Bