed concurrently, as per College of Policing guidelines. Whilst PC Pratt may not have been able to be the Officer in Case (OIC) for both, the two cases were intended to run concurrently, as suggested by the creation of two crime reports. However, due to an error by PC Pratt, the report naming you as the victim did not go forward as expected.” Due to an officer’s error, the proceedings in which I was a victim were not properly conducted.
19. Hostile and dismissive approach of Dorset Police officers towards me as a victim of domestic abuse and false accusations, violating police standards and my rights as a victim: The IOPC report states: “The Complaint Handler concluded that a supervisor in the control room reviewed the call and provided her findings via email on 11 August 2024, including a review, explanation, and details of the actions taken. The service provided by Dorset Police in this instance was not acceptable, as the tone and wording used by the call taker could have been improved, and a clearer explanation of why an update could not be provided would have been beneficial.”
20. Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Articles 6, 8, and 14: As a result of Dorset Police’s actions, my fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights have been seriously violated. I believe that:
    • my right to a fair trial (Art. 6 ECHR) was violated,
    • discrimination based on gender occurred (Art. 14 ECHR),
    • my right to respect for family life, including childcare (Art. 8 ECHR), was violated.
    As a result of Dorset Police’s actions, my business collapsed, and I cannot provide my children with decent living conditions.
21. Exploitation of Dorset Police by my ex-partner as a tool for personal revenge: My ex-partner knowingly used Dorset Police to achieve her own goals and personal revenge. The police, instead of acting independently, allowed themselves to be instrumentalised in the exercise of their powers, which should be severely punished, not concealed by officers.
22. Disappointment and disillusionment with the level of professionalism of Dorset Police – violation of citizen and taxpayer expectations: As a citizen and taxpayer, I expect professionalism, impartiality, and action in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) from the police. Dorset Police’s actions were not only contrary to regulations but also completely deviated from the fundamental principles of public service ethics and my rights as a citizen. I state this clearly: “When I present evidence indicating the possibility of a crime, I expect the police to defend the rule of law and my rights, not to take actions that can be interpreted as helping those who break the law or attempting to cover up irregularities.” “as a conscientious taxpayer, he expresses his right to expect professionalism and impartiality from the police, in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).”
23. Demand for full accountability and consequences: I demand that both my ex-partner and all Dorset Police officers who broke the law in this case be held accountable.
24. Fear of obstruction or influence on the investigation by Dorset Police I have reasonable concerns that Dorset Police officers may attempt to obstruct, mislead, or otherwise improperly influence the proceedings conducted by the PHSO. This stems from previous experiences with Dorset Police and the nature of the allegations, which include falsification of evidence and an attempt to cover up irregularities.
25. Specific allegations against PC Matt Lambert of attempted cover-up In my case, actions aimed at covering up irregularities by specific officers emerged, particularly by PC Matt Lambert, who, to my knowledge, attempted to conceal the matter of irregularities within Dorset Police by closing – in my opinion unlawfully – the case against my ex-partner, as this case, if it went to court, would confirm multiple violations of law by Dorset Police officers.
26. Systemic nature of problems in Dorset Police – reference to other cases and pattern of behaviour The violations I report are not isolated incidents but fit into a broader, disturbing pattern of conduct by Dorset Police. Evidence of this includes similar practices described by other affected individuals, including former officer Mike Henstridge, who warns that: “Officers were also pressurised to arrest the male rather than the female party, especially if children lived at the address, even if the female was the problem.” Such action indicates systemic violations of law and gender discrimination by Dorset Police.
27. Allegations of cover-up of Dorset Police actions In addition to the falsification of evidence and violation of procedures, I also accuse Dorset Police of actively covering up irregularities committed by its officers. Attempts to cover up errors, failure to take corrective action, and concealment of the truth from supervisory bodies constitute a serious breach of public trust. To my knowledge, Dorset Police did not provide the IOPC with evidence that my ex-partner ever testified that I had committed “Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023”, and this was one of Dorset Police’s main accusations against me, on which the entire investigation was based.
28. Ignoring the perpetrator’s clear admission of prior violence Dorset Police had knowledge of a previous incident of violence (My then-partner broke my nose in 2021, and I also have evidence of my injuries in the form of photos, which I provided to Dorset Police), to which the perpetrator admitted, yet this fact was completely ignored, and no action was taken against her.
29. Deliberate ignoring of a witness who could confirm my version of events I repeatedly provided Dorset Police with contact details for a witness who was in our home from 16/06/2023 until 24/06/2023, the day my then-partner called the police. Despite this, Dorset Police never contacted this witness, even though I provided them with the witness’s contact details. From my information, Dorset Police did not interview neighbours living nearby in this matter.
30. Deliberate delaying and ignoring my reports as a victim (systemic pattern of ignoring my rights) Despite my three-time reporting of my ex-partner’s crimes (in person, by phone, and online), Dorset Police ignored my reports, taking no action and violating my rights as a crime victim, as confirmed by the IOPC report.
31. Deliberate dissemination of false information about the impossibility of initiating an investigation against the perpetrator Dorset Police repeatedly falsely claimed that they could not initiate an investigation against my ex-partner as long as the investigation against me was ongoing. This was officially stated by Inspector Chris Bradford as a lie, and subsequently confirmed by the IOPC report.
32. Closure of the case against my ex-partner without any justification, ignoring questions and failing to contact a witness Officer Matt Lambert closed the investigation against my ex-partner without any explanation, ignored my questions regarding the investigation, and to this day has not contacted the main witness to many of my ex’s crimes: “In November, Officer Matt Lambert attempted to cover up the criminal activities of Dorset Police officers and and closed the investigation against my ex without any explanation, ignoring several of my questions regarding the investigation. He still has not contacted the eyewitness to many of my ex’s crimes.”
33. Dorset Police’s confirmation of a justified part of my allegations in an official letter In October 2024, I received an official letter in which TJ Whittle from the Joint Head of Complaints & Misconduct Unit admitted that 5 out of 8 of my allegations against Dorset Police were valid and apologised for them: “In October 2024, I received a final response. TJ Whittle from the Joint Head of Complaints & Misconduct Unit admitted in this letter that out of eight points concerning the criminal activities of Dorset Police, five were valid, and TJ Whittle apologized for them.”
34. Raising the responsibility of the Chief Constable I also lodged an allegation against Chief Constable Amanda Pearson, who was notified of the case and cannot claim ignorance of her subordinates breaking the law. I believe she should be held accountable for her lack of reaction: “Is Chief Constable Amanda Pearson involved in this case? Some time ago, I received an email from her office regarding my case, so she cannot claim ignorance. Did she not know or realise that many of her officers were breaking the law, protecting the perpetrator instead of the victim, and driving the victim to bankruptcy? This would mean she is not fit for her position. Or did she instruct her officers to cover up the entire case? I have filed a complaint about this.”
35. Ignoring reports of control, stalking, and psychological abuse (Life360, Family Safety, phone blocking) Dorset Police completely ignored my reports regarding my ex-partner’s stalking behaviours – controlling my location via Life360 and Microsoft Family Safety applications, blocking my work phone, and other forms of psychological abuse. “Additionally, domestic abuse included the control of my location using the Life 360 application. When I objected to this and uninstalled the app, my partner repeatedly sent me persistent invitations to install the application. […] Furthermore, my partner attempted to track my location by sending me an invitation to join the Microsoft Family Safety on March 18, 2023, and I have evidence of this in the form of emails. At the request of my partner, I transferred my private phone number from Lycamobile to her Family Plan on the EE network. Since then, my partner has been monitoring my phone calls, sent and received messages and internet access. When I was disobedient towards her, she would disable the internet on my phone. This was very inconvenient due to the limitation of my contact with my daughters and family in Poland, as well as because I used this number for business purposes.”
36. Dorset Police failed to conduct basic evidentiary procedures (medical examination of the alleged victim) Despite serious allegations of alleged physical violence (strangulation, pushing, etc.), the police did not order any medical examination of my ex-partner that could confirm or rule out traces of the alleged attack. “Did the police or a doctor conduct an examination of my ex-partner to investigate if there are any signs of such an attack?”
37. Dorset Police ignores the problem of domestic abuse and stalking by women against men (systemic problem) I point out that Dorset Police does not take domestic abuse against men seriously and does not impose any consequences on female perpetrators. “From the information I have gathered, it appears that upon arriving in England, my ex-partner has been in four relationships, each lasting over a year, and ALL these relationships ended with police intervention. I am concerned that from false accusations made by her against her partners, my ex-partner has found a way to make money.”
38. Dorset Police’s actions contributed to the deterioration of my children’s living situation. As a result of Dorset Police’s actions, my children are suffering due to the deterioration of their financial and family situation caused by the collapse of Phones Rescue. “My daughters are suffering due to financial difficulties, as I struggle to pay child maintenance.”

In summary, the actions of Dorset Police have led to the destruction of my business, my private life, and my mental health. I feel like a victim of systemic injustice, and my rights have been ignored by all institutions involved. I request a thorough and independent investigation of my case by the PHSO and a response to the presented violations of law.

This complaint is the result of many months of fighting for justice, in which all institutions responsible for protecting citizens – particularly Dorset Police – have fundamentally failed. The actions and omissions of Dorset Police have led not only to the irreversible destruction of my company, Phones Rescue Ltd, but also to a severe deterioration of my family’s situation, loss of financial stability, worsening family relationships, and long-term damage to my mental health.

As a citizen, entrepreneur, and father, I had the right to expect the state to provide me with effective protection and guarantee respect for my rights – both in terms of protection against unlawful eviction, and the right to a fair trial, protection of property, non-discrimination based on gender, and protection of my dignity as a victim of domestic abuse and false accusations.

Unfortunately, repeated attempts to clarify the matter and use legal procedures were met with ignorance, lack of response, or even hostility from Dorset Police. Despite receiving a critical IOPC report, which confirmed numerous violations and procedural errors, no remedial actions were taken, and my rights continue to be systematically violated.

To this day, I have not received the support I am owed, nor have I received an apology, compensation, or explanations – neither from Dorset Police nor from the CPS, which also demonstrated a lack of professionalism and closed the appeal route without proper consideration of my allegations. This situation has made me lose trust in institutions that are supposed to uphold the rule of law and the public interest.

The consequences of these neglects are tragic not only for me but also for my children, who are suffering from the deterioration of living conditions and family destabilisation. I have also been repeatedly deprived of basic rights as a victim, such as psychological support, information on the progress of proceedings, and real protection against further abuses. Instead of a thorough investigation and assistance, I was treated as a perpetrator – despite clear evidence of my innocence and the scale of Dorset Police’s negligence confirmed by the IOPC.

My ex-partner, exploiting legal mechanisms and the passive stance of the police, led to a situation where I was not only unjustly deprived of the ability to conduct business but also became a victim of psychological abuse, surveillance, and violations of my privacy. The scale of these violations extends far beyond an isolated case and indicates a systemic problem in the functioning of Dorset Police, as also indicated by the experiences of other affected individuals, former officers, and reports from independent oversight bodies.

I therefore appeal to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to thoroughly and independently investigate my case, address all indicated violations, and issue recommendations aimed at restoring justice. I expect not only individual justice and compensation but also systemic actions that will prevent similar situations in the future and restore citizens’ trust in state institutions.

I express hope that the PHSO will approach my case with due seriousness and meticulousness, analysing every allegation presented and ensuring that those responsible for breaking the law are held accountable, and the consequences of their actions are properly rectified.

Sincerely

Andrzej Majewski

All of the evidence, explanations, and the full contents of the relevant emails relating to this matter can be found in the links below:https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/fight-against-dorset-police-list-of-emails-2025/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/fight-against-dorset-police-list-of-emails-2024/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/when-the-system-fails-the-voice-of-a-bournemouth-entrepreneur-on-police-actions-and-the-iopcs-assessment/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/iopc-confirms-multiple-failings-by-dorset-police-following-complaint-from-bournemouth-entrepreneur-who-lost-his-business/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/phones-rescue-case-entrepreneur-responds-to-iopc-maintaining-serious-allegations-against-dorset-police-actions/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/bournemouth-business-owner-accuses-dorset-police-of-ruining-company-and-appeals-to-home-office-for-oversight/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/iopc-decision-on-dorset-police-allegations-expected-after-nearly-two-years-of-fighting-for-justice/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/controversy-in-dorset-nurse-accused-of-assault-police-under-fire-and-partner-loses-business/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/dorset-police-killed-the-local-company-phones-rescue-officer-matt-lambert-is-trying-to-cover-up-the-case/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/fight-against-dorset-police-list-of-emails/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/why-does-officer-rose-pratt-from-dorset-police-not-respect-the-victims-code-and-violate-the-standards-of-professional-conduct-for-police-officers/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/incompetence-of-bournemouth-crown-court-staff-leads-to-the-downfall-of-local-company-phones-rescue/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/crown-prosecution-service-cps-fabricates-charges-and-drives-phones-rescue-company-to-bankruptcy/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/nhs-nurse-from-poole-hospital-domestic-violence-false-testimony-and-lies-in-court/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/dorset-police-and-officer-in-charge-rose-pratt-illegally-evicted-a-tenant-from-his-home-and-drove-phones-rescue-out-of-business/
https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/bankruptcy-phones-rescue-due-to-incompetence-of-bournemouth-police-cps-and-bournemouth-crown-court/

https://phonesrescue.co.uk/courtcase/statements.pdf
https://phonesrescue.co.uk/courtcase/police.pdf
https://phonesrescue.co.uk/courtcase/Comparison_of_Testimonies.pdf

On 03/07/2025 17:58, Phso Enquiries wrote:

You can read more about this in our privacy policy. The policy explains how we use and look after information about you, or that could identify you, and how long we keep it. It also explains your rights and how to request your information. You can find the privacy policy online at: www.ombudsman.org.uk/information-you-give-us. If you would like a copy in a printed or other format, please contact: informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, or call 0345 015 4033.

Dear Mr Majewshi / Mr Hayes

Thank you for contacting us regarding your complaints. I am writing to provide you with information about our service and advice to assist you with progressing your complaint.

You sent us a link to a google drive, we cannot access this type of online storage. Please review the email below and the information we require.

Our role

We make final decisions on complaints that the NHS in England, UK government departments and other UK public organisations have not been able to resolve. Before we look at a complaint, we expect that you have complained in full to the organisation and you have received a full formal response to all points / questions in your complaint. 

As our role at the Ombudsman is as the final stage of a complaints process, we review the answers to a completed complaint response. We are unable to look at any matters that haven’t been addressed in a formal complaint response by the organisation in question.

We review retrospective complaints.  We are unable to help service users initiate or pursue complaints or assist with accessing services.

Time limit

By law, you should complain to your local MP within one year of when you first became aware of your complaint. We can put the time limit to one side if we think it is reasonable to do this. The things we consider include your reasons for not complaining earlier and how long the local complaints process took.  For more information please visit  ​When did the problem happen? | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)

Complaint

In order for us to consider your complaint, we need to see that you have lodged a formal complaint, you have completed their formal complaints process in full and you have received all responses. You need to have received a response from each stage of the complaints process before moving on to the next stage. You need to have completed all stages of their complaints process before coming to us. This needs to happen before we can consider your complaint further.

You have listed a number of different organisations, I will provide you with individual information for each one:

• Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC)

IOPC is not within our remit to investigate.

• Criminal Prosecution Service

Please follow their formal complaints process in full, available on their website – https://www.cps.gov.uk/feedback-and-complaints

• HM Courts & Tribunal Service

Please follow their formal complaints process in full, available on their website – https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/complaints-procedure

• Dorset Police

Please follow their formal complaints process in full, available on their website –

https://www.dorset.police.uk/fo/feedback/complaints/complaints

Complaint response

We do require you to engage with the organisation up to 6months after submitting your complaint. That would mean allowing them about 2-3months to initially respond, then if no response received, send a reminder monthly. 

If you have not received any response to your complaint and reminders sent by the 6months point, please do get in touch and we will open a line of enquiry on your behalf.  Please note that we will request evidence of your original complaint and reminders sent before opening a line of enquiry.

Limitations to what we can achieve

As an independent organisation there are limitations to what we can and can’t achieve. Before deciding whether to bring your complaint to us, please visit our website to see what we can and cant help with – https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-complaint/what-we-can-and-cant-help . If you are looking for any other redress other than the outcomes on our website, we may not be able to achieve this.

What to do after you get all responses to the complaints process

If you are still unhappy once you receive a final response from each organisation, you will need to send the following information to us;

• A copy of your complaint (if you have it)
• Copies of all responses received to your complaint

Please we do not require any further information at this time.

Once we receive all the information we need from you, we will assess your complaint and contact you about the next steps.

Please note there are some important details about how we use your information at the bottom of this email/letter.

Yours sincerely

Trevor

Intake Caseworker

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0345 015 4033

E: phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk

W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

11/07/2025

To: enquiries@cps.gov.uk

Multiple failings, breaches of the Victims’ Code, evidence fabrication, gross misconduct, and other serious violations resulting in the bankruptcy of Phones Rescue Ltd and severe detriment to my personal and family circumstances.

FORMAL NOTICE OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT AND POTENTIAL CRIMINAL OFFENCES
by Officer in Charge (OIC) Rose Pratt, Dorset Police

Background and Statement of Facts:

1. Repeated Failure to Uphold the Victims’ Code:
OIC Rose Pratt consistently ignored my reports as a victim of domestic abuse, prematurely closed reports without appropriate action, and failed to provide the service required under the Victims’ Code. This is confirmed in the IOPC’s decision of 27 May 2025 (ref: 2024/199375).

https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/iopc-confirms-multiple-failings-by-dorset-police-following-complaint-from-bournemouth-entrepreneur-who-lost-his-business

2. Disregard of Exculpatory and Incriminating Evidence:
Despite presenting photographic evidence of my broken nose, corroborating witness statements, and my ex-partner’s own admission to the police of striking me, OIC Pratt ignored these facts and did not take appropriate investigative steps.

Dorset Police killed the local company Phones Rescue. Officer Matt Lambert is trying to cover up the case.

https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/fight-against-dorset-police-list-of-emails/3. Obstruction and Misrepresentation of Legal Procedure:
OIC Pratt claimed it was not possible to conduct parallel investigations against both parties in a domestic abuse case, which was subsequently contradicted by Inspector Chris Bradford. This misinformation obstructed my right to equal treatment under the law.

Dorset Police killed the local company Phones Rescue. Officer Matt Lambert is trying to cover up the case.

https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/fight-against-dorset-police-list-of-emails/4. Breach of Confidentiality and Data Protection:
OIC Pratt sent my sensitive personal information (including full name, date of birth, address, details of arrest and bail) to the wrong address, thereby breaching data protection regulations.

Fight against Dorset Police. List of emails

5. Serious Procedural Errors Relating to Police Bail:
I was not properly informed of bail extensions or changes, resulting in financial losses and unnecessary hardship. IOPC found this service to be “unacceptable” and below expected standards.

https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/fight-against-dorset-police-list-of-emails/6. Possible Fabrication of Evidence or Influence on Witness Testimony:
There is strong evidence to suggest that following discussions with OIC Pratt, my ex-partner substantially changed her statements, raising concerns regarding the fabrication or manipulation of evidence (e.g., the appearance and subsequent disappearance of the “strangulation” allegation in police paperwork, never mentioned in court nor in my ex-partner’s initial statements).

IOPC Confirms Multiple Failings by Dorset Police Following Complaint from Bournemouth Entrepreneur Who Lost His Business

Fight against Dorset Police. List of emails

7. Direct Harm Caused by OIC Pratt’s Actions:
As a direct result of OIC Pratt’s decisions and lack of professionalism, I was unlawfully evicted from my home, lost my source of income, and suffered the collapse of my business Phones Rescue Ltd. This has had a devastating impact on my three daughters and my personal wellbeing.

When the System Fails: The Voice of a Bournemouth Entrepreneur on Police Actions and the IOPC’s Assessment

8. Gender Bias and Discrimination:
The conduct of OIC Pratt and Dorset Police demonstrates clear gender bias, with a pattern of disregarding male victims of domestic abuse and failing to investigate my complaints impartially.

Why does Officer Rose Pratt from Dorset Police not respect the Victims’ Code and violate the standards of professional conduct for police officers?

9. Failure to Interview Key Witnesses:
At no point did OIC Rose Pratt make any attempt to interview crucial witnesses who could have provided essential evidence regarding the events in question. This includes:

• My neighbours, who were present and could attest to the lack of any criminal behaviour or domestic abuse;
• The individual who stayed with both myself and my ex-partner from 16th June 2023 until 24th June 2023—the very day my ex-partner made her false allegations.

This gross omission constitutes a significant failure of investigative duty and has directly contributed to the miscarriage of justice in my case.

---

I therefore formally request:

• The immediate commencement of disciplinary and/or criminal proceedings against OIC Rose Pratt.
• Independent oversight and investigation by a higher authority (such as the Home Office or IOPC) to ensure impartiality.
• Consideration for the transfer of the case to a different force or region to avoid conflict of interest.
• A thorough review and analysis of all available evidence, including my reports, correspondence, photographs, and the testimony of witnesses.

10/07/2025

To: Rose.PRATT@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Formal Enquiry Regarding “Impending Prosecution(s)” and Allegation of “Intentional Strangulation” – Arrest/Summons Ref: 23/0000/00/728601G

Dear OIC Pratt,

I am writing to you in relation to the matter concerning “Impending Prosecution(s)” under Arrest/Summons Reference Number 23/0000/00/728601G, in which I am the subject. I understand that a decision of No Further Action (NFA) has now been made in this case.

I have received an “Impending Prosecution Report(s)” dated 13/09/23, which indicates that charges were being considered against me, including “Intentional Strangulation” on 24th June 2023, falling under Section 75A (1) (a) (5) of the Serious Crime Act 2015.

My ex-partner, who is the complainant in this matter, has never mentioned an allegation of “intentional strangulation” on 24th June 2023 in any official accusations presented within the family court proceedings in Bournemouth. This significant discrepancy is deeply concerning to me and raises serious questions regarding the basis of this specific allegation.

Pursuant to my rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, I am entitled to a fair hearing and to understand the basis of any allegations made or considered against me. Although an NFA decision has been made, the mere fact that such a serious allegation as “Intentional Strangulation” was considered warrants full clarification.

Furthermore, by virtue of my rights under the General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018, I am entitled to access my personal data processed by Dorset Police. Specifically, as a data subject, I have the right to be informed about what data concerning me is being held, for what purpose, and on what basis.

In light of the foregoing, I respectfully request the following:

1. A detailed explanation of the basis upon which the allegation of “Intentional Strangulation” on 24th June 2023 was included in the “Impending Prosecution Report(s)”.
2. Access to any documents and evidence, including but not limited to written statements, interview transcripts, medical reports, photographs, recordings, or other materials, that formed the basis for the inclusion of this specific allegation in the report, and which were collected by Dorset Police in relation to the incident on 24th June 2023.

I kindly request your urgent attention to this matter and the provision of the requested information. I believe this is essential for a complete understanding of the circumstances that led to the inclusion of this allegation in the report, particularly given its absence from the family court proceedings.

Please advise on how I may obtain access to this information or arrange a meeting to discuss this matter further.

24/06/2025

From: tom.hayes.mp@parliament.uk

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful email, and for taking the time to share the latest developments in your case. I want to acknowledge the distress and frustration you have clearly experienced in navigating the complaints process, and I appreciate the seriousness of the concerns you have raised.

While, as you rightly note, Members of Parliament are not able to intervene in individual cases, Tom is committed to ensuring that policing in this country is fair, accountable, and subject to effective oversight. Your account highlights concerns that merit broader reflection on the effectiveness of current systems of oversight and accountability.

Please be assured that Tom has read your correspondence carefully and will take your experience into consideration when engaging in parliamentary debates and discussions on policing standards and reform. Your case, and others like it, underline the importance of ensuring that oversight bodies are truly independent and effective, and that victims and those accused alike are treated with fairness and due process.

Thank you again for writing and for sharing your story.

Kind regards,

Tim Hickling
Caseworker

Office of Tom Hayes

Labour Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East

23/06/2025

From: DataProtectionAlliance@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk

Re: Subject Access Reference No: 01/DPR/25/008873/O

I write with reference to your Subject Access Request (SAR) to Devon & Cornwall Police and further to our acknowledgement correspondence.

We apologise that due to the high volume of applications being processed by this office, we have still been unable to complete your request. The Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) is aware of our non-compliance and have published their regulatory decision to reprimand this Force. The Force is committed to taking the steps required by the ICO to improve SAR response times. 

The Information Commissioner’s Office contact details are as follows:

Internet: www.ico.org.uk

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Tel: 0303 123 1113

We wish to assure you that the Data Protection Advisors continue to do their best to manage the significant increase in requests and each application received is logged and dealt with as soon as possible. Regrettably, due to the large volume of emails received each day, we are unable to provide updates in relation to your request. We will contact you once your request is being processed by an Advisor.

Please do let us know if you no longer wish to continue with your request.

Thank you in advance for your patience.

Yours sincerely

Alliance Data Protection Team

22/06/2025

To: tom.hayes.mp@parliament.uk

Good Morning,

Further to my complaint filed against Dorset Police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), I am writing to provide additional information which I believe may shed new light on the matter and be of assistance in your investigation.

Please find below a copy of the correspondence that was recently sent to my legal representatives. This document provides a detailed summary of my legal position, key arguments, and specific allegations concerning gross procedural failings and potential misconduct by officers of Dorset Police.

I believe the content of this message precisely and structurally outlines the foundations of my claim, including demonstrating how the actions of the police—based on highly questionable or fabricated evidence—led directly to my unlawful arrest and, consequently, to the destruction of my business.

I hope this material will provide you with valuable context and facilitate a thorough analysis of the systemic failures that are the subject of my complaint.

22/06/2025

To: complaints-misconduct@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in response to your letter dated 19th May 2025 concerning my complaint against the police (ref. CO/00448/25). I wish to address the points raised in your correspondence, as well as clarify my further concerns.

It is with great frustration that I must state that, despite the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) decision – which was unfavourable to Dorset Police and confirmed that the handling of my complaint was unacceptable – officers PC Matt Lambert and DC Rose Pratt still fail to provide answers to my questions and concerns. This is particularly worrying, given that I am a victim of domestic violence, as well as a victim of Dorset Police’s actions.

As you are already aware from the IOPC report (ref. 2024/199375, attached to this email), the IOPC recommended discussions and training for the officers involved. Unfortunately, in practice, nothing has changed. Officers Lambert and Pratt continue to ignore my attempts to communicate and refuse to provide explanations, which I consider to be a continuation of improper conduct.

I wish to emphasise that on 28th May 2025, I sent emails to both Rose Pratt (Rose.PRATT@dorset.pnn.police.uk) and Matt Lambert (matthew.lambert@dorset.pnn.police.uk), requesting answers to my questions regarding ongoing matters. The content of these emails is attached to this message. To date, these emails have been completely ignored, which is a blatant breach of communication protocols and the Victims’ Code.

The complete lack of response from Officers Lambert and Pratt, in light of the IOPC’s conclusion regarding the unacceptable level of service provided, is evidence to me that the problem runs deeper and requires urgent intervention. I expect Dorset Police to take immediate and effective steps to enforce adherence to the law and ethical principles by its officers.

Furthermore, I draw attention to the extremely serious issue concerning the accusation of “Intentional Strangulation on 24-06-2023”. Dorset Police based the entire case against me on this initial accusation. However, according to my knowledge from police reports and my ex-partner’s court testimonies, she never mentioned any “Intentional Strangulation” on that date. The IOPC states in its report that Dorset Police holds a PPN document in which my ex-partner makes this accusation, but given the above facts, I have serious concerns that Dorset Police fabricated this accusation. Considering the gravity of these accusations and their devastating impact on my life and the lives of my daughters, I demand urgent and comprehensive explanations on this matter. I have already submitted a request for access to the case files, so I will receive an answer sooner or later, but in my opinion, Dorset Police is attempting to unlawfully prolong the case and block my access to data to which, as someone unlawfully accused and a victim of both domestic violence and Dorset Police’s actions, I am entitled.

In accordance with your request for details of the incidents pertaining to my correspondence, I confirm that my current concerns relate to the ongoing lack of response from Officers Lambert and Pratt, which directly stems from their previous actions and omissions deemed problematic by the IOPC. I expect that as part of the resolution of my complaint, immediate intervention will be undertaken to obtain responses to my emails of 28th May 2025, as well as detailed explanations regarding the accusation of “Intentional Strangulation on 24-06-2023”.

17/06/2025

To: Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Dear Ms Kathryn McCarthy,

Thank you for your response dated 2nd June 2025. I am writing to express my continued, profound dissatisfaction with your assessment and to ask several key questions to which I have still not received an answer.

As a victim of domestic abuse and a victim of Dorset Police’s systematic failure to comply with the Victims’ Code, I feel compelled to demand full transparency and justice.

In your message, you used the phrase: “I believe the strangulation allegation, made during a PPN, was made on the day of the original incident.” In the context of a formal investigation and the assessment of evidence, personal beliefs cannot form the basis of findings. Your role requires you to rely on facts and verifiable evidence, not on belief. Therefore, I request a clear answer to the following questions:

1. How did you come into possession of the information about the alleged strangulation on 24th June 2023, which was supposedly made during the creation of a PPN?
2. Have you personally seen this document (the PPN)?
3. Who exactly from Dorset Police conveyed this information to you, and in what form (written or verbal)?

I must stress again that the allegation of strangulation on 24th June 2023 has never appeared in any of my ex-partner’s formal court statements. Its emergence at this stage raises my most serious concerns about the fabrication of evidence.

Furthermore, despite the supposed discussions and training that were to have been conducted with the officers, I regret to state that Dorset Police continues to fail to comply with the Victims’ Code in my case. My enquiries are being ignored, which proves that the measures you applied (so-called “learning”) have been entirely ineffective. I therefore request specific information:

• When exactly, and by whom, were the disciplinary conversations and training sessions with the officers concerned in my complaint conducted? What was the scope of this training?

Further Questions Regarding the IOPC’s Assessment

To fully understand the logic of your report, I also request that you answer the following questions:

1. Assessment of Evidence: On what basis did you conclude that the officers’ explanations regarding the discrepancies in statements were more credible than the evidence I presented, including my ex-partner’s formal court statements, which lack any allegation of strangulation on 24th June 2023? Please specify what evidence or principles led you to this decision.
2. The Line Between Error and Misconduct: The report acknowledges numerous errors and an “unacceptable level of service”. Please explain precisely why the sum of these numerous, serious failings, which have had a devastating impact on my life, does not qualify as “misconduct” in the IOPC’s assessment? Where exactly does the IOPC draw the line between an “error” and “misconduct” according to its standards?
3. Ignoring Witnesses: In your assessment, why is the omission by Dorset Police of key witnesses I identified—including neighbours and a person staying in our home from 16th June 2023 to 24th June 2023, the day of the incident—merely an “error” and not a fundamental failure that undermines the integrity of the entire investigation?
4. IOPC’s Accountability: Does the IOPC bear any responsibility for replicating and reinforcing Dorset Police’s narrative without a thorough, independent verification of the key, disputed evidence regarding the strangulation on 24th June 2023, which in effect contributed to upholding an unjust decision?

Further Actions

I also wish to inform you that due to the lack of a satisfactory resolution and the feeling that my rights have been completely ignored, I have already contacted my local Member of Parliament (MP), providing them with the full documentation of my case. Due to my dissatisfaction with the IOPC’s report, I have also been compelled to submit a formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

Furthermore, in response to the systemic failings I have experienced, I can confirm that a website documenting my case already exists. I am now planning to create another platform and organise a public campaign with the aim of finding other victims of similar actions by the British police and bringing these cases to public attention.

Finally, I wish to state unequivocally that the belief or conviction of a police officer or an ex-partner cannot and will never be a lawful or just basis for evicting someone from their home and destroying their business and family life. Police actions must be based on solid, verified evidence, not on suppositions.

I await a prompt, fact-based response to all of the above questions.

Note for the attention of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO):

This correspondence is submitted as part of my formal complaint. I kindly request that the Ombudsman’s office takes into full consideration the critical questions raised herein, and the IOPC’s potential failure to provide satisfactory, evidence-based answers, during the assessment of my case.

17/06/2025

To: tom.hayes.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Mr Hickling,

I hope this email finds you well.

I am writing to provide you with an update on my case. Please find forwarded below my most recent correspondence sent to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) regarding their handling of my complaint against Dorset Police.

This email outlines my formal response to the IOPC’s latest communication and details several critical questions I have raised concerning their investigation process and findings. These points are crucial to understanding the ongoing issues and the lack of a satisfactory resolution.

I would be very grateful if you could add this correspondence to my case file for the attention of Tom Hayes MP. This information further underscores the grounds of my complaint and the systemic failures I am challenging.

Thank you for your continued support in this matter.

16/06/2025

To: tom.hayes.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Mr Hickling,

Thank you for your previous response on behalf of Tom Hayes MP.

I am writing again as there have been significant developments in my case. Following your suggestion, I continued to pursue the formal complaints procedure, which has uncovered fundamental failings that extend beyond the negligence of individual officers and point towards serious systemic issues.

The central issue is a crucial and alarming discrepancy in the evidence. According to Dorset Police’s documentation, the official basis for my arrest and eviction from my home was an accusation of “Intentional Strangulation on 24 June 2023”. This is astonishing because in none of my ex-partner’s formal statements is there any mention of strangulation on that specific day. While she does accuse me of an alleged strangulation that supposedly occurred three months prior (a false accusation), the absence of any allegation related to the key date of 24 June in her official statements completely undermines the legality of the police’s actions. This glaring contradiction suggests the possibility of evidence being fabricated at an early stage by Dorset Police officers.

Furthermore, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in its report (ref: 2024/199375) confirmed a number of serious failings by Dorset Police, describing the level of service in my case as “unacceptable” and confirming that my report as a victim of violence was “prematurely closed”. Paradoxically, despite identifying numerous and significant errors, the IOPC concluded that these did not indicate misconduct on the part of the officers, and that the outcome of the complaint was “reasonable and proportionate”.

This conclusion from the IOPC is not only illogical, but it also demonstrates that the existing mechanism for police oversight has failed. What is worse, despite assurances from the IOPC that the officers involved in my case have undergone disciplinary discussions and training, these same individuals continue to ignore my enquiries and are blatantly breaching the Victims’ Code. This proves that the remedial actions assured by the IOPC are illusory, and the sense of impunity among the officers remains unchanged.

Having exhausted all other avenues, I have been compelled to file a formal complaint with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), alleging “maladministration” not only by Dorset Police, but also by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the IOPC itself. I have attached a copy of this complaint for a full picture of the situation.

I understand that an MP’s office cannot intervene in individual cases. However, the evidence presented now points not to an individual case, but to a systemic failure of three different public institutions. My case, unfortunately, does not appear to be an isolated incident. High-profile cases, such as that of Katrina O’Hara, which involved a homicide in the context of domestic abuse due to the failings of Dorset Police, or the testimony of former officer Mike Henstridge, who himself became a victim of false accusations and described systemic pathologies within the force, paint a picture of deeply entrenched problems with standards in Dorset Police.

In light of the above, I am again asking Tom Hayes MP to review the attached document and consider taking action at a parliamentary level. This case is proof that government assurances about strengthening police standards are not taking effect, and that oversight mechanisms like the IOPC require urgent reform. My experience could serve as a valuable case study in the debate on accountability and standards within the British police.

16/06/2025

To: DataProtectionAlliance@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk

Dear Mr/Ms Wright,

Thank you for acknowledging receipt of my Subject Access Request, reference number 01/DPR/25/008873. I confirm that I wish to proceed with this request and under no circumstances am I withdrawing it.

I note the information regarding potential delays and the action taken by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) against your force. The fact that the ICO has issued a reprimand only underscores the importance of the statutory duty to respond in a timely manner. In accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018, the statutory deadline for a response is one calendar month.

I am writing to inform you that I expect to receive the full documentation I have requested by the absolute deadline of 30th June 2025.

Should you fail to meet this deadline, I will be compelled to immediately file a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding your force’s non-compliance with data protection legislation. This complaint will be in addition to my existing grievances concerning the broader conduct of Dorset Police in my case, which, I must inform you, are now the subject of a formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) due to numerous and serious instances of maladministration.

I am fully aware of the scope of a Subject Access Request. The purpose of my request is not to pursue legal proceedings, but to verify the completeness and accuracy of the personal data held by Dorset Police. This is particularly crucial in light of the fact that an independent IOPC report has already confirmed numerous failings and unlawful actions by Dorset Police officers in my case – an institution that, in my opinion, is actively attempting to cover up the matter. Any further delay in providing my data will be interpreted by me as an attempt to obstruct justice and as your unit joining in these efforts.

I await your response and the provision of my data by the specified deadline.

10/06/2025

From: complaintsandVRR.wessex@cps.gov.uk

Unfortunately, there is nothing further that we can usefully add to the comprehensive replies that you have already received.

Further correspondence from you which raises no fresh issues, and which cannot be addressed by the CPS, will be filed without response.

Kind regards,

Charlotte Harrison | Complaints Co-Ordinator

CPS Wessex | Crown Prosecution Service

Crown House, Winston Churchill Avenue, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO1 2PJ

01/06/2025

To: complaintsandVRR.wessex@cps.gov.uk Franz.Seabrook@cps.gov.uk

Re: Feedback – Andrzej Majewski – CRN00056898 – 55CH0259223

Dear Mr Holden,

Thank you for your letter dated 29th May 2025 (CPS reference CRN00056898 / Case Reference Number 55CH0259223).

I am writing in response to your explanations and also in light of the additional information contained in the article “When the System Fails: The Voice of a Bournemouth Entrepreneur on Police Actions and the IOPC’s Assessment,” which details my objections to the IOPC report authored by Kathryn McCarthy. I wish to address several matters that continue to cause me the gravest concern. You indicated that: “Part of my role is to ensure that correct decisions are made in our cases and that those who are affected by our decisions are informed and have the reasons behind those decisions fully explained.” With this in mind, and in the context of the IOPC report’s findings (which, as I argue in the aforementioned article, inadequately address the failings), I request a detailed explanation of what specific decisions were made to justly and lawfully guarantee the protection of my rights as a victim. As the article suggests, the IOPC report appears to acknowledge that my rights to be informed and receive explanations were not fully respected. Please address these assertions.

Regarding the chronology of the police submitting the case to the CPS: “The police submitted your case for a CPS charging on 25 August 2023 […] The case was then resubmitted by the police for charging advice on 5 December 2023. […] The case was finally submitted for a charging advice on 23 May 2024”, I wish to ask what new evidence was provided on 5th December 2023 and 23rd May 2024 that absolutely could not have been provided with the initial submission, i.e., by 18th September 2023?

The matter of potential witnesses is of particular concern. I doubt whether Dorset Police ever interviewed my neighbours residing in the adjacent semi-detached house. Furthermore, between 16th June 2023 and 24th June 2023 – the date of the alleged assault – Gemma Louise Dartall was staying at my home. To my knowledge, Dorset Police made no attempt to contact her as a witness, despite her testimony potentially being crucial. I have also repeatedly enquired with Dorset Police whether they interviewed these key witnesses. In accordance with established principles of evidence in the United Kingdom, witness testimony plays a crucial role in the investigative process. I request information on whether the CPS ever instructed Dorset Police to obtain statements from the aforementioned witnesses. If so, who exactly issued this instruction and to which Dorset Police officer was it conveyed? If not, please explain the reasons for this omission, especially in the context of striving for a “full and thorough police investigation”.

Referring to your statement: “The allegations that had been made were particularly serious, and it was therefore appropriate that the lawyer ensured a full and thorough police investigation had been completed before considering the sufficiency of evidence and making a charging decision”, I wish to highlight a fundamental contradiction. The allegation of “intentional strangulation” on 24th June 2023, which, as the IOPC report indicates (paragraph 22 of Kathryn McCarthy’s decision), emerged during the creation of a Public Protection Notice (PPN) and was one of the grounds for my arrest (paragraph 13 of the IOPC decision), was never raised by my former partner either on the day of the incident, in her numerous and extensive statements, or in the formal allegations later presented in court. Why did such a serious allegation, supposedly crucial to the arrest decision, “vanish” from the alleged victim’s later, formal testimony? Why did the IOPC report by Kathryn McCarthy 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, were any medical examinations of my former partner commissioned or carried out to document the alleged injuries?

Furthermore, I was never granted access to the content of the aforementioned PPN. This prevented me from mounting an effective defence and, in my view, constitutes a violation of my fundamental right to information and a fair trial. How can the proceedings be considered proper when key documents, forming the basis for such drastic actions as arrest, were withheld from me?

Given that my case concluded with a No Further Action (NFA) decision due to insufficient evidence, and the allegations were purportedly so serious, why did Dorset Police and the CPS completely ignore my counter-allegations against my former partner (regarding, inter alia, domestic abuse I suffered – e.g., a broken nose, which she admitted to causing – and her making false statements)? Did OIC Matt Lambert ever contact the CPS regarding my counter-allegations? If so, please provide the date of this contact and information as to who from the CPS is supervising this matter. The article also details my concerns regarding gender discrimination as a male victim of domestic abuse (e.g., PC Rose Pratt demanding additional medical documentation from me for a broken nose, whilst there is no information regarding similar scrutiny of the “strangulation” allegation against my former partner – see paragraph 46 of the article, challenging paragraph 22 of the IOPC report).

Finally, regarding the non-disclosure of key undermining material: “you have raised a concern that a key piece of potentially undermining material was not disclosed to you. The reason this material would not have been disclosed to you is because you were never actually charged with an offence”. I wish to point out that Dorset Police did provide me with some investigation documents for the Family Court proceedings. It is therefore perplexing why this specific piece of material, namely the PPN concerning “Intentional Strangulation,” which was a basis for my arrest and which, I contend, contained false information, was withheld.

I await detailed explanations on the issues raised, which are further documented in the previously mentioned article analysing the IOPC report.

02/06/2025

From: Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Re: Feedback on the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) Decision 2024/199375 – Expression of Dissatisfaction and Identification of Gross Failings

Thank you for your email and I appreciate your feedback on my review. I will clarify certain points below that you have raised where I am able.

I am unable to change my decision once it has been made. If you remain dissatisfied with this decision, I recommend that you seek independent legal advice about the next steps (judicial review). More information about this can be found: How to challenge our decisions | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

RE: ‘Key Issue: “Intentional Strangulation” Allegation – Grounds for Suspecting Manipulation

I believe the strangulation allegation, made during a PPN, was made on the day of the original incident.

I don’t believe it would be reasonable for me to discuss, in detail, the specific investigatory actions taken or not taken by the officers (specifically medical examination in relation to the strangulation) as I have made an overall assessment about the investigation and the service level conclusion being reasonable and proportionate.

Access to a PPN report is something you would need to request through a Freedom of Information request. I do not know, given the nature of the PPN, if this is a document that can be shared.

Detailed Challenge to the IOPC Report Findings

I have responded to each point in the table in red text:

IOPC Report Point	Summary of IOPC Finding (approximate, based on context)	My Argument/Evidence	Primary Legal Support/Guidance (Snippet ID)	Key Question/Objection to IOPC
7	The arrest was lawful, based on reasonable suspicion and necessity.	I was the victim, not the perpetrator; there was no reasonable suspicion or necessity for arrest in light of the evidence I presented. My former partner admitted she did not feel threatened and called the police due to suspicions of infidelity.	PACE 1984 s.24; PACE Code G (necessity criteria for arrest); O’Hara v Chief Constable of the RUC (definition of reasonable suspicion).	Why did the IOPC not consider the evidence indicating a lack of reasonable suspicion and necessity for my arrest, including my former partner’s statements undermining her initial report? I have provided the guidance on Domestic Abuse handling for police officers provided by the College of Policing. This is not a conclusion or assertion that the arrest was lawful, based on reasonable decision and necessity but an excerpt of relevant guidance. The IOPC are unable to make decisions on the legality of matters, and this is for a court to provide. Providing this guidance was to explain why certain investigations take on a certain direction. Further to this, your allegation was not specifically challenging the legality, reasonableness or necessity of the arrest (the allegation was ‘You were unhappy about inaccuracies in evidence gathered, and statements or witness accounts.’) and as this was not directly addressed by the complaint handler, I would also be unable to do the same as part of the review.
8	The police investigation into my former partner’s allegations was conducted properly.	The police did not thoroughly investigate my counter-allegations and failed to identify me as the primary victim. They focused unilaterally on my former partner’s version of events.	College of Policing (CoP) APP Domestic Abuse (dealing with counter-allegations, identification of the primary perpetrator); CPS Guidance on Domestic Abuse (examining the relationship background, assessment of counter-allegations).	Why did the IOPC consider the investigation to be proper when the police ignored evidence and my counter-allegations, failing to apply guidelines for identifying the primary perpetrator of abuse?As above, I provided the relevant guidance to illustrate why certain actions may be taken by officers. This is not a personal conclusion in this paragraph but an excerpt of relevant guidance. Officers are provided with the power to make investigatory decisions that the circumstances allow. Again, the specific allegation was not about why you were not considered to be the primary victim in this situation and as this was not directly addressed by the complaint handler, I would also be unable to do the same as part of the review.
9	The use of force during the arrest was justified and proportionate.	No information in the source material about the use of force, however, if it was challenged, it was in the context of the lack of grounds for the arrest itself.	PACE 1984; CoP APP Use of Force.	If the use of force was challenged, on what basis did the IOPC deem it justified, given that the arrest itself was, in my opinion, improper?Paragraph Nine does not relate to any use of force, so this would not have been addressed.
11	Police actions regarding my eviction from the home were proper.	The eviction was the result of false accusations and wrongful arrest; the police failed to consider that I was a victim of domestic abuse and a co-owner/tenant.	Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (protection of victims); property/tenancy rights.	Did the IOPC investigate the legality and justification of the eviction in the context of evidence that I was the victim and the accusations against me were false? As above, I have highlighted the guidance provided by the College of Policing, not given my person opinion on the matter in this paragraph. The IOPC are unable to make decisions on the legality of matters, and this is for a court to provide.
13	The bail conditions imposed on me were justified and proportionate.	The conditions, including a ban on approaching the home, were unjustified, considering I was the victim and the accusations were false. This led to the loss of my business. Violation of the right to private and family life (Art. 8 ECHR).	Bail Act 1976; CoP APP on Bail; Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8.	On what basis did the IOPC deem the bail conditions proportionate, given they were based on false premises and had a devastating impact on my life?This paragraph does not refer to bail conditions, but the initial actions of the officers to remove you from the property in response to the allegations made against you.
14	Police handling of evidence (e.g., my telephone) was proper.	No details in the material, but if challenged, then e.g., regarding the legality of seizure, duration of retention, thoroughness of analysis.	PACE 1984 (rules for handling evidence).	If there were objections to the handling of evidence, did the IOPC investigate them thoroughly, and why did it deem them proper?Paragraph 14 does not refer to the handling of evidence, but the consideration of dual arrest.
15	The decision of No Further Action (NFA) regarding my former partner was justified.	My former partner admitted to providing false statements and to violence; there was evidence of her guilt (e.g., my broken nose). The NFA decision was erroneous.	CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors (evidential test and public interest test); CoP APP Domestic Abuse (evidence-led investigations).	Why did the IOPC accept the NFA decision regarding my former partner, despite evidence indicating her guilt and her admission to some acts?I have explained my position on the closing of the case against your ex-partner and I do not have anything else to add in this regard.
19	Police reports were drafted accurately and in accordance with standards.	I maintain that police reports contained falsehoods and inaccuracies. Biased language was used (e.g., “offender” before any conviction).	CoP Code of Ethics (Honesty and Integrity, Duties and Responsibilities); Standards for drafting police reports (accuracy, objectivity).	Did the IOPC conduct a thorough analysis of the content of police reports for their truthfulness and compliance with standards, including my allegations of their falsification? If so, why were no irregularities found?I do not believe that it would have been reasonable or proportionate to have done a deep analysis into the police reports in this instance. You alleged that there was a record by an officer in the police reports that your ex-partner had lied, and that did not exist in the police reports to suggest this and I explained this to you. I believe this is a reasonable and proportionate response to the review point you had raised.
20	The police correctly applied the Victim’s Code of Practice to me.	I, as a victim of abuse by my former partner, was deprived of my rights under the Victim’s Code (no written confirmation of the crime report, no information, no referral for support, no updates).	Victim’s Code of Practice; Possibility of disciplinary action for non-compliance with the Code.	On what basis did the IOPC conclude that the police correctly applied the Victim’s Code to me, given there is evidence of numerous omissions in this regard?The point raised under paragraph 20 was in response to a review representation. Whilst I understand you find this to implicate that I had concluded that the Victim’s Code of Practice was correctly applied, I reject this implication as it was not the context of the discussion of this point. The issues surrounding the application of the Victim’s Code was later discussed under the relevant point in the letter.
22	There was no discrimination against me on the grounds of gender.	I maintain that I was discriminated against as a male victim of domestic abuse, which influenced the entire police procedure.	Equality Act 2010 (prohibition of discrimination by public authorities); HRA 1998, Art. 14 (prohibition of discrimination); CoP Code of Ethics (Equality and Diversity).	What specific actions did the IOPC take to investigate my allegation of gender discrimination, and why did it conclude that it did not occur, despite my assertions?Point 22 did not refer to gender discrimination. It was a request to know where the allegation of strangulation had come from and this was answered for you. Discrimination based on gender was discussed in further detail under the relevant point in the letter.
24	There are no grounds to find misconduct on the part of the officers.	My allegations concerning falsification of reports, ignoring evidence, discrimination, and violation of the Victim’s Code indicate potential misconduct.	Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020; Misconduct in Public Office.	Why did the IOPC find no grounds for misconduct, despite the serious allegations I raise concerning the integrity and impartiality of police actions?Report point 24 refers to the summary of the outcome letter provided to you by the complaint handler, and you did not ask me to specifically review this point. There is no reference to misconduct specifically relating to this point.
31	The conduct of PC Rose Pratt was in accordance with standards.	I accuse PC Rose Pratt of, inter alia, gender discrimination and violation of the Victim’s Code.	CoP Code of Ethics; Victim’s Code of Practice.	What specific actions of PC Rose Pratt were assessed by the IOPC, and why were they deemed to be in accordance with standards in the context of my allegations?Whilst Point 31 does not necessarily relate to the actions of PC Pratt, I can say that the actions of PC Pratt were reviewed as per the complaint handler’s approach making a conclusion on the service level and this was explained in the outcome letter provided to you.
33	Police responses to my complaints/enquiries were adequate and timely.	I maintain that my numerous enquiries and emails to the police were ignored.	Victim’s Code of Practice (right to information and updates).	Did the IOPC verify my claims of a lack of response from the police, and on what basis did it deem the communication adequate?Point 33 does not refer to the lack of response by police but is a summary of the decision made in relation to this point by the complaint handler in their outcome letter to you.
34	The manner of closing my domestic abuse report (NFA regarding my former partner) was proper.	The NFA decision regarding my former partner was erroneous in light of the evidence of her guilt. As a victim, I have the right to a thorough investigation of my case.	Victim’s Right to Review (VRR); CPS Guidance on Domestic Abuse.	Did the IOPC consider my right to challenge the NFA decision (VRR), and did it assess the justification of this decision in the context of all evidence?Point 34 does not refer to the NFA decision, but the language used by officers in the crime reports.
35	The retention of my data on the PNC (Police National Computer) following the NFA decision is lawful.	An arrest record, even with an NFA, can have negative consequences (e.g., travel, employment). I question the justification for retaining the record in the context of a wrongful arrest.	Guidelines for the deletion of data from the PNC; Data Protection Act 2018.	Did the IOPC consider the possibility of deleting the PNC entry, taking into account the circumstances of my arrest and its impact on me?Point 35 does not refer to the retention of information on PNC, or the NFA decision, but the language used in the crime reports.
52	There is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that officers deliberately misled or concealed information.	I maintain that police reports contained untruths, which suggests deliberate action or gross negligence.	Perverting the course of justice; Misconduct in Public Office.	What evidential standards did the IOPC apply to assess the “deliberateness” of the officers’ actions, and why was the evidence I presented deemed insufficient?Report point 52 refers to the summary of the outcome letter provided to you by the complaint handler and does not make conclusions about the allegation or misled or concealed information.
60	The overall assessment of police conduct does not indicate systemic failings or serious shortcomings.	The numerous, detailed allegations I raise indicate systemic problems in Dorset Police’s approach to my case, including in the context of domestic abuse and the treatment of male victims.	HMICFRS reports on standards in domestic abuse investigations; CoP APP Domestic Abuse.	Did the IOPC consider the cumulative effect of all my allegations as an indication of wider systemic problems within Dorset Police?Yes. Complaints and their themes are monitored by the force and by the IOPC to assess any trends.

Expectations of the IOPC

‘Seriously consider my objections’ – I have addressed points for clarification where I can as above.

‘Re-evaluate the integrity of the report’ – I do not consider the report to lack integrity and I have made my decision based on the evidence available to me. As stated in the beginning of my email, I am unable to change my decision once made.

‘Consider issuing a corrective statement or additional clarifications’ – I am more than happy to provide clarification where needed and that is not adding further to the points I have considered in my letter to you. I do not believe there is a need to issue a corrective statement in this instance.

‘Formulate or strengthen recommendations for Dorset Police’ – I have considered whether force-wide learning is needed and in this instance, I think that personal learning for officers is more appropriate in this instance.

‘Ensuring thorough and complete evidence gathering, including interviewing all key witnesses identified by the parties’ – As far as the complaint investigation is concerned, this is closed. Any decision to re-open a criminal investigation lies with Dorset Police.

‘Re-assess the issue of disciplinary proceedings’ – I am unable to change my decision once made.

‘Recommend an apology to be issued’ I am unable to change my decision once made and cannot make additional recommendations. Apologies were made in the outcome letter by Dorset Police to you which you have rejected.

Many thanks,

Kathryn McCarthy (she/her)

Casework Manager / Rheolydd Gwaith Achos
Independent Office for Police Conduct 

01/06/2025

To: userfeedback@policeconduct.gov.uk, Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Feedback on the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) Decision 2024/199375 – Expression of Dissatisfaction and Identification of Gross Failings

This letter is a direct expression of my profound disappointment and fundamental disagreement with its findings. I believe that your assessment of the actions of Dorset Police officers is not only lenient but also disregards crucial evidence and glaring irregularities that indicate the possible fabrication of accusations and serious procedural failings. The lack of real consequences for the responsible officers is, for me, outrageous and undermines trust in the police oversight system.

I. Introduction

This document constitutes my response to the decision of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). In it, I present my position, challenging the findings contained in points 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24, 31, 33, 34, 35, 52, and 60 of the IOPC report. The purpose of this response is to express my deep dissatisfaction and to demonstrate why I believe the indicated findings are unjustified in light of the evidence presented and the applicable legal and procedural frameworks. Furthermore, this document highlights general issues concerning the erroneous assumptions underpinning the IOPC report and its lack of impartiality, stemming from fundamental failings in the initial investigation conducted by Dorset Police. I expect my comments to be treated with due seriousness as the voice of a person who has experienced systemic injustice. The structure of this document includes a detailed address to each of the challenged points of the IOPC report, an analysis of the overarching failings in police conduct and the IOPC’s assessment, a presentation of the legal framework supporting my argumentation, and a final summary along with my expectations.

I.A. Fundamental Objections and Expression of Deep Dissatisfaction

Key Issue: “Intentional Strangulation” Allegation – Grounds for Suspecting Manipulation

The central point of my dissatisfaction is the manner in which the allegation of “intentional strangulation” was handled. As you yourselves indicate in point 22 of your decision, this was disclosed during the drafting of a Public Protection Notice (PPN) involving my former partner and officers. This extremely serious allegation became, according to your findings (point 13 of the IOPC decision), one of the grounds for my arrest.

I wish to categorically emphasise – and this is a fact that you seem to completely disregard – that my former partner never raised any allegation of strangulation on the day of the incident (24th June 2023), in her numerous and extensive statements, or in the formal charges later presented in court. This diametrical discrepancy is not only puzzling but also raises justified and serious concerns about the fabrication of initial accusations and the content of reports by Dorset Police officers at an early stage of the intervention.

How is it possible that an allegation of such gravity, supposedly crucial to the decision to arrest, simply “vanished” from the subsequent, formal testimony of the alleged victim? Why did the IOPC not recognise this contradiction as an alarming signal indicating potential evidence tampering or, at the very least, extreme unreliability in the police’s drafting of the PPN? Your report provides no satisfactory answer to these questions, which renders your findings in this regard entirely unconvincing. Furthermore, a key question remains: in connection with such a serious allegation as “intentional strangulation,” did the police commission, or did my former partner undergo, any medical examination to document the alleged injuries? It seems natural that an act of strangulation would leave marks that should have been examined and medically confirmed if the allegation were to be credible.

Moreover, I was never granted access to the content of the aforementioned PPN report. This not only prevented me from effectively defending myself against this specific, and as it turns out, highly dubious charge in court, but also constitutes a violation of my fundamental right to information and a fair process. How can the IOPC deem the proceedings as proper when key documents, on the basis of which such drastic actions as arrest were taken, were concealed from me?

Insufficient Consequences and Lenient Assessment of Police Actions

Your decision reduces the numerous and serious failings of Dorset Police officers (including PC Pratt) to the category of errors that were supposedly rectified by “issuing a caution” (learning). This is a reaction entirely inadequate to the scale of the negligence and its devastating consequences for my life, including wrongful arrest, loss of home, destruction of my business, and immense stress. Furthermore, this entire situation also had a devastating emotional and financial impact on my three daughters, who not only witnessed the injustice I suffered but also felt the effects of my loss of a significant source of income due to the destruction of my company.

The IOPC appears to accept the police’s explanations uncritically, without considering:

• The fact that I was a victim of domestic abuse, which was documented, yet I was treated as the perpetrator.
• Numerous pieces of evidence indicating bias and a lack of impartiality in the conduct of the investigation.
• My justified concerns regarding gender discrimination.
• The systemic nature of the problems in Dorset Police’s actions, which go beyond isolated “mistakes.”

The statement in point 62 of your decision, that “there are no indications that the officers’ actions constituted misconduct,” is, in light of the above facts, and especially the suspicions of fabricating the strangulation charge, difficult to accept.

Summary of Dissatisfaction

I express my profound disappointment and objection to the findings contained in your decision. I believe that the IOPC has failed in its role as an independent oversight body by not holding Dorset Police officers truly accountable for their actions, which bear the hallmarks of serious abuse. Your decision not only fails to deliver justice but also perpetuates a sense of impunity and ignores fundamental problems in the functioning of the police.

I expect my comments to be treated with due seriousness as the voice of a person who has experienced systemic injustice, and whose concerns and evidence have been largely ignored by an institution established to protect citizens’ rights.

II. Background to the Case

The basis of this letter is the events that affected me, as a victim of domestic abuse by my former partner. Despite my presenting evidence of the abuse suffered, including physical injuries (a broken nose) and my former partner’s admission to some acts and to providing false statements, I was wrongfully arrested as a result of her false accusations. This arrest, as well as the subsequent actions of Dorset Police, were marked by numerous irregularities, including potential gender discrimination and violations of the Victim’s Code of Practice. As a result of the false accusations and police actions, I was evicted from my home, which led to the collapse of my business and the loss of my savings. It must be emphasised that the consequences of these events affected not only me but also my three daughters, who experienced both the emotional impact of this injustice and the financial repercussions associated with my loss of a stable income. The police investigation into the charges against me concluded with a decision of No Further Action (NFA) due to lack of evidence. However, my allegations concerning the domestic abuse I experienced, and the irregularities in police actions, including the alleged falsification of police reports by officers, were not, in my opinion, thoroughly investigated either by Dorset Police or, consequently, by the IOPC. I contend that Dorset Police failed to correctly identify me as the primary victim of domestic abuse, focusing instead on my former partner’s allegations, which may have stemmed from gender-based prejudice. Furthermore, I accuse police officers, including PC Rose Pratt, of breaching professional ethical standards and the Victim’s Code of Practice through, inter alia, failing to provide written confirmation of the crime report, failing to provide information about victims’ rights and available support, and ignoring my enquiries regarding the ongoing investigation. These fundamental errors in police procedure had a direct impact on the assessment made by the IOPC, rendering it, in my opinion, unreliable and based on flawed premises.

III. Detailed Challenge to the IOPC Report Findings

Below, I present a detailed challenge to selected findings of the IOPC report. For each point, I state my argument, supported by evidence and relevant legal provisions and guidelines applicable in the United Kingdom. The following table summarises the key elements of each challenged point, facilitating an understanding of the scope and basis of my individual objections.

IOPC Report Point	Summary of IOPC Finding (approximate, based on context)	My Argument/Evidence	Primary Legal Support/Guidance (Snippet ID)	Key Question/Objection to IOPC
7	The arrest was lawful, based on reasonable suspicion and necessity.	I was the victim, not the perpetrator; there was no reasonable suspicion or necessity for arrest in light of the evidence I presented. My former partner admitted she did not feel threatened and called the police due to suspicions of infidelity.	PACE 1984 s.24; PACE Code G (necessity criteria for arrest); O’Hara v Chief Constable of the RUC (definition of reasonable suspicion).	Why did the IOPC not consider the evidence indicating a lack of reasonable suspicion and necessity for my arrest, including my former partner’s statements undermining her initial report?
8	The police investigation into my former partner’s allegations was conducted properly.	The police did not thoroughly investigate my counter-allegations and failed to identify me as the primary victim. They focused unilaterally on my former partner’s version of events.	College of Policing (CoP) APP Domestic Abuse (dealing with counter-allegations, identification of the primary perpetrator); CPS Guidance on Domestic Abuse (examining the relationship background, assessment of counter-allegations).	Why did the IOPC consider the investigation to be proper when the police ignored evidence and my counter-allegations, failing to apply guidelines for identifying the primary perpetrator of abuse?
9	The use of force during the arrest was justified and proportionate.	No information in the source material about the use of force, however, if it was challenged, it was in the context of the lack of grounds for the arrest itself.	PACE 1984; CoP APP Use of Force.	If the use of force was challenged, on what basis did the IOPC deem it justified, given that the arrest itself was, in my opinion, improper?
11	Police actions regarding my eviction from the home were proper.	The eviction was the result of false accusations and wrongful arrest; the police failed to consider that I was a victim of domestic abuse and a co-owner/tenant.	Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (protection of victims); property/tenancy rights.	Did the IOPC investigate the legality and justification of the eviction in the context of evidence that I was the victim and the accusations against me were false?
13	The bail conditions imposed on me were justified and proportionate.	The conditions, including a ban on approaching the home, were unjustified, considering I was the victim and the accusations were false. This led to the loss of my business. Violation of the right to private and family life (Art. 8 ECHR).	Bail Act 1976; CoP APP on Bail; Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8.	On what basis did the IOPC deem the bail conditions proportionate, given they were based on false premises and had a devastating impact on my life?
14	Police handling of evidence (e.g., my telephone) was proper.	No details in the material, but if challenged, then e.g., regarding the legality of seizure, duration of retention, thoroughness of analysis.	PACE 1984 (rules for handling evidence).	If there were objections to the handling of evidence, did the IOPC investigate them thoroughly, and why did it deem them proper?
15	The decision of No Further Action (NFA) regarding my former partner was justified.	My former partner admitted to providing false statements and to violence; there was evidence of her guilt (e.g., my broken nose). The NFA decision was erroneous.	CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors (evidential test and public interest test); CoP APP Domestic Abuse (evidence-led investigations).	Why did the IOPC accept the NFA decision regarding my former partner, despite evidence indicating her guilt and her admission to some acts?
19	Police reports were drafted accurately and in accordance with standards.	I maintain that police reports contained falsehoods and inaccuracies. Biased language was used (e.g., “offender” before any conviction).	CoP Code of Ethics (Honesty and Integrity, Duties and Responsibilities); Standards for drafting police reports (accuracy, objectivity).	Did the IOPC conduct a thorough analysis of the content of police reports for their truthfulness and compliance with standards, including my allegations of their falsification? If so, why were no irregularities found?
20	The police correctly applied the Victim’s Code of Practice to me.	I, as a victim of abuse by my former partner, was deprived of my rights under the Victim’s Code (no written confirmation of the crime report, no information, no referral for support, no updates).	Victim’s Code of Practice; Possibility of disciplinary action for non-compliance with the Code.	On what basis did the IOPC conclude that the police correctly applied the Victim’s Code to me, given there is evidence of numerous omissions in this regard?
22	There was no discrimination against me on the grounds of gender.	I maintain that I was discriminated against as a male victim of domestic abuse, which influenced the entire police procedure.	Equality Act 2010 (prohibition of discrimination by public authorities); HRA 1998, Art. 14 (prohibition of discrimination); CoP Code of Ethics (Equality and Diversity).	What specific actions did the IOPC take to investigate my allegation of gender discrimination, and why did it conclude that it did not occur, despite my assertions?
24	There are no grounds to find misconduct on the part of the officers.	My allegations concerning falsification of reports, ignoring evidence, discrimination, and violation of the Victim’s Code indicate potential misconduct.	Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020; Misconduct in Public Office.	Why did the IOPC find no grounds for misconduct, despite the serious allegations I raise concerning the integrity and impartiality of police actions?
31	The conduct of PC Rose Pratt was in accordance with standards.	I accuse PC Rose Pratt of, inter alia, gender discrimination and violation of the Victim’s Code.	CoP Code of Ethics; Victim’s Code of Practice.	What specific actions of PC Rose Pratt were assessed by the IOPC, and why were they deemed to be in accordance with standards in the context of my allegations?
33	Police responses to my complaints/enquiries were adequate and timely.	I maintain that my numerous enquiries and emails to the police were ignored.	Victim’s Code of Practice (right to information and updates).	Did the IOPC verify my claims of a lack of response from the police, and on what basis did it deem the communication adequate?
34	The manner of closing my domestic abuse report (NFA regarding my former partner) was proper.	The NFA decision regarding my former partner was erroneous in light of the evidence of her guilt. As a victim, I have the right to a thorough investigation of my case.	Victim’s Right to Review (VRR); CPS Guidance on Domestic Abuse.	Did the IOPC consider my right to challenge the NFA decision (VRR), and did it assess the justification of this decision in the context of all evidence?
35	The retention of my data on the PNC (Police National Computer) following the NFA decision is lawful.	An arrest record, even with an NFA, can have negative consequences (e.g., travel, employment). I question the justification for retaining the record in the context of a wrongful arrest.	Guidelines for the deletion of data from the PNC; Data Protection Act 2018.	Did the IOPC consider the possibility of deleting the PNC entry, taking into account the circumstances of my arrest and its impact on me?
52	There is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that officers deliberately misled or concealed information.	I maintain that police reports contained untruths, which suggests deliberate action or gross negligence.	Perverting the course of justice; Misconduct in Public Office.	What evidential standards did the IOPC apply to assess the “deliberateness” of the officers’ actions, and why was the evidence I presented deemed insufficient?
60	The overall assessment of police conduct does not indicate systemic failings or serious shortcomings.	The numerous, detailed allegations I raise indicate systemic problems in Dorset Police’s approach to my case, including in the context of domestic abuse and the treatment of male victims.	HMICFRS reports on standards in domestic abuse investigations; CoP APP Domestic Abuse.	Did the IOPC consider the cumulative effect of all my allegations as an indication of wider systemic problems within Dorset Police?

IV. Overarching Failings in the Police Investigation and IOPC Assessment

An analysis of my case reveals not only individual errors in the IOPC’s findings but also fundamental, overarching failings in the way the investigation was conducted by Dorset Police and in the IOPC’s assessment of that investigation. These systemic flaws, in my opinion, undermine the impartiality of the entire process and lead to the conclusion that the IOPC’s findings are based on defective premises.

A. Improper Management of Domestic Abuse Allegations and Counter-Allegations

Dorset Police fundamentally failed in managing the domestic abuse report by not correctly identifying me as the primary victim and my former partner as the primary perpetrator. Despite my presenting evidence of the abuse I suffered, such as a broken nose, and information about my former partner’s admission to some acts and her propensity for manipulation and controlling behaviour, the police focused their actions on the accusations made by my former partner. This led to my wrongful arrest. The investigation into my counter-allegations concerning the domestic abuse I myself experienced appears to have been treated peripherally or even ignored. Such conduct contradicts the College of Policing (CoP) Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Domestic Abuse, which details procedures for handling domestic abuse cases, including the necessity of identifying the “primary perpetrator.” These guidelines require officers to analyse the overall situation, the history of the relationship, power dynamics and control, and not merely the last incident. Ignoring these procedures may have been compounded by potential gender bias against me, as I suggest in my materials. Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance on domestic abuse also emphasises the importance of a thorough examination of the relationship’s background and caution regarding manipulative counter-allegations. The police should document the comparative severity of injuries, the history of violence, and any defensive actions. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 broadly defines domestic abuse to include physical, psychological, and economic abuse, as well as controlling and coercive behaviour – all elements I accused my former partner of. Failure to identify the primary perpetrator is not merely a procedural slip; it is a fundamental error that affects the entire subsequent process. If the police base their actions on the erroneous assumption that I am the perpetrator, not the victim, all subsequent steps – arrest, bail conditions, the manner of conducting the investigation, and even the NFA decision regarding the actual perpetrator – are tainted by the same flaw. The IOPC, in reviewing the police’s actions, should have first assessed whether the police correctly applied specialised domestic abuse guidelines. The lack of a critical assessment of this initial, crucial stage by the IOPC undermines, in my view, the validity of its further findings.

B. Deficiencies in Police Conduct, Reporting, and Adherence to Standards

I raise serious allegations regarding the integrity of police reports and the conduct of officers, which deviated from the standards set out in the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics. I assert that police reports contained untrue information, and officers used biased language, referring to me as the “offender” before any conviction, which is inconsistent with the principle of objectivity and the presumption of innocence. Standards for drafting police reports require them to be accurate, objective, complete, and based on facts, not on unsubstantiated opinions or assumptions. The CoP Code of Ethics, particularly the standards of “Honesty and Integrity” and “Duties and Responsibilities,” imposes on officers a duty of truthfulness and diligence. Knowingly drafting false reports or misleading would constitute a gross breach of these standards.

Furthermore, as a victim of domestic abuse by my former partner, I was allegedly deprived of my rights under the Victim’s Code of Practice. The allegations include the failure to provide written confirmation of the crime report, lack of information about my rights and available support, failure to refer me to appropriate services, and lack of ongoing updates on the progress of my case. Additionally, there are serious doubts about the completeness of the investigation conducted, particularly regarding the interviewing of key witnesses. I made several attempts to obtain information from Dorset Police as to whether officers had, for example, spoken to my neighbours, who could have corroborated or refuted my version of events and the general atmosphere in the home. Moreover, in the period immediately preceding the alleged assault and strangulation, i.e., from 16th June 2023 to 24th June 2023, Gemma Luise Dartnall was present in our home. According to my information, despite my repeated enquiries on this matter, Dorset Police never attempted to contact her to obtain her statement. Her testimony could have been crucial in establishing the actual course of events and the context of the situation. The failure to interview such important witnesses constitutes a serious procedural failing and undermines the integrity of the entire investigation. It should be stressed that non-compliance with the Victim’s Code can lead to disciplinary proceedings against officers.

If police actions, such as the deliberate falsification of reports, failure to thoroughly investigate my serious allegations due to prejudice, or the omission of key witnesses, bore the hallmarks of wilful neglect of duties or wilful misconduct to a degree constituting an abuse of public trust, this could fall within the scope of the offence of Misconduct in Public Office. Similarly, knowingly providing false testimony to obstruct or pervert the course of justice could constitute the offence of Perverting the Course of Justice. Allegations concerning the unreliability of police reports strike at the foundations of trust in the justice system. If the IOPC did not conduct a thorough analysis of these allegations, its own findings may be based on distorted evidence. Breaches of the Victim’s Code are not trivial matters – they represent a failure to fulfil statutory duties towards victims of crime. The fact that I (as a victim of abuse by my former partner) was denied these rights further demonstrates a systemic misunderstanding of my situation and a failure to recognise me as a victim. The IOPC, in investigating the complaint, should have treated these issues with the utmost seriousness.

C. Allegations of Gender Discrimination

I directly allege that Dorset Police, including specific officers such as PC Rose Pratt, discriminated against me as a male victim of domestic abuse. This discriminatory attitude may have had a decisive influence on the entire course of the police intervention, leading to my wrongful arrest and the failure to properly investigate the allegations I made against my former partner. I ask why the leadership of Dorset Police tolerates discrimination against victims of domestic abuse based on gender. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination by public authorities, including the police, on the grounds of protected characteristics such as sex. Treating a male victim of domestic abuse less favourably than a female victim could constitute direct or indirect discrimination. Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Prohibition of Discrimination), protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, in conjunction with other Convention rights (e.g., Art. 3 – prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, Art. 8 – right to private and family life), means that public authorities must not discriminate in the application of these rights. An improper investigation into a case of domestic abuse against a male victim could breach Art. 14. The College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, in the section concerning Equality and Diversity, states that “police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not unlawfully or unfairly discriminate.” Furthermore, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has declared a commitment to creating a police service free from discrimination, including the eradication of sexism (and consequently, misandry or gender-based prejudice against male victims). Gender-based prejudice in domestic abuse cases, particularly against men, is a recognised problem. If police officers are guided by stereotypes, e.g., that men cannot be true victims of domestic abuse or are always the aggressors, this can lead to a series of errors: incorrect identification of the primary perpetrator, disbelief of the male victim, failure to investigate his allegations, and potentially arresting him based on less credible counter-allegations. A glaring example of potential discrimination is the conduct of Officer Rose Pratt. When I reported allegations against my former partner, accusing her of breaking my nose – which she herself admitted to the police and which I documented photographically – Officer Pratt demanded additional medical documentation from me. It is questionable whether Officer Pratt or other officers demanded medical documentation from my former partner with similar scrupulousness in the context of the alleged “intentional strangulation,” especially since such an allegation should involve visible injuries. If evidential standards were applied selectively – rigorously towards me as a male victim, and leniently towards a woman making allegations – this constitutes a clear manifestation of gender discrimination and undermines the objectivity of the entire investigation. The IOPC’s investigation into my complaint should have actively sought indicators of such prejudice. The direct allegation of gender discrimination made by me makes this an obligatory line of inquiry for the IOPC. An insufficient investigation of this aspect by the IOPC would, in my opinion, constitute an omission of a key contextual factor that could explain many of the other alleged police failings.

V. Legal Framework and Supporting Authorities

The argumentation presented in this letter is based on solid legal and procedural foundations applicable in the United Kingdom. Below is a consolidated overview of key statutes, guidelines, and case law relevant to the case under analysis, which indicate irregularities in the actions of Dorset Police and in the IOPC’s assessment of those actions.

A. Key UK Statutes

• Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE):

• Section 24 (Arrest without warrant): Specifies the conditions for lawful arrest, including the requirement for reasonable grounds to suspect the commission of an offence and the fulfilment of the necessity criteria for arrest (contained in PACE Code G). I argue that these conditions were not met in my arrest.
• Codes of Practice (especially Code C – Detention, treatment and questioning of persons and Code G – Arrest): Outline police duties during arrest and detention. I believe any breaches of these codes had a negative impact on me.
• Human Rights Act 1998:

• Article 5 (Right to liberty and security of person): Unlawful arrest or detention breaches Art. 5. If the arrest was not based on reasonable suspicion or necessity, it was, in my opinion, unlawful. Victims of unlawful arrest have a right to compensation (Art. 5(5)).
• Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life): Potentially breached by my eviction from home based on false accusations and other invasive police actions.
• Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination): Interpreted in conjunction with other articles if discrimination (e.g., on grounds of gender) is evident in the application of other rights.
• Domestic Abuse Act 2021:

• Statutory definition of domestic abuse, encompassing coercive control, psychological and economic abuse (all alleged by me against my former partner). I stress that the police and IOPC must apply this broad definition.
• Recognition of children as victims of domestic abuse.
• Equality Act 2010:
• Prohibition of discrimination by public authorities (police) on grounds of gender. I argue that the way my case as a male victim of domestic abuse was handled was discriminatory.
• Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR: Right of access to personal data held by the police (Subject Access Requests – SARs). Any issues with my access to police files or Public Protection Notices (PPN) and the application or challenge of exemptions, especially concerning third-party data in closed (NFA) cases, should be discussed.

B. College of Policing (CoP) Guidance

• Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Domestic Abuse: Key to demonstrating failings in the police investigation, risk assessment, victim care, and handling of counter-allegations (especially in identifying the primary perpetrator).
• Code of Ethics: Particularly the standards of “Honesty and Integrity,” “Duties and Responsibilities,” “Equality and Diversity,” and “Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct.” I argue that unreliable reporting, lack of an impartial investigation, or discriminatory behaviour by officers breached this Code.
• Guidance on Report Writing: Emphasising standards of accuracy, objectivity, and completeness.

C. Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Guidance

• Guidance on Domestic Abuse: Sets out expectations for police investigations submitted to the CPS, including evidence gathering, handling of counter-allegations, and identification of the primary perpetrator. I believe police deviations from these guidelines weaken any potential case and indicate a low-quality investigation, which the IOPC should have noted.
• Code for Crown Prosecutors: Evidential and public interest tests. Although the IOPC assesses police conduct, an understanding of CPS charging standards is relevant to evaluating the quality of the police investigation.

D. IOPC Operational Standards and Relevant Case Law

• IOPC’s Own Standards: The IOPC must adhere to its own published standards for thorough, impartial, and fair investigations.
• Case Law on “Reasonable Suspicion” (e.g., O’Hara v Chief Constable of the RUC): Defines the objective test for reasonable suspicion for arrest purposes.
• Case Law on Misconduct in Public Office: Defines elements such as “wilfulness” and “abuse of public trust.”

This overview of the legal and procedural framework is not merely a list of provisions but indicates their direct applicability to the circumstances of my case and to the alleged failings on the part of the IOPC. It demonstrates that my objections are substantively justified and based on current standards that both the police and the IOPC, in its oversight function, are obliged to uphold.

VI. Conclusion and Expectations

A. Confirmation of the Unreasonableness of the IOPC’s Decision from My Perspective

The analysis presented in this document unequivocally indicates that the IOPC’s decision, in the points I have challenged, is, in my view, unjustified and based on flawed foundations. This stems primarily from the fact that the IOPC, in its assessment, relied on what I consider to be an incomplete and biased investigation conducted by Dorset Police. I believe the IOPC failed to sufficiently consider the evidence I presented, misinterpreted or ignored key legal principles and police guidelines, and did not adequately address my serious allegations concerning the misconduct of police officers. Specifically, the IOPC’s findings in points 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24, 31, 33, 34, 35, 52, and 60 are, for me, untenable in light of the evidence presented and applicable legal standards. This concerns fundamental issues such as the legality of my arrest, the integrity of the domestic abuse investigation (including the identification of the primary perpetrator and the handling of my counter-allegations), the accuracy of police reports, adherence to my rights as a victim, and allegations of gender discrimination.

B. My Expectations of the IOPC

In light of the above, I expect the IOPC to treat the comments I have presented with due seriousness and to thoroughly analyse the arguments raised. I expect the IOPC to:

• Seriously consider my objections: Reflect on the findings of the IOPC report in points 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24, 31, 33, 34, 35, 52, and 60, with full consideration of the arguments and evidence presented in this letter.
• Re-evaluate the integrity of the report: Reconsider the overall integrity and completeness of the original IOPC report in light of the systemic failings in the police investigation that I have identified.
• Consider issuing a corrective statement or additional clarifications: Consider whether, in light of my comments, it is necessary to correct or supplement the public conclusions regarding the case, so that they accurately reflect all available evidence, correctly apply relevant legal standards and police guidelines, and address my allegations of police misconduct.
• Formulate or strengthen recommendations for Dorset Police: Issue or strengthen specific and firm recommendations for Dorset Police concerning:

• Conducting training on domestic abuse, with particular emphasis on identifying the primary perpetrator, understanding the mechanisms of coercive control, impartially handling counter-allegations, and counteracting gender bias against male victims.
• Strict adherence to the Victim’s Code of Practice for all victims, regardless of gender.
• Adherence to the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, especially the standards of “Honesty and Integrity” and “Duties and Responsibilities” in the conduct of documentation and investigations.
• Reviewing arrest procedures in domestic abuse incidents to ensure compliance with s.24 PACE 1984 and the necessity criteria contained in Code G.
• Ensuring thorough and complete evidence gathering, including the interviewing of all key witnesses identified by the parties.

• Re-assess the issue of disciplinary proceedings: In light of my objections, particularly concerning the fabrication of the strangulation allegation, unreliable reporting, failure to investigate my allegations, omission of key witnesses, and potential discrimination, consider whether the actions of the officers involved do not meet the criteria for misconduct or gross misconduct, and whether more decisive referrals should be made to Dorset Police in this matter.
• Recommend an apology be issued: Recommend that Dorset Police issue an official apology to me for the identified failings and the harm suffered.

I trust that the IOPC will approach this letter with due seriousness and conduct a thorough analysis of the arguments presented, which will contribute not only to a fair resolution of my case but also to an improvement in the standards of police conduct and oversight.

30/05/2025

From: DataProtectionAlliance@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk

Re: Subject Access Reference No: 01/DPR/25/008873

I acknowledge receipt of your Subject Access Application under the Data Protection Act 2018 to request your personal data which may be held by Devon & Cornwall Police

A response should be sent to you without undue delay and within a calendar month. However, due to a significant increase in requests, the Data Protection Team is currently working through requests received more than 5 months ago which may delay your response being provided to you. We apologise for this delay and wish to assure you that our team are doing their best to manage demand. Each request received is logged and dealt with as soon as possible.

The Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO), the UK Regulator for data protection, has been monitoring the performance of this Force.  The period of monitoring ended and on 2 February 2024, the ICO published its decision to take regulatory action against this Force.  A reprimand has been issued with the requirements to have sufficient staff in place to meet demand and continue to improve compliance with the response timeframe. The Force is committed to taking those steps to improve response times. 

29/05/2025

From: complaintsandVRR.wessex@cps.gov.uk

Re: Feedback – CRN00056898 – 55CH0259223

Please see the attached response to your feedback from Benjamin Holden, District Crown Prosecutor.

Kind regards,

Charlotte Harrison | Complaints Co-Ordinator

CPS Wessex | Crown Prosecution Service

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself. My name is Benjamin Holden and
I am a District Crown Prosecutor with responsibility for the Crown Court Team within
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Wessex. Part of my role is to ensure that correct decisions
are made in our cases and that those who are affected by our decisions are informed and
have the reasons behind those decisions fully explained.
I have read your emails dated 8 May and 28 May 2025, and I have also reviewed the case
file. Before turning to the questions you raise in your emails, I think it might be helpful to
set out the role of the CPS, and that of the reviewing lawyer when a case is submitted for a
charging decision by the police.
The Role of the Crown Prosecution Service
The CPS do not make judgments on whether witnesses are telling the truth, or whether
someone is innocent or guilty. The CPS is completely independent and responsible for
deciding whether the available evidence is more likely than not to prove that the suspect
committed a crime.
We review all the evidence in the case file and assess whether:

• there is enough evidence so that the suspect is more likely than not to be found
  guilty,
• and is it in the public interest that the case goes ahead.

These stages are set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (“the Code” is available on our
website at this address: www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors). These
stages can only be considered when the reviewing lawyer is satisfied that all outstanding
reasonable lines of inquiry have been pursued.
The police submitted your case for a CPS charging on 25 August 2023, and at that stage,
the case was allocated to a reviewing lawyer to establish whether there was sufficient
evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and decide whether a prosecution
would be in the public interest. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the police, the
reviewing lawyer felt there were further lines of inquiry that needed to be pursued, and an
action plan was provided to the police setting out what further inquires needed to be
completed before a decision as to whether charges should be authorised could be made.
The reviewing lawyer’s advice to the police and accompanying action plan was dispatched
on 18 September 2023.
The case was then resubmitted by the police for charging advice on 5 December 2023.
Although many of the further lines of inquiry had been completed, there were still some
remaining lines of inquiry outstanding as well as an issue concerning a piece of video
evidence. These inquiries and issues needed to be resolved before the case could be
considered for a charging decision. Due to the nature and seriousness of the allegations, it
was deemed proportionate and appropriate to return the file submission to the police
requesting that the outstanding inquiries were resolved.
The investigating officer and the reviewing lawyer have then had conversations regarding
the sufficiency of the evidence and the inquiries that need to be completed to establish
whether this case could have a realistic prospect of conviction. The case was finally
submitted for a charging advice on 23 May 2024. The reviewing lawyer was satisfied that
all outstanding reasonable lines of inquiry had been completed and that they were in a
position to consider the sufficiency of the evidence and the public interest. The decision by
the lawyer that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction
was made on 11 June 2024, and the decision to take no further action was passed to the
police the same day.
I am sorry for the delay you have experienced waiting for the charging decision in your
case. This was because key lines of inquiry needed to be pursued before a charging
decision could be taken. The allegations that had been made were particularly serious, and
it was therefore appropriate that the lawyer ensured a full and thorough police
investigation had been completed before considering the sufficiency of evidence and
making a charging decision.

3
I will now turn to the questions you have raised in your email dated the 28 May. In this
email you have raised a concern that a key piece of potentially undermining material was
not disclosed to you. The reason this material would not have been disclosed to you is
because you were never actually charged with an offence. The statutory duties for
disclosure only arise under the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act when a plea of
not guilty is entered in the magistrates’ court, at the point the case is sent for trial at the
Crown Court, on the preferment of a voluntary bill of indictment or with the service of the
prosecution case following the sending of an accused to the Crown Court. There is also
duty of disclosure under the common law which applies in certain circumstances prior to
the statutory duties, but this would only have arisen in your case once the proceedings had
commenced, which would be at the point of charge. You have never been charged with a
criminal offence in relation to these allegations, and consequently there have never been
any criminal proceedings and the duty of disclosure has therefore not arisen.
Yours sincerely,
Benjamin Holden
District Crown Prosecutor
CPS Wessex

29/05/2025

From: complaintsandVRR.wessex@cps.gov.uk

Re: Request for Clarification Regarding Disclosure – Case of Andrzej Majewski – Case No. 55CH0259223

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that it has been added to your feedback, CRN00056898.

The response from the District Crown Prosecutor will cover both emails from 8 May 2025 and 28 May 2025.

Kind regards,

Charlotte Harrison | Complaints Co-Ordinator

CPS Wessex | Crown Prosecution Service

Feedback Reference Number: CRN00056898
Case Reference Number: 55CH0259223
Please use this reference number in all communications
28 May 2025

I am writing in relation to your email received on 8 May 2025, regarding your concerns in
relation to the above case.
Your concerns have been lodged as feedback under the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Feedback and Complaints policy.
I have asked a District Crown Prosecutor for CPS Wessex to respond to your concerns
regarding this matter and they will aim to provide you with a response by 6 June 2025.
Please be aware that the response will be provided via email. If you would prefer the letter
to be sent via post, please reply confirming your postal address.
If you have any further enquiries in the meantime, please feel free to contact us on the
details below.
Yours sincerely,
Miss C. Harrison
Complaints Co-ordinator
CPS Wessex

28/05/2025

To: victimliaison.wessex@cps.gov.uk

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

I am writing to you concerning the case against me, regarding the allegations prosecuted by the CPS, including the charge of “Intentional Strangulation” allegedly occurring on 24th June 2023. I understand this charge is based on information initially gathered by Dorset Police and is listed in the “Pending Prosecutions” document I received. My case number is 55CH0259223.

I wish to state categorically that I am innocent and have never committed the act of which I am accused.

Upon reviewing the documentation provided to me, which I understand forms part of the evidence upon which the CPS is basing its prosecution, I have not found any direct statement from my former partner that substantiates this specific allegation. However, a report I received from the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) states: “This was disclosed during a PPN (Public Protection Notice) with your ex-partner and officers.”

In light of the above, and considering the CPS’s duties regarding disclosure, I kindly request an explanation as to why the information regarding the origin of this allegation from the PPN was not fully and clearly disclosed to me within the prosecution’s evidence bundle.

In accordance with the principles of disclosure in the United Kingdom, particularly the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA 1996) and the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure, the prosecution has a duty to disclose to the accused material that may undermine the prosecution’s case or assist the defendant’s case. I believe that information about the circumstances in which the “intentional strangulation” allegation first arose is crucial to my defence.

Section 3 of the CPIA 1996 places a duty on the investigator to record and retain material that may be relevant to the investigation, and the prosecution has a continuing duty to disclose such material if it meets the disclosure test.

The lack of full information regarding the origin of such a serious allegation raises significant concerns about the fairness of the disclosure process and my ability to prepare a full defence. Furthermore, I am concerned that due to the non-disclosure of all relevant evidence, my court proceedings may have been conducted in a manner that infringed upon my fundamental rights to a fair trial.

I request an urgent clarification of this matter from the Crown Prosecution Service and the provision of any additional information and documentation relating to the aforementioned PPN and the circumstances in which this allegation was first made and recorded, insofar as this material is in the possession of the CPS or ought to be obtained from the police under your disclosure obligations.

I look forward to your response.

28/05/2025

To: matthew.lambert@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dear PC Lambert,

I am writing in reference to your email dated 4th November 2024, informing me of the decision to take No Further Action (NFA) in the case I reported against Ms Kowalska.

I understand, as you mentioned, that “The account that Ms KOWALSKA has given was deemed to be credible and there is no realistic prospect of conviction given the information which has been supplied.” However, I would like to invoke my rights as a victim of crime, under The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (hereinafter “Victims’ Code”), specifically Right 4 (Right to be kept informed of key decisions and to have an explanation), to request a more detailed written explanation of the grounds for this decision.

In this regard, I would be grateful if you could provide answers to the following questions:

1. What specific aspects of Ms Kowalska’s account were deemed credible, and on what basis?
2. What specific information, from that which was supplied, led to the conclusion that there is no realistic prospect of conviction, especially in the context of the evidence I presented, which is available at: https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/nhs-nurse-from-poole-hospital-domestic-violence-false-testimony-and-lies-in-court/?
3. Who exactly (what position/role within Dorset Police) conducted the “supervision review” and made the final NFA decision in this matter?
4. Was the case at any stage consulted with, or formally referred to, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for a charging decision? If so, when did this occur and what was the outcome of this consultation/CPS decision? If not, why was it not considered appropriate to refer the matter to the CPS?

I would also like to inform you that I am aware of the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme and I am considering availing myself of this option upon receipt of your comprehensive answers to the above questions.

I would appreciate a written response to my enquiries within a reasonable timeframe.

28/05/2025

From: complaintsandVRR.wessex@cps.gov.uk

Re: Feedback – Andrzej Majewski – CRN00056898

Dear Mr Majewski,

I am writing to you from our dedicated complaints and Victim’s Right to Review (VRR) mailbox.

In response to your below email, please find attached a letter stating that we have logged your concerns under our Feedback and Complaints Procedure.

If you require any further information in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us on the details below.

Kind regards,

Charlotte Harrison | Complaints Co-Ordinator

Feedback Reference Number: CRN00056898
Case Reference Number: 55CH0259223
Please use this reference number in all communications
28 May 2025
Dear Mr Majewski,
I am writing in relation to your email received on 8 May 2025, regarding your concerns in
relation to the above case.
Your concerns have been lodged as feedback under the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Feedback and Complaints policy.
I have asked a District Crown Prosecutor for CPS Wessex to respond to your concerns
regarding this matter and they will aim to provide you with a response by 6 June 2025.
Please be aware that the response will be provided via email. If you would prefer the letter
to be sent via post, please reply confirming your postal address.
If you have any further enquiries in the meantime, please feel free to contact us on the
details below.
Yours sincerely,
Miss C. Harrison
Complaints Co-ordinator
CPS Wessex

28/05/2025

From: no-reply@service.police.uk

Thank you for completing the form, your reference is: COM-35497-25-5500-00.

We’re sorry you had to make a complaint.

We take this very seriously. We’ll review your complaint and aim to respond within 28 working days.

Thank you.

28/05/2025

To: “PRATT, Rose” <Rose.PRATT@dorset.pnn.police.uk>,

“Allen, Ian” <Ian.Allen@dorset.pnn.police.uk>,
BCPPerformance <BCPPerformance@dorset.pnn.police.uk>,
“.Complaints & Misconduct” <complaints-misconduct@dorset.pnn.police.uk>, enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk,
“.PCC” <pcc@dorset.pnn.police.uk>

Dear Rose Pratt,

I am writing to you concerning the case against me, regarding the allegations presented by Dorset Police, including the charge of “Intentional Strangulation” allegedly occurring on 24th June 2023, which is listed in the “Pending Prosecutions” document.

I wish to state categorically that I am innocent and have never committed the act of which I am accused.

Upon reviewing the documentation provided to me by Dorset Police, I have not found any direct statement from my former partner that substantiates this specific allegation. However, a report I received from the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) states: “This was disclosed during a PPN (Public Protection Notice) with your ex-partner and officers.”

In light of the above, I kindly request an explanation as to why the information regarding the origin of this allegation from the PPN was not fully and clearly disclosed to me in the evidence bundle provided directly by Dorset Police.

In accordance with the principles of disclosure in the United Kingdom, particularly the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA 1996) and the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure, a defendant has the right to access material that may undermine the prosecution’s case or assist the defendant’s case. I believe that information about the circumstances in which the “intentional strangulation” allegation first arose is crucial to my defence.

Section 3 of the CPIA 1996 places a duty on the investigator to record and retain material that may be relevant to the investigation. Subsequently, the prosecutor has a duty to disclose to the accused any material which “might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused”.

The lack of full information regarding the origin of such a serious allegation raises significant concerns about the fairness of the disclosure process in my case.

I request an urgent clarification of this matter and the provision of any additional information and documentation relating to the aforementioned PPN and the circumstances in which this allegation was first made and recorded.

I look forward to your response.

27/05/2025

From: no-reply@service.police.uk

Thank you for completing the form, your reference is: BCA-50618-25-5555-IR04.

This is the receipt code for your report.

Please note: this is not a crime reference number.

What happens next?

We’ll investigate your report based on the information you’ve provided and aim to get back to you within 5 days or sooner, either with a crime reference number or, if we can’t take action, an explanation as to why and further advice.

We won’t call you unless we need more information, to clarify something in your report or if there might be an opportunity to collect forensic evidence.

For security reasons we haven’t emailed your report to you. 

27/05/2025

From: Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

IOPC Review

27 May 2025

This letter is about your application for a review of the complaint decision by Dorset Police

which we received on 10 November 2024.

The IOPC is independent of the police.1 Our role is to decide whether your complaint

against Dorset Police was handled correctly and the outcome was reasonable and

proportionate. This decision was communicated to you by T J Whittle (Joint Head of

Complaints and Misconduct Unit) in a letter dated 29 October 2024.

Our role is not to investigate your complaint.

In deciding whether the outcome was reasonable and proportionate, I have considered

whether:

• the complaint handler engaged with you to fully understand and address your

complaint

• the complaint handler conducted adequate enquiries and considered relevant

information

• the conclusion was logical, appropriate and evidence-based
• reasonable actions were taken to address your complaint
• any potential for learning was identified as part of the process.

You may like to read a copy of our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to help you

understand more about how we make our decisions, including a definition of what we

mean by ‘reasonable and proportionate’. I have included a copy of our FAQs with this

letter.

My decision

1. I have concluded that the outcome of your complaint was reasonable and

proportionate. Therefore, your application for review is not upheld.

2. When making my decision, I have considered:

▪ Your original complaint dated 10 December 2023.

▪ Your application for review letter dated 10 November 2024.

▪ Supplementary material you have sent in support of your application.

▪ The report prepared by the complaint handler T J Whittle dated 29 October 2024 and

the evidence referred to in their report.

Application for review

3. In your application for review dated 10 November 2024, you asked me to review the

decisions made by Dorset Police PSD in respect of your complaint.

Point one

4. You were unhappy about inaccuracies in evidence gathered, and statements

or witness accounts.

My Assessment

5. The Complaint Handler concluded that the service level provided was acceptable

for the investigation with you as a suspect. The service level determined for the

investigation into you as a victim was found to be not acceptable and PC Pratt has

been provided learning as a result of this incident.

6. In reviewing this point, I have found it useful to measure the response by officers to

the guidance on investigating domestic abuse provided by the College of Policing.

7. Police officers have a duty to take positive action when dealing with domestic abuse

incidents. Often this means making an arrest, provided the grounds exist and it is a

necessary and proportionate response. Officers must be able to justify the decision

not to arrest in those circumstances. In some situations, other positive approaches

may be more appropriate (Arrest and other positive approaches | College of

Policing).

8. I wanted to particularly highlight this part of the guidance: Counter-allegations

require police officers to evaluate each party’s complaint separately and conduct

immediate further investigation at the scene (or as soon as is practicable) to

determine if there is a primary perpetrator.

9. If both parties claim to be the victim, officers should risk assess both. There may

also be circumstances where the party being arrested requires a risk assessment,

as in the case of a victim retaliating against an abuser. Officers should bear in mind

the possibility that the relationship is a mutually abusive one. (First response |

College of Policing).

10. On the subject of dual arrests:
11. The arrest of the primary perpetrator does not prohibit the officer from arresting both

parties if there is evidence that both parties have committed offences but it should

be an exceptional measure, for example if both are causing a public order situation

in the street and refusing to engage with attending officers. (Arrest and other

positive approaches | College of Policing)

12. Taking into account the guidance provided, I have carefully considered this matter

during my review. I acknowledge that both you and your ex-partner made

allegations of abuse against each other, and I understand your frustration that your

ex-partner’s account was pursued, resulting in your arrest. I also recognise the

substantial impact this has had on your family and business, and I do not wish to

diminish the significance of these effects.

13. Based on the available information, the officers’ initial decision to remove you from

the property and proceed with an arrest following further reports of non-fatal

strangulation appears to align with the relevant guidance. It is evident that you were

presenting a counter-allegation; however, the crime report prepared by PC Pratt

was closed prematurely, and it required multiple efforts on your part to have this

recorded, particularly regarding the incident involving a broken nose.

14. I do not consider a dual arrest to have been a justified course of action in these

circumstances, and I find it reasonable that the officers opted against pursuing this

approach.

15. This issue has been acknowledged as an error on the part of PC Pratt, and I believe

the corrective measures taken to address this through additional learning are

appropriate. I do not find evidence to suggest that this omission was intentional, as

the crime reports document your perspective on the relationship, in which you were

listed as a suspect. If PC Pratt had deliberately sought to disregard this aspect, it

would be reasonable to expect that an effort might have been made to exclude it

from the crime report.

16. While I understand that this explanation may not fully address your concerns, in the

absence of evidence demonstrating deliberate misconduct on the part of PC Pratt, I

do not believe there is sufficient basis to conclude that she acted intentionally to

undermine you or cause you further harm.

17. I have considered your request for the dismissal of PC Pratt in relation to this

matter. While I acknowledge that your perspective may differ significantly from

mine, given the personal and professional impact this incident has had on your life, I

do not believe that PC Pratt acted with deliberate dishonesty or intent to cause

harm. She has recognised the mistake made and its impact on you. Had she not

already received learning, I would have recommended this as the most appropriate course of action. However, I do not consider misconduct proceedings to be

warranted in this instance.

18. I will now address your following review points:
19. From the beginning of the investigation, police knew that the ex-partner was lying

and this was noted by one of the officers in their report.

• I have reviewed the occurrence that contains the investigation of the incident

on 24 June 2023 (55230098162). I cannot see where it is referenced that

your ex-partner is lying or that the police had any knowledge of this.

20. Your ex testified that she attacked you and there was evidence to support this.

• I have reviewed the crime reports to find this information. It states that ‘The

female party also disclosed that a while ago (possibly a year or more ago)

the male had pushed her or kicked her in the stomach after she had hit him,

but this was not reported.’ I agree that it was admitted that this had occurred.

As above, I believe that this information was noted to understand the

relationship dynamic.

21. There was no evidence to support your ex partner’s claims of domestic abuse.

Furthermore, you would like a list of the evidence that was deemed sufficient to

charge and refer the case to the CPS.

• Whilst I do not have access to the exact list of evidence for this matter, I

have considered whether it would be reasonable and proportionate to

request this for my review. Based on the available information, it appears

that the supporting evidence for the CPS to authorise a charge consisted of

two statements from the victim and a clip of body-worn footage. Given this, I

do not consider it necessary to seek additional information. Having reviewed

the crime reference report, I must emphasise that established procedures

require the officer in charge to assess whether the evidence meets the

criteria for CPS referral. Ultimately, the decision to charge rests solely with

the CPS. In this instance, the CPS issued a ‘no further action’ decision,

meaning that no formal charges were brought against you.

22. You would like to know who is the author of the allegation that you strangled your

ex-partner.

• This was disclosed during a PPN (Public Protection Notice) with your ex-

partner and officers.

Point two

23. The bail documents from PC Pratt were not signed by a superintendent and

not enough notice was given for bail change.

My Assessment

24. The complaint handler determined that the service level provided in response to this

point was appropriate, having reviewed an email from Inspector Allen that clarified

bail procedures. After independently reviewing this email, sent to you on 16 January

2024, I find it to be a clear and comprehensive explanation of bail procedures.

Given this, there was little additional insight the complaint handler could provide,

and I believe the overall response to this point was reasonable.

Point three

25. You were not happy that you had to leave the home.

My Assessment

26. The complaint handler determined that the bail conditions imposed required your

separation from the two individuals residing in your home. The rationale provided

was to safeguard the victim in the investigation and to prevent escalation or

recurrence of incidents. The overall conclusion was that the service level provided

in this matter was appropriate.

27. As previously referenced, the separation of parties following a domestic incident is

often an investigatory decision. I acknowledge the impact this has had on you;

however, given the circumstances, I believe that the officers were acting in

accordance with their duties. While I recognise that you may strongly disagree with

this assessment, it is important to consider the obligations placed on officers to

ensure the safety and wellbeing of all parties involved.

28. I will now address your following review points:
29. From the beginning, the officers had an admission of physical assault from ex-

partner.

• I have addressed this under point one.

30. ‘Help’ from officers was not help, just giving escort to property and then advised to

cancel passport (believed to be stolen).

• I can understand that you feel let down by Dorset Police, but the advice

given seems to be appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.

31. Why do they refuse to initiate an investigation against your ex-partner

• I would challenge that there was a refusal to investigate the allegations made

against your ex-partner, as demonstrated by crime report 55240098686. The

decision to NFA was communicated to you in an email and explained by PC

Matt Lambert. I believe you were provided a sufficient explanation about why

this had been decided.

Point four

32. Officers have lied in their reports (PC Shaw 1720, PC Dutton 1985, PC Boobier

0482, PC Chubb 0817).

My Assessment

33. Chief Inspector Buller reviewed the complaints against PCs Boobier, Chubb, and

Dutton and found no evidence of wrongdoing. Regarding PCs Boobier and Chubb,

the assault crime had already been recorded by PC Pratt, so there was no

requirement for them to record it again or take further action under the Victims

Code. For PC Dutton, CI Buller examined the report of a breach of bail on 25 June

2023 and determined that the incident was correctly recorded and handled. The

incident log accurately stated that you were arrested on 24 June 2023 on suspicion

of assault by beating and non-fatal strangulation. PC Dutton addressed the matter

with words of advice, and CI Buller concluded that the officer’s actions met an

acceptable level of service, with no further action required.

34. I acknowledge your concerns regarding the wording used in the officers’ report,

specifically that they stated you had committed offences rather than being

suspected of committing them. You believe this constitutes a fabrication of evidence

and, therefore, dishonesty on the part of the officers. Whilst I understand your

perspective, it is not uncommon for such language to be used in police reports. This

does not amount to lying but rather reflects the manner in which the situation is

formally documented and pursued.

35. To illustrate this point, when you have reported offences, the record has described

you as a victim and your ex-partner as a suspect. Similarly, crime report

55240098686 states that ‘KOWALSKA has refused to return items belonging to

MAJEWSKI believed to still be at the XXXXXXX address.’ This

demonstrates a consistent approach in which certain events are recorded as having

occurred rather than framed as suspicion. Based on this, I do not consider the

language used to be indicative of dishonesty or misconduct.

36. With regard to your review representations on this specific point, I have already

addressed the evidence used to compile the case file referred to the CPS for a

charging decision under allegation one. Therefore, I will not restate this here.

Point five

37. Lack of contact from PC Pratt on 8 December 2023 updating you that bail date

had been extended.

My Assessment

38. Inspector Allen reviewed the issue and confirmed that the error regarding your

contact number was an unintentional mistake. PC Pratt demonstrated that the

incorrect digit was accidentally input on her work phone. The complaint handler

found that the service provided by Dorset Police in this instance to be unacceptable

but it was not deemed to be a deliberate error, and Inspector Allen issued an

apology on behalf of Dorset Police. I believe this to be a reasonable and

proportionate response to this point.

Point six

39. You felt there was gender discrimination as the reports you made of violence

against you were not actioned.

My Assessment

40. The assault by your ex-partner was initially recorded by PC Pratt under reference

number 55230099012. However, as she was still investigating you as a suspect,

she was unable to pursue the matter with you as a victim. The report was made as

a counter-allegation during an interview, recorded but not followed up on. For

learning purposes, PC Pratt has since been spoken to about this.

41. The case was later taken up by PC Boobier under reference number 55230106821,

who spoke with the complainant on 13 July 2023 regarding the history of incidents

with Ms Kowalska. As the complainant expressed his wish only to make Dorset

Police aware of his concerns, the matter did not progress further. A subsequent

contact in October 2023 to report domestic abuse resulted in the case being closed,

as no new incidents were reported. The reference for this was 55230165470. The

investigation into the assault was not reopened until 21 July 2024.

42. Upon reviewing the complainant’s reports and interactions with Dorset Police, the

service provided in relation to these matters was found to be unacceptable. Dorset

Police initially failed to take appropriate action, and further conversations with the

complainant could have better clarified the handling of his reports. His follow-ups in

October and November 2023 should have prompted an investigation, but this did

not commence until July 2024.

43. The assault report and the more recent theft allegation are currently being

investigated by PC Lambert (0904) under reference number 55240098686. As this

investigation remains ongoing (at the time of the complaint outcome), no

determination on service level can be provided at this stage.

44. The IOPC provides guidelines to police forces to assist them in investigating

complaints of discrimination. The forces are not compelled to follow these

guidelines as they are just a suggestion, however, these guidelines can give an

idea of how the investigating officer came to a conclusion about whether there was

a presence of discrimination, and in turn, how reasonable and proportionate their

investigation is.

45. Firstly, the guidelines suggest that contact is made with the complainant to establish

how and why the complainant feels discriminated against arising from the actions of

the force. I can see that there has been an extensive amount of emails where you

have been able to express your point of view on this and the impact it has had on

you.

46. The guidance then goes on to recommend that the complaint history of the officers

involved is looked into, to see if there are any themes of discrimination complaints

in the complaint history. Furthermore, it is useful to utilise ‘comparator evidence’.

This asks the question whether there is a difference in the treatment of an individual

compared to another, whether real or hypothetical.

47. Although the Complaint Handler did not incorporate complaint history into their

assessment, I believe this was a reasonable decision given the number of officers

involved in the various investigations. I am not convinced that including complaint

history would have provided additional insight into whether discrimination was a

factor in their decision-making.

48. The Complaint Handler has primarily relied on comparator evidence to assess the

level of service. It appears to have been acknowledged that the original counter-

allegation was mistakenly closed. Dorset Police have provided their rationale for the

continuation or discontinuation of certain investigations. It is my opinion that this is

not derived from discriminatory reasons, but there has obviously been an omission

during this process, and I can understand why you feel incredibly let down by the

process. Ultimately, I believe that the Complaint Handler has reached a reasonable

and proportionate decision for this allegation.

49. I acknowledge your concerns regarding medical records and the impact you believe

they may have had on the family court proceedings. While I am unable to comment

on those proceedings, I have considered whether the issue of medical records,

particularly in relation to the investigation and their potential relevance as

comparator evidence, should have been addressed by the Complaint Handler.

50. In my view, this could have been a valuable and specific aspect to examine.

However, I do not believe its omission renders the overall decision unreasonable. If

you wish to have this matter explored further, I recommend submitting a separate

complaint to ensure it is properly addressed.

Point seven

51. Non-compliance with the victim’s code.

My Assessment

52. The Complaint Handler concluded that Dorset Police did not comply with the

Victim’s Code regarding report 55230099012, as it was closed without providing an

update or follow-on Victim Support. This failure was not acceptable, and PC Pratt

has been spoken to for learning purposes.

53. As you were satisfied with the closure of report 55230106821, no further action was

required under the Victim’s Code, making the service level acceptable. The report

submitted on 18 October 2024 (reference 55230165470) was closed as a duplicate,

as you had already been spoken to regarding the assault, and the service level was

deemed acceptable.

54. I have considered the requirements of the Victim’s Code. Whilst I do appreciate that

there seems to be a lapse in some provisions that should have been given to you

(recording and support), I believe that these have been recognised by the

Complaint Handler and a reasonable conclusion reached. I believe that the most

appropriate way to deal with this is to raise the issue with the force and so they can

review the way the Victim’s Code is implemented throughout the force and ensure it

is more consistently applied.

55. I will now address your following review points:
56. You do not recall agreeing to a situation during a conversation with PS Boobier that

ex-partner would avoid responsibility and you would like a recording of the

conversation with PS Boobier.

• Whilst there is not an audio recording of the conversation, I will include the

entire entry made by PS Boobier on the crime report that details the contents

of the conversation you had:

MAJEWSKI reported at 1420hrs on 9th JULY 2023. He stated that he was

arrested for a DA and now wants to make a counter complain. He reports

that KOWALSKA has mental health problems and is on meds as well as

drinking too much alcohol.

MAJEWSKI said that KOWALSKA would not stop making contact with him

and making his life difficult. Concerned that if she saw him on the road then

she would hurt him due to her rages.

—

I have now spoke with MAJEWSKI. Essentially, he is angry and annoyed that

KOWALSKA reported him to the police and that he had conditions placed on

him. He is frustrated because he states that KOWALSKA is still trying to

contact him and wished to place a counter argument against her.

MAJEWSKI didn’t actually have anything to report. He stated some things

happened in 2021 (broken phone and assault), but he didn’t really want to

talk about them. I asked him on multiple occasions what allegations he

wished to make about KOWALSKA and his response was always concerns

about what might happen in the future, not what has happened in the past.

He confirmed that nothing had happened recently that he needed to talk to

us about. He no longer lives with KOWALSKA and is staying in a rented

room on Holdenhurst Road and stated there is no reason for them ever to

speak to each other again or see each other. She has not harmed him or

assaulted him. He did not talk about any harassment or stalking related

incidents or criminal damage. He just wished to make us aware of his

concerns moving forward. Concerns about her mental health and alcohol

related things. He is concerned that she may be volatile towards him if they

ever bumped in to each other in the street.

MAJEWSKA came across on the phone that he just wanted to report

KOWALSKA for something. Clearly frustrated at the situation he is in. But in

the end did not have anything to report that she had done that he wished to

make a statement about and was happy for this occurrence to be closed.

WOA given in relation to reporting live incidents occurring now if she causes

him issues or offends against him.

—

KOWALSKA was spoken to over the phone and advised to not contact

MAJEWSKA either as this is not appropriate seeing as he has conditions not

to contact her. KOWALSKA appeared AIO on the phone, not intoxicated and

was happy to talk to me. She confirmed that she had sent MAJEWSKA a

couple text messages, in relation to ‘work’ questions, not expecting a reply

but just to let him know something. She will now no longer do this. There is

no need to communicate with him at all.

KOWALSKA confirmed that there have been no issues since with

MAJEWSKA and is moving on with her life.

—

This was reported as MAJEWSKA wishing to make counter allegations

against KOWALSKA but in fact was him just reporting his concerns about

what ‘might’ happen in future.

You want an explanation of contents of 55230165470, 55230106821, 55230099012

• I have included the summary as detailed on the crime occurrences for you

where relevant.

• 55230165470 – ‘duplicate occurrence of a historical domestic assault’

(breaking of your nose by ex-partner).

• 55230106821 – ‘DA with partner – outcome reviewed by CMU’.
• 55230099012 – ‘created to record 1x common assault for male as the victim

due to historic allegation’.

Point eight

58. On 24 June 2024, the call handler 7213 was rude to you and did not provide

you with any information.

My Assessment

59. The Complaint Handler concluded that a supervisor in the control room reviewed

the call and provided her findings via email on 11 August 2024, including a review,

explanation, and details of the actions taken. The service provided by Dorset Police

in this instance was not acceptable, as the tone and wording used by the call taker

could have been improved, and a clearer explanation of why an update could not

be provided would have been beneficial. The call handler has been spoken to for

reflection and learning. As the matter has been addressed, no further action will be

taken.

60. I hope this review has provided clarity on certain aspects, including the confirmation

that two domestic abuse cases can proceed concurrently, as per College of Policing

guidelines. Whilst PC Pratt may not have been able to be the Officer in Case (OIC)

for both, the two cases were intended to run concurrently, as suggested by the

creation of two crime reports. However, due to an error by PC Pratt, the report

naming you as the victim did not go forward as expected. I believe this to have been

rectified at a later point (as discussed above).

61. You may have noticed that I have not addressed every review point you raised. I

have focused on those I consider reasonable and proportionate to address, as I am

unable to comment on aspects beyond the scope of the Complaint Handler’s

assessment.

62. I acknowledge your perspective that Dorset Police officers have acted unlawfully;

however, I respectfully challenge this view. While certain mistakes have been

identified and lessons have been implemented, there is no indication that the

officers’ actions constitute misconduct.

63. I am sorry that you feel overlooked as a victim, and I appreciate how difficult this

must have been for you. Dorset Police have acknowledged areas requiring

improvement and have reached a reasonable and proportionate conclusion regarding the overall service level for this complaint.

64. I also note that you have requested compensation in your review representations.

The IOPC is not in a position to recommend compensation as a remedy. If you

would like further information about the compensation process, you can find more

details here: Request compensation for something the police have done | Dorset

Police

Conclusion

65. Therefore, I am unable to uphold your review on this occasion.

Organisational learning

66. Throughout my assessment, I have carefully considered whether there are any further

opportunities for organisational learning or improvement. In this case, I have not identified

any additional learning.

Matters we cannot consider

67. Where the complainant has raised additional matters, not recorded as part of the

original complaint, which you have not considered. I can only consider the

complaints that were recorded by Dorset Police under reference number

2024/199375. Any additional matters that you have raised during the review

process have not been considered. Should you wish to pursue any matter not

recorded under complaint reference 2024/199375 you would need to raise it as a

new complaint either via the IOPC website or via Dorset Police.

68. I summarise these additional matters as follows:

• Reasoning for dispatching officers to your address on 23 June 2023.
• Allegation that PC Shaw falsified facts about you being not allowed to return to the

property.

• Allegation that PC Dutton has falsified facts about the events of the night of the

incident – specifically about pushing your ex-partner.

• Allegation that PC Pratt has falsified facts about the events on the night of the

incident specifically about pushing your ex-partner.

• Concerns about the length of time the investigation by PC Pratt took (12 months).

This concludes my review and I hope my decision and the reasons I have given are clear.

You cannot appeal the outcome of this review.

You can contact me if you have any comments or feedback, or if you need more

information about the way I have reviewed the force’s handling of your complaint. My

contact details are at the end of this letter.

We are committed to providing the highest possible standard of customer service. Please

let us know if you are unhappy with the service you have received.

Yours sincerely

Kathryn McCarthy

Casework Manager

Independent Office for Police Conduct

Telephone: 01216 733856

Email: kathryn.mccarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

22/05/2025

From: Public.Enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk

TRO-1320518-25

Thank you for your email of 5 May to the Home Secretary regarding your police complaint.
Your email has been forwarded to the Direct Communications Unit and I have been asked
to reply.
In referring your complaint to Dorset Police and the Independent Office for Police Conduct
(IOPC) you have taken the appropriate course of action.
Police integrity lies at the heart of public confidence in the police and the Government
recognises the need for a formal system of police complaints that enables members of the
public to raise concerns about the service they have received.
Police complaints are dealt with under a comprehensive legislative framework which sets
out the duties of the police themselves in handling complaints as well as the role and
functions of the IOPC, the body which provides oversight of police complaints and
investigates the most serious and sensitive matters involving the police.
While the Government is responsible for the legislation under which police complaints are
handled, it would not be appropriate for Ministers or officials to comment on, or intervene
in, a specific case. This reflects the operational independence of the police and the need
for the police to be able to carry out their duties, and make decisions, free from political
influence.
When a complaint is made it is right that the police have an opportunity to consider and
respond to the matters raised. At the same time, the Government recognises that public
confidence is vital to the British model of policing by consent and therefore by law, police
forces must refer the most serious allegations about the conduct of a person serving with
the police to the IOPC. This ensures an independent decision is taken, in each such case,
on how the complaint should be handled.
A short guide to the police complaints system is also available on the IOPC’s website at:
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/complaints/guide-to-complaints-process.
I would also add that the IOPC is independent of Government, and of the police, in making
its decisions on cases and it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene in, or
comment on, casework decisions taken by the IOPC.
If you are not happy with the IOPC’s handling of an investigation, you may raise your
concerns with the IOPC directly. You also have the right to seek independent legal advice.
Thank you once again for taking the time to write to the Home Office.
Yours sincerely,
M Prior
Direct Communications Unit

21/05/2025

To: Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Dear Ms Kathryn McCarthy,

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for your email and the information it contained, which has proven extremely helpful in understanding the current situation and has shed new light on my case. I appreciate your engagement.

I wish to provide you with a broader context of my experiences, which, I hope, will allow for a fuller understanding of the gravity of the situation. I was prepared for a confrontation with the false allegations made by my former partner, whose actions, in my assessment, were motivated by jealousy. However, I must state with deep regret that I was not prepared for the necessity of facing the actions of Dorset Police officers, which, in my opinion, bear the hallmarks of discrimination, fabrication of evidence, and the formulation of baseless accusations. Such practices are in blatant contradiction to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the professional ethics of police services, which should safeguard justice.

During the proceedings before the Family Court in Bournemouth concerning the right of residence, I experienced treatment that deviated from the standards of an impartial process. I was perceived more as the culpable party, while my former partner, the initiator of the false accusations, was treated as a victim. I believe that this state of affairs was a direct consequence of Dorset Police’s failure to initiate appropriate proceedings against my former partner, despite the fact that – as I was informed by Mr Ian Allen of Dorset Police – there was a legal obligation to do so. In my assessment, such a situation may have infringed upon my fundamental right to a fair trial, guaranteed, inter alia, by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, actions bearing the hallmarks of discrimination may be considered in the context of Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with other Convention rights.

It should be emphasised that my former partner was not in a position to remove me overnight from the home of which I was a lawful tenant, and she was aware of this. Therefore, she decided to use Dorset Police for this purpose, an institution possessing the powers to enable such actions. The misuse of state authorities, such as the police and courts, for personal revenge constitutes a serious breach of the law and the principles of social coexistence. Such actions should be severely punished, not covered up by Dorset Police officers.

As a resident of the United Kingdom who conscientiously fulfils my duties, including paying taxes, I have the right to expect that law enforcement agencies, such as Dorset Police, will act in a professional, impartial, and lawful manner. When I present evidence indicating the possibility of a crime, I expect the police to defend the rule of law and my rights, not to take actions that could be interpreted as assisting those who break the law or attempting to cover up irregularities. Police conduct should be in accordance with the principles set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Standards of Professional Behaviour applicable to officers.

I wish to stress that the consequences of these events extend far beyond my personal grievance. It was the actions of Dorset Police that directly contributed to the destruction of my business, which in turn has a catastrophic impact on the lives of my daughters. The loss of financial stability, resulting from both the loss of the company and the actions of Dorset Police, prevents me from providing them with an adequate standard of living and meeting their basic needs. This situation may also be considered in the context of a breach of the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR).

I declare that I will persistently strive to ensure that both my former partner and all Dorset Police officers who have broken the law in this matter face severe consequences for their actions.

I sincerely hope that the IOPC will thoroughly investigate the circumstances I have presented and take appropriate action to clarify any irregularities and restore trust in law enforcement agencies.

19/05/2025

From: complaints-misconduct@Dorset.PNN.Police.uk

Dorset Police Complaint CO/00448/25

Please find attached a letter for your attention.

Kind regards,

Karen

COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE
I write in response to your recent correspondence with this office about your complaint against
police.
Your complaint has now been recorded as a ‘complaint against police’ in accordance with the
provisions of the Police (Complaints & Misconduct) Regulations 2020.
My role in dealing with your complaint is to decide how the matter should be dealt with.
In order to address your concerns I will require some additional clarification. As you are
already aware complaint reference number CO/01435/23 covers some aspects that you
appear to be detailing from the date ranges you have provided, this complaint is subject to a
review therefore, I will not be covering elements that are included within this complaint.
If, however, the matters you are raising are in relation to more recent incidents then please
provide incident report dates and the specific details of the concerns that you wish to be
considered in relation to PC Matt Lambert and DC Rose Pratt.
If there is ongoing domestic abuse or criminal matters that you wish to report, in an emergency
call 999, in a non-emergency you can report these via 101 or online at www.dorset.police.uk
and use the ‘report’ tab.
For more information about the complaints process, please see the Independent Office for
Police Conduct website (IOPC Website). If you do not have access to the internet, the IOPC
can provide you with leaflets (0300 020 0096).
OFFICIAL
Mr A Majewski
Sent via email:
[andre.aplauz@gmail.com]
Dorset Police
Professional Standards Department
Force Headquarters
Winfrith, Dorchester
Dorset DT2 8DZ
Your ref: TW / KP
Our ref: CO/00448/25
Phone: 01202 223808
E-mail: complaints&misconduct@dorset.pnn.police.uk
Date: 19 May 2025
Yours sincerely
T J WHITTLE
Head of Complaints & Misconduct Unit

19/05/2025

From: Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Following on from my below email to you, I have had a look at the crime reports that are associated with the complaint. It appears to me that occurrence 55230098162 was closed as an NFA on 13/06/2024, with PC Pratt detailing the reasons for this decision on an entry dated the 12/06/2024.

Many thanks,

Kathryn McCarthy (she/her)

Casework Manager / Rheolydd Gwaith Achos

15/05/2025

From: Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Re: Your IOPC Review

Thank you for your email. I have also received a copy of the email you sent to the Home Office in which you included the IOPC (attached), so I will address both matters here.

Email to the Home Office (05/05/2025)

I acknowledge your request for Home Office oversight regarding the complaints review process. I would like to take a moment to clarify that I am conducting a review of your complaint handled by Dorset Police. This review is not an investigation into the complaint itself, but rather an assessment of whether it was managed in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

To manage your expectations accordingly, I have attached our pre-decision FAQs, which provide further details about the process. Please note that I have not yet reached a decision regarding your case, as I am still in the process of reviewing the evidence submitted.

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome upon receiving the decision, we advise seeking independent legal guidance on the next steps. The IOPC’s function is to address complaints related to police misconduct, and as a general rule, the Home Office does not have an oversight role in such matters.

Email sent to me on 14/05/2025

I have carefully considered the points raised in your email and made note of them. I fully appreciate that this process has been frustrating and distressing for you. I apologise in advance if certain matters are not directly addressed here, as I will do my utmost to cover them comprehensively in the outcome letter, as outlined below.

Within my role, I am only able to assess information contained within the original complaint and reviewed by the complaint handler. Any matters beyond this scope are outside my remit, and I can only advise submitting a new complaint should you wish for additional concerns to be formally addressed.

That said, I will examine the issues you raised regarding investigation delays and conflicting information concerning the handling of domestic abuse cases. I will provide clear confirmation in the outcome letter as to whether I am able to directly address these matters.

If your concerns relate to the trial or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and extend beyond police actions or conduct, you may submit a complaint to the CPS via the following link: Feedback and complaints | The Crown Prosecution Service. Unfortunately, I am unable to address matters that fall outside the scope of police officers’ actions.

I will attempt to obtain the date of the NFA for you or follow up with the relevant force should I be unable to retrieve this information myself. I will update you as soon as I have further details.

Regarding your concerns about the timing of proceedings and potential implications for the right to a fair trial, could you provide me with further details on this issue? Complaint proceedings should not impact the timeline of criminal proceedings, although complaint investigations can be suspended until the conclusion of criminal proceedings if it is deemed that the latter could affect the complaint. Please let me know if you require further clarification on this matter.

Many thanks,

Kathryn McCarthy (she/her)

Casework Manager / Rheolydd Gwaith Achos

14/05/2025

To: Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Re: Your IOPC Review

Dear Ms McCarthy,

I am writing to you regarding a very sensitive matter, hoping for your understanding and assistance. I believe my human rights have been breached, and the court proceedings in my case were not entirely fair. The primary reason for this, it appears, is the significant delay in the investigation conducted by Dorset Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which resulted in the presiding judge not having access to all pertinent facts and evidence.

In connection with this, I have contacted the CPS to ascertain the exact date on which the decision regarding No Further Action (NFA) in my case was communicated to Dorset Police. Unfortunately, to date, I have not received a response to my enquiry. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could intervene or perhaps suggest that OIC Rose Pratt of Dorset Police provide me with information as to when, precisely, she received the aforementioned decision from the CPS. This date is crucial for me to understand the chronology of events.

I would also like to draw your attention to a very concerning issue of conflicting information I received from Dorset Police officers. When I requested an investigation into my ex-partner, OIC Rose Pratt informed me that she could not initiate an investigation against her because an investigation concerning me was ongoing at the same time. However, during a telephone conversation, which I have recorded, Mr Ian Allen, also of Dorset Police, stated unequivocally that both investigations should be conducted in parallel and independently of each other.

This discrepancy in stances is, for me as a victim of domestic abuse, extremely frustrating and undermines my trust in police institutions. It implies that either OIC Rose Pratt or Mr Ian Allen provided me with incorrect information. I kindly request your assistance in clarifying the actual procedures in such cases and why Dorset Police would provide a victim of abuse with such contradictory information.

The considerable length of the entire proceedings, as already mentioned, is also a significant factor. As you are undoubtedly aware, there are standards and guidelines concerning the timeframes for conducting investigations. For instance, the principle that “justice delayed is justice denied” is fundamental to the British legal system. Furthermore, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Prolonged and unjustified delays can infringe upon these fundamental rights.

I trust in your support to clarify these unsettling issues and to take appropriate action.

08/05/2025

To: victimliaison.wessex@cps.gov.uk

Re: External Email – Re: Complaint – Andrzej Majewski – CRN00056346 –

Dear Mr. Seabrook,

Thank you for your email dated 08-05-2025. Your summary of the status of police unique reference numbers 55CH0259223 and 55CH0429524 is noted. The clear identification of these case numbers in your correspondence is appreciated as it aids in focusing on the specific matters at hand.

While your email provided some clarification, further specific details are now sought concerning the handling of these matters. These inquiries pertain particularly to the timeline and decision-making process for case file 55CH0259223. Obtaining these details is critical for me to understand the full progression of these investigations, the basis for actions taken or not taken, and to ensure that due process has been followed throughout. The information previously provided, while helpful, has unfortunately left significant questions unanswered, necessitating this further request.

Detailed Inquiries Regarding Case File 55CH0259223 (Incident 24 June 2023 – NFA)

Your email states: “55CH0259223 – This relates to two offences that the police were seeking charging advice for which related to an incident on 24 June 2023. Having looked at are records, the CPS received an electronic file from the police on 25 August 2023 and later advised them to take no further action. This was conveyed to you by the police on 12 June 2024 which is confirmed in one of the attachments you have sent us.”

The critical ambiguity that requires resolution lies in the term “later advised”. This phrasing lacks the specificity needed to understand the chronology of events and the efficiency of the processes involved. To fully understand the timeline of this decision and the subsequent communications, I require precise information as detailed below:

    1. On what specific date did the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) make the internal decision to advise “no further action” (NFA) in relation to case file 55CH0259223? 

    2. What is the full name and official capacity or department of the CPS individual(s) (e.g., Reviewing Lawyer, Crown Prosecutor) primarily responsible for reviewing the evidence submitted by the police and making this NFA decision? Identifying the decision-maker is important for understanding accountability within the decision-making process. 

    3. On what specific date was this NFA decision, and the advice to take no further action, formally communicated by the CPS to Dorset Police? 

Further to these points, OIC Rose Pratt of Dorset Police informed me via email on 12 June 2024 that “I have received a decision from the CPS this morning that this incident is no longer being investigated, based on a lack of evidence.” This communication from OIC Pratt indicates that a period of 292 days elapsed between the CPS receiving the electronic file from the police (25 August 2023) and my being informed of the NFA decision via the police (12 June 2024).

The following table visually represents the known timeline and highlights the information gaps that these questions seek to address:

Table 1: Timeline of Key Events and Information Gaps for Case 55CH0259223

Event	Date Known (from CPS/Police Correspondence)	Information Requested (Specific Date)
Incident Date	24 June 2023	N/A
CPS received electronic file from police	25 August 2023	N/A
CPS internal NFA decision made	“Later” (per CPS email)	Specific Date Required
CPS advised Dorset Police of NFA decision	“Later” (per CPS email)	Specific Date Required
Dorset Police (OIC Pratt) received NFA decision from CPS	12 June 2024 (per OIC Pratt email)	N/A
User informed of NFA decision by Dorset Police	12 June 2024 (per CPS email & OIC Pratt)	N/A

This extended period raises significant concerns:

    4. Could you please provide a comprehensive explanation for this significant delay of 292 days? Specifically: 

        ◦ If the NFA decision was made by CPS and/or communicated to Dorset Police substantially earlier than 12 June 2024, what accounts for the subsequent delay in this critical information reaching me? Understanding this is key to determining whether the delay occurred within CPS, within Dorset Police, or in the communication channel between the two agencies. 

        ◦ Conversely, if the CPS decision-making process itself extended close to June 2024, please explain the reasons for such a prolonged review period. This is particularly pertinent in a matter where, as I understand it, the evidence submitted should have readily indicated that I was the victim of the reported incident, not a perpetrator. A delay of this magnitude in reaching an NFA conclusion in such circumstances requires detailed justification. 

These requests for detailed information are made in the profound interest of transparency and to understand the due process, or lack thereof, that was followed. The principles underpinning the Right to a Fair Trial, as articulated in the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure, emphasize the necessity of fairness and objectivity from investigators and prosecutors. Timely communication regarding case progression and decisions is a reasonable and fundamental expectation for any individual involved in, or affected by, criminal investigations. Delays of this nature can cause considerable distress and undermine confidence in the justice system.

Furthermore, the Data Protection Act 2018 provides a right of access to personal data. This right can encompass information about decisions made regarding an individual and, subject to lawful exemptions, potentially the identity of those decision-makers. This inquiry seeks to clarify such processing of my personal data in the context of this investigation.

Assertion of Rights to Information and Basis for Disclosure

I trust that the CPS will provide full, transparent, and unambiguous answers to all questions raised above. These requests are not made lightly but are grounded in established legal principles and my rights as an individual affected by these processes. These include:

    • The Crown Prosecution Service’s duties of disclosure as mandated by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and further detailed in the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure. These duties are not limited to evidence for trial but extend to providing information that may be relevant to understanding the handling, progression, and decisions made in a case, particularly where those decisions have a direct impact on an individual. 

    • My rights under the Data Protection Act 2018 (UK GDPR) to access personal data held by the CPS and to understand how it is being processed. This includes information pertaining to decisions made about me and, where appropriate and not subject to overriding lawful exemptions, by whom such decisions were made. This email serves as a formal request for access to such information in relation to the specific points and questions raised herein. 

    • The overarching public interest in the transparency, accountability, and lawful operation of public bodies, particularly those entrusted with the critical responsibilities of administering justice. The information sought is essential for me to understand decisions made that directly affect my life and liberty, and to ensure that due process has been observed by all relevant authorities. 

I expect a comprehensive and unambiguous response to each point and sub-point raised in this email as soon as possible.

Conclusion and Expectation of Response

I am prepared to provide any further information or clarification you may require from my side to assist you in addressing these inquiries fully and expeditiously.

Given the serious nature of the points raised, unexplained delay in communicating the NFA decision in case 55CH0259223, I anticipate a substantive and itemised response that addresses all questions posed. A failure to provide clear and complete answers will only serve to heighten my concerns regarding the handling of these matters.

Thank you for your attention to these critical matters.

08/05/2025

From: victimliaison.wessex@cps.gov.uk

Re: External Email – Re: Complaint – Andrzej Majewski – CRN00056346 –

Many thanks for your email.

From what you have detailed in your email, there appears to be some confusion regarding matters that have been referred to the CPS by the police. For ease of reference, I shal refer to the police unique reference numbers.

The police have submitted two (2) files to the CPS seeking advice for possible charging decisions:

1. 55CH0259223 – This relates to two offences that the police were seeking charging advice for which related to an incident on 24 June 2023. Having looked at are records, the CPS received an electronic file from the police on 25 August 2023 and later advised them to take no further action. This was conveyed to you by the police on 12 June 2024 which is confirmed in one of the attachments you have sent us. You were never charged with any offences in relation to this matter and there were never any subsequent court proceedings.

2. 55CH0429524 – This relates to one reported offence regarding an incident on 29 June 2024. The police sent us an electronic file seeking charging advice on 5 March 2025. A response was sent to the investigating officer on 8 April 2025 requesting further work be carried out by the police before a charging decision could be made by the CPS. A response is anticipated soon.

From looking at the attachments you have sent me, these appear to be printouts from the Police National Computer, letters regarding bail extensions, the letter regarding no further action being taken in regard to the 24 June 2023 matter and email exchanges regarding complaints to Dorset Police (upon which the CPS cannot comment).

I hope that the above has provided further assistance and clarity but if I can assist further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Franz Seabrook | Victim Liaison Unit

CPS Wessex | Crown Prosecution Service

07/07/2025

To: victimliaison.wessex@cps.gov.ukvictimliaison.wessex@cps.gov.uk

Re: Complaint – Andrzej Majewski – CRN00056346 –

Thank you for your message.

From the documents provided to me by Dorset Police, it appears that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) brought charges against me. I would like to ask on what basis the charge of “Intentional Strangulation on 24/06/2023” was made? (Evidence in this matter can be found in the attached files: Charges1, Charges2, and Charges3, which I am sending).

The documents sent to me do not contain information about which prosecutor brought this charge against me. I would be grateful if you could provide the full name of the prosecutor who did so, as I notice some discrepancies here.

I would also like to ask what the basis for this charge was. From the reports I received from Dorset Police (available at https://phonesrescue.co.uk/courtcase/police.pdf), it appears that my former partner never mentioned any “Intentional strangulation on 24/06/2023”. Consequently, two possibilities arise: either the prosecutor fabricated the charges, or Dorset Police failed to provide me with all the legally required evidence for the court case that took place at the Family Court in Bournemouth.

In either case, it appears that the court proceedings violated my rights. Either evidence against me was fabricated and used in court, or Dorset Police prevented me from mounting a fair defence by not providing me with all the documents.

As proof that the CPS brought charges against me and was involved in this matter, I am sending scans of documents (annotated “Prosecuting Agent: CPS”) and email correspondence from Dorset Police.

07/05/2025

From: victimliaison.wessex@cps.gov.uk

My name is Franz Seabrook and I work within the Victim Liaison Unit (VLU) of Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Wessex. I have been made aware of the complaint that you have submitted via the Citizen’s Portal on the CPS website.

I am very sorry to read about what you have been through and the obvious stress and upset that this has caused you and which clearly continues to do so.

From reading through your complaint, it appears that the matters you have raised lie solely with Dorset Police and how individual officers have investigated this matter. It is at this point that I feel that it would be of assistance if I clarify the different roles of the police and CPS. I apologise if this is already known to you, but it will help clarify matters in my response to you.

The police are the agency responsible for investigating reports of any criminal activity and, once they have reached an appropriate stage, can either, in minor cases, charge a suspect or, more likely, refer a file of evidence to the CPS for a charging decision to be made. In some cases, the police can take the decision to take no further action without referring a file to the CPS.

The CPS is the main prosecuting authority within England and Wales. As stated above, it will provide advice on what, if any, offences should be charged on files submitted by the police. Some of these charging decisions will be for the police to take no further action. For those cases where offences are to be charged, the CPS will be responsible for prosecuting these cases to conclusion through the court system which comes under the remit of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). Unfortunately, at this time, I can find no trace that your case has been referred to the CPS for any charging decision to be made and, therefore, it appears that it remains with Dorset Police.

The police and CPS are separate agencies and, whilst we work closely together, we do not have jurisdiction over each other and, therefore, the CPS is not able to respond to complaints made regarding a police investigation or conduct any investigation into reported misconduct. Dorset Police has its own internal complaints procedure which can be found at https://www.dorset.police.uk/fo/feedback/complaints/complaints/ and I would urge you to submit your complaint directly to them if you have not done so already. You may also wish to contact your local Member of Parliament.

I appreciate you may be disappointed by this response, but I hope that this has helped clarify matters for you and assists you going forward. In the meantime, if I can provide any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Franz Seabrook | Victim Liaison Unit

CPS Wessex | Crown Prosecution Service

06/05/2025

From: Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Thank you for your email. I acknowledge the concerns you have raised and appreciate the detailed information you have provided.

I can confirm that your complaint is being reviewed and that all the points you have outlined will be carefully considered as part of my review. Should I require any further information or clarification, I will reach out to you.

I understand that these matters are important to you, and I appreciate your patience while I proceed with my assessment. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Many thanks,

Kathryn McCarthy (she/her)

Casework Manager / Rheolydd Gwaith Achos

05/05/2025

To: coopery@parliament.uk

Urgent Request for Home Office Oversight: Serious Allegations of Misconduct, Systemic Failings, and Potential Criminality within Dorset Police – IOPC Reference 2024/199375, Force Reference Number CO/01435/23

I was the owner of Phones Rescue Ltd, a company driven to ruin by Dorset Police, which previously operated in Bournemouth. I am writing to you as a victim of crime and as a complainant regarding the actions of officers within Dorset Police.

This email serves to formally bring to the attention of the Home Office a pattern of serious allegations concerning misconduct and potential criminal behaviour by specific Dorset Police officers – namely PC Rose Pratt, PC Simon Shaw, PC Matt Lambert – and allegations of negligence against Chief Constable Amanda Pearson. Concurrently, I urgently request direct Home Office supervision of the ongoing investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) into this matter (IOPC Reference – 2024/199375, Force Reference Number – CO/01435/23).

I wish to inform you that formal complaints have already been lodged with Dorset Police, and the IOPC is currently investigating this matter. The IOPC is the body overseeing the police complaints system. The decision to approach the Home Office directly is an extraordinary step, prompted by the gravity of the allegations, the perceived systemic nature of the issues within Dorset Police, the significant personal and financial harm I have suffered (including the ruin of my company, Phones Rescue), and a documented fear of evidence tampering and obstruction by Dorset Police officers, based on my previous experiences with this force.

Summary of Key Allegations

The allegations against Dorset Police officers and leadership in my case encompass a wide range of purported breaches of law and professional standards:

• Fabricating evidence and submitting false reports.
• Systematic disregard and breach of the statutory Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (Victim’s Code).
• Alleged fabrication of criminal charges.
• Attempts to cover up officer misconduct.
• Unlawful eviction, arrest, and detention.
• Gross negligence in investigation and supervision.
• Potential gender discrimination in the handling of domestic abuse.
• Actions directly leading to the financial ruin and bankruptcy of Phones Rescue Ltd.

The consequences of these actions have been catastrophic for me, leading to the loss of my business, livelihood, and home.

Detailed Chronology and Specific Allegations Against Named Individuals

Below, I outline the detailed allegations, chronologically where possible, attributed to specific officers:

Police Constable Rose Pratt (Officer in Charge):

• Alleged Unlawful Eviction and Destruction of Business: On 23rd June 2023, an incident occurred which led to my removal from my home, which also served as my business premises. I contend that this eviction was unlawful and was the direct cause of the collapse of Phones Rescue.
• Alleged Negligence in Investigation: I accuse PC Pratt of delaying the investigation, which lasted nearly nine months without interviewing key witnesses who could corroborate my version of events and the alleged falsehoods of my former partner. This delay prevented me from proving my innocence and regaining access to my home and business.
• Alleged Breaches of the Victim’s Code: Specific breaches of the Victim’s Code include:
  • Failure to provide written confirmation of the crime report.
  • Failure to refer to victim support services.
  • Failure to provide updates on the investigation’s progress, including ignoring my emails and inquiries.
• Alleged Dishonesty/Fabrication: I accuse PC Pratt and PC Simon Shaw of entering false information into police reports (e.g., claiming I pushed my former partner, without presenting evidence) and ignoring inconsistencies in the accuser’s statements, which were noted by other officers early on.
• Alleged Procedural Violations: An example includes informing me via email about the extension of my bail conditions on the day of the meeting, with only a few hours’ notice.
• Alleged Gender Discrimination: I believe that PC Pratt (and Dorset Police generally) discriminated against me as a male victim of domestic abuse, ignoring my reports of assault, while my former partner’s accusations resulted in immediate action, including my eviction and arrest. The combination of alleged procedural violations, breaches of the Victim’s Code, and investigation delays attributed to PC Pratt creates a picture not just of incompetence, but potentially of deliberate obstruction or bias, reinforcing my concerns about evidence tampering.

Police Constable Simon Shaw:

• Alleged False Reporting (Eviction): I allege that PC Shaw falsely reported that the police prohibited me from returning home, contributing to what I believe was an unlawful eviction.
• Alleged Pattern of Misconduct (Mike Henstridge Case): I specifically refer to my assertion that PC Simon Shaw was involved in another case involving the fabrication of evidence against domestic abuse victims, including the case against former Dorset Police officer Mike Henstridge. This may evidence a pattern of behaviour justifying concerns about PC Shaw’s integrity and honesty. My gravest concerns regarding the intentions of Dorset Police are also fuelled by the words of Mike Henstridge in his book about misconduct within Dorset Police: “Officers were also pressurised to arrest the male rather than the female party, especially if children lived at the address, even if the female was the problem.” This indicates that this is not an isolated incident but demonstrates systemic breaches of the law and gender discrimination against victims by Dorset Police officers. This is a key element justifying the escalation of the complaint to the Home Office. It underscores a breakdown of trust based on perceived patterns.

Police Constable Matt Lambert:

• Alleged Cover-Up: I allege that PC Matt Lambert is attempting to cover up the matter concerning the collapse of Phones Rescue, potentially to conceal irregularities within Dorset Police.

Chief Constable Amanda Pearson:

• Alleged Negligence and Lack of Oversight: I allege negligence on the part of the Chief Constable. I argue that the alleged pattern of misconduct by multiple officers under her command indicates a failure in leadership, supervision, and enforcement of professional standards within Dorset Police. Broader issues highlighted in external reports (e.g., PEEL report findings concerning investigations and treatment of the public, IOPC findings regarding offensive messages, negligence in the Gaia Pope case) may provide contextual indicators of leadership challenges, even if not directly linked to my case. Holding the Chief Constable accountable, even indirectly through negligence, elevates the complaint from individual officer misconduct to a systemic failing requiring institutional attention, further justifying Home Office involvement.

Supporting Evidence and Documentation

These allegations are detailed and supported by a series of articles published on the website bournemouthbond.co.uk, which document my experiences and perspective. Below is a list of URLs containing details and evidence of alleged law-breaking by Dorset Police officers:

• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/bankruptcy-phones-rescue-due-to-incompetence-of-bournemouth-police-cps-and-bournemouth-crown-court/
• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/nhs-nurse-from-poole-hospital-domestic-violence-false-testimony-and-lies-in-court/
• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/dorset-police-and-officer-in-charge-rose-pratt-illegally-evicted-a-tenant-from-his-home-and-drove-phones-rescue-out-of-business/
• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/crown-prosecution-service-cps-fabricates-charges-and-drives-phones-rescue-company-to-bankruptcy/
• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/incompetence-of-bournemouth-crown-court-staff-leads-to-the-downfall-of-local-company-phones-rescue/
• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/why-does-officer-rose-pratt-from-dorset-police-not-respect-the-victims-code-and-violate-the-standards-of-professional-conduct-for-police-officers/
• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/fight-against-dorset-police-list-of-emails/
• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/dorset-police-killed-the-local-company-phones-rescue-officer-matt-lambert-is-trying-to-cover-up-the-case/
• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/controversy-in-dorset-nurse-accused-of-assault-police-under-fire-and-partner-loses-business/
• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/iopc-decision-on-dorset-police-allegations-expected-after-nearly-two-years-of-fighting-for-justice/
• https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/series-of-articles-on-the-incompetence-of-dorset-police-crown-prosecution-service-and-bournemouth-crown-court/

I am prepared to provide copies of all correspondence with Dorset Police, the IOPC, and other relevant documents upon request.

Justification for Home Office Oversight of the IOPC Investigation

I stress that the allegations presented are not isolated incidents but suggest a pattern of serious misconduct, potential criminality, and systemic failings within Dorset Police.

My experiences, documented on bournemouthbond.co.uk, have led to a profound lack of trust in Dorset Police. I have a reasonable fear that Dorset Police personnel may attempt to obstruct, mislead, or otherwise improperly influence the IOPC investigation. This fear is a logical consequence of the nature of the allegations, which include evidence fabrication and cover-up. If these allegations are true, the full and honest cooperation of Dorset Police with the IOPC cannot be relied upon.

The alleged involvement of multiple officers, the nature of the allegations (evidence fabrication, cover-up), and the purported links to other cases (the Henstridge matter) indicate problems that may extend beyond individual culpability and require scrutiny beyond the standard IOPC process, which relies on cooperation from the force under investigation. Other known issues within Dorset Police, documented in reports, may subtly reinforce the argument for wider systemic issues.

The Home Office holds ultimate responsibility for ensuring the effectiveness, efficiency, and integrity of policing in England and Wales. My request for oversight is an appeal to this responsibility in a situation where standard mechanisms appear compromised or insufficient from the victim’s perspective. The Home Office also has oversight over the IOPC itself. This request is not intended to bypass the IOPC, but to ensure that the IOPC’s investigation can proceed without potential prejudice from the police force under investigation.

Allowing an investigation into such serious allegations, particularly those suggesting systemic problems and potential interference, to proceed without enhanced oversight risks further undermining public confidence in both Dorset Police and the police complaints system as a whole.

Specific Requested Action

Therefore, I formally request the active monitoring and direct supervision by the Home Office of the specific IOPC investigation concerning the complaints lodged by me, Andrzej Majewski, against Dorset Police officers Pratt, Shaw, Lambert, and Chief Constable Pearson.

I suggest that this oversight should include regularly obtaining updates from the IOPC, ensuring adequate resources are allocated, and scrutinising the scope and findings of the investigation for impartiality and thoroughness, with particular attention to the allegations of evidence fabrication and cover-up.

I request written confirmation of receipt of this correspondence, its registration, and assurance that it will be duly considered by the appropriate officials within the Home Office. I also request, if possible, the details of a contact person within the Home Office for further communication regarding this matter.

I trust that the Home Office will treat these serious matters with the urgency and gravity they deserve.

05/05/2025

From: no-reply@service.police.uk

Thank you for completing the form, your reference is: COM-29377-25-5500-00.

We’re sorry you had to make a complaint.

We take this very seriously. We’ll review your complaint and aim to respond within 28 working days.

Thank you.

28/05/2025

To: matthew.lambert@dorset.pnn.police.uk

Dear PC Lambert,

I am writing in reference to your email dated 4th November 2024, informing me of the decision to take No Further Action (NFA) in the case I reported against Ms Kowalska.

I understand, as you mentioned, that “The account that Ms KOWALSKA has given was deemed to be credible and there is no realistic prospect of conviction given the information which has been supplied.” However, I would like to invoke my rights as a victim of crime, under The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (hereinafter “Victims’ Code”), specifically Right 4 (Right to be kept informed of key decisions and to have an explanation), to request a more detailed written explanation of the grounds for this decision.

In this regard, I would be grateful if you could provide answers to the following questions:

1. What specific aspects of Ms Kowalska’s account were deemed credible, and on what basis?
2. What specific information, from that which was supplied, led to the conclusion that there is no realistic prospect of conviction, especially in the context of the evidence I presented, which is available at: https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/nhs-nurse-from-poole-hospital-domestic-violence-false-testimony-and-lies-in-court/?
3. Who exactly (what position/role within Dorset Police) conducted the “supervision review” and made the final NFA decision in this matter?
4. Was the case at any stage consulted with, or formally referred to, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for a charging decision? If so, when did this occur and what was the outcome of this consultation/CPS decision? If not, why was it not considered appropriate to refer the matter to the CPS?

I would also like to inform you that I am aware of the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme and I am considering availing myself of this option upon receipt of your comprehensive answers to the above questions.

I would appreciate a written response to my enquiries within a reasonable timeframe.

02/05/2025

To: Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Dear Ms McCarthy,

Thank you for your email.

I am writing to express my hope that the decision you are preparing will thoroughly consider all points of my complaint and the allegations I have made against officers of Dorset Police. I wish to ensure that the following matters, which are of the most serious concern to me, are taken into account during the decision-making process:

1. Unwarranted police intervention on 23rd June 2023: According to police reports (p. 27), I allegedly committed an offence whereby: “[…]He has sat in the garden in an apparent attempt to goad her.[…] Caller states he is sitting and smiling (smirking?) at her. […] Male party was spoken to and presented as reasonable.[…]”. Page 32 reads: “[…] Caller says she wants him to leave and that they will talk, but he is just smiling (smirking?). […]”, and page 33 states: “[…]Suspect was calm and compliant.[…]”. I would like to know which officer or police call handler decided to dispatch a patrol of two officers to my home based on such a report, which I consider a waste of public funds derived from hardworking taxpayers, especially given that the attending officers assessed my behaviour as “reasonable”, “calm and compliant”.
2. Falsification of facts by Officer Simon Shaw: According to my understanding of the situation (please bear in mind that English is not my first language), the attending officer asked if I could leave the house for about an hour to allow my then-partner time to calm down. However, the police report on page 27 states: “[…]I have considered a location ban for the home address and this would be suitable as he has previously ignored Police advice to leave the property and not return. […] Based on the informants account, as well as the male parties account, no offences were identified. […]”. Furthermore, on page 36, another officer (PC 598) notes: “[…] PC 598 states that it is difficult as he is on the tenancy and is technically allowed to be there.[…]”. Despite this, Officer Simon Shaw wrote untruthfully in the report on page 32: “[…] The Police asked him to stay away and he came back 5 minutes later.[…]”. This is a clear fabrication. Please inform me what legal consequences have been, or will be, faced by Officer Simon Shaw for creating false entries in an official police document. These reports were subsequently used in proceedings before the family court in Bournemouth, which undermines the fairness and justice of that process. Additionally, Officer Shaw referring to me – a victim of domestic abuse and false accusations – as “the offender” (p. 33) is something I consider slander and defamation. What consequences will Officer Shaw face for this?
3. Gender discrimination and failure to act on a reported assault: On three separate occasions, I reported to Dorset Police that I had been physically assaulted by my then-partner, who broke my nose. My partner admitted to this act, which is recorded in police materials. The reports were made: during a meeting with Officer Rose Pratt on 25th June 2023, by telephone on 9th July 2023 (Case #0482 – occ 55230099012), and online (Officer Emma Chubb – occ 55230106821). Despite the passage of time and the perpetrator’s admission, no legal steps have been taken to date to hold her accountable. I consider this to be evidence of gender discrimination.
4. Falsification of facts by Officer Sarah Dutton: In the police report (pp. 10 and 36), Officer Sarah Dutton wrote: “[…]Suspect was arrested yesterday – occ 55230098162 relates – where by he had pushed his ex partner after a verbal DA earlier in the evening where she kicked him out of the house when she discovered he had cheated on her with her friend.[…]”. I categorically deny that such an event took place. This is further slander and fabrication of evidence. What legal consequences have been pursued against Officer Sarah Dutton for these false statements?
5. Falsification of facts by Officer Rose Pratt: In the report on page 31, Officer Rose Pratt wrote: “[…]Later in the evening Suspect came back to HA and pushed Victim[…].”. I firmly state that this is untrue and such a situation never occurred.
6. Negligence and undue delay in the investigation led by Officer Rose Pratt: Considering that my ex-partner admitted to assaulting me; the police were aware of her motive (police report p. 27: “[…]Informants reports that she has ended her relationship with her partner due to believing that her partner had cheated on her[…]”); there was a lack of any evidence of my guilt or signs of violence on her body; officers themselves noted her inconsistent statements (e.g., “[…] She has then told these officers about the previous assault and stated that he strangled her before — note that when asked by earlier officers if there had been any other assaults she said “no”, and she sad “no” when ppn question about strangulation, possible this will need revisiting for clarification. […]”); and the police were aware that my then-partner had a history of four previous relationships ending with Dorset Police involvement – why did Officer Rose Pratt take 12 months to conclude the investigation and exonerate me? This delay had catastrophic consequences for my business, which went bankrupt during this period.
7. Fabrication of charges or failure to disclose full documentation: From the documents I received from Dorset Police, it appears I was charged with “Intentional strangulation on 24/06/2023”. However, within the reports provided to me, despite numerous false accusations made by my ex-partner, there is no mention of her accusing me of intentional strangulation on 24th June 2023. This suggests that either Dorset Police fabricated this specific charge in official documents, or they failed to provide me with all legally required materials, which could have impacted the fairness of my court case. Please clarify this fundamental discrepancy.
8. Violations of the Victim’s Code of Practice: In light of the above facts, I am convinced that Dorset Police officers systematically violated my rights as a victim of crime, as guaranteed by the Victim’s Code. I specifically point to the breach of the following rights:
   • Right to information when reporting a crime: Despite reporting the assault three times, I never received written confirmation that my report had been received.
   • Right to be referred to services that support victims of crime: I was not offered any support tailored to my needs as a victim.
   • Right to information about the investigation and prosecution: Information provided was minimal and significantly delayed.
   • Failure to comply with guidelines on professional behaviour (Standards of Professional Behaviour).
   • Officers failing to act with honesty and integrity.
   • Officers knowingly making false, misleading, or inaccurate oral or written statements.
   • Discriminatory behaviour and language by officers.
9. Lack of protection from Officer Matt Lambert and perceived cover-up: I would like to understand why Officer Matt Lambert took no action to protect me, a victim of domestic abuse and false accusations, even when my ex-partner had admitted to assaulting me. I perceive this failure to initiate proceedings against Ms Kowalska, particularly by Officer Lambert, not merely as negligence, but as a deliberate attempt by Dorset Police to cover up the potential extent of misconduct by officers involved, should an investigation reveal she manipulated the police for revenge. Consequently, I demand that the investigation into my ex-partner’s actions be reopened. This is the minimum standard of action victims expect from law enforcement when facing their abusers, and a necessary step to ensure accountability.

I also wish to inform you that separate legal proceedings against Dorset Police are ongoing. These were initiated by my solicitors, who received documentation from the force in April 2025 which they are currently analysing. As both your review and these legal proceedings concern the conduct of Dorset Police officers relating to these events, we believe it is important that the conclusions reached are consistent with all available evidence, including any findings that may emerge through the court process.

To better understand my perspective, please refer to the articles on the website: https://bournemouthbond.co.uk/series-of-articles-on-the-incompetence-of-dorset-police-crown-prosecution-service-and-bournemouth-crown-court/

I sincerely hope that the IOPC will conduct a thorough and rigorous investigation that takes into account all the evidence and arguments I have presented, leading to a just decision.

I look forward to receiving your response within the specified timeframe.

01/05/2025

From: Kathryn.McCarthy@policeconduct.gov.uk

Your IOPC Review

IOPC Reference – 2024/199375

Force Reference Number – CO/01435/23

I am a Casework Manager for the IOPC. I am writing to introduce myself to you and to let you know that I have been allocated to assess your review application following the handling of your complaint by Dorset Police.

I am aiming to complete my assessment as soon as possible but please be aware that there may be a delay in sending my assessment to you if I need to seek further information or advice.

In the meantime I will keep you informed of the progress of your application should the review take more than 28 days, from today. Please note that once my assessment is complete, I am not permitted to change my decision.

Sometimes people like to have advanced notice of when the decision letter will be sent so they can get a friend or family-member to support them when the letter arrives. If you would like that, please let me know.

Once I have completed my assessment of your application, I will send this to you via Egress secure email. I will send it to this email address unless you tell me not to. Please let me know if this is unsuitable, or if you prefer to have the outcome sent to you via post.

Please note you will receive a notification email from Egress informing you that you have been sent a secure email and you can access it through the Egress Webpage (no installation of software is needed).  However please regularly check your SPAM folder just in case this notification does not show in your inbox.

If this is the first time you have used Egress, you will need to click on the green button to register for free, so you can access the document, and you will then be guided through the registration process.

However this process will only be needed once.  As, on receipt of any subsequent secure emails, you will be able to just sign in and both read and reply to secure emails from Egress. 

If you have any questions or require more information please contact me using the details provided below.  Email is usually the best way to contact me.

Kind regards,

Kathryn McCarthy (she/her)

Casework Manager / Rheolydd Gwaith Achos

12/03/2025

From: NorthCasework@policeconduct.gov.uk

IOPC Update – 2024/199375

Our reference number: 2024/199375

Force reference number: CO/01435/23 

We are emailing you in relation to the review you submitted to us on 10/11/2024 regarding your complaint with Dorset Police. We would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in providing you with an outcome.

Within our initial acknowledgement email, sent to you on 14/11/2024 we advised we would update you at 16 weeks .  As we have now reached that timeframe, we wanted to offer you the courtesy of a brief update.  Regrettably, your review remains unallocated at this time and we sincerely apologise for this.  The IOPC is currently managing a backlog of reviews and investigation appeals. Legislative reforms in 2021 replaced appeals with reviews, with the aim of improving the complaints process, however this change has led to a substantial increase in both the volume and complexity of work coming into our casework unit. We are working hard to rectify this and have increased our resources to help reduce wait times.  

We would like to assure you that the evidence obtained and considered as part of the local police investigation has been received by the IOPC and your Review will be allocated as soon as possible.  When it is allocated to a Casework Manager, they will contact you directly to introduce themselves.

Kind regards

Stephanie McConnachie

Casework Administrator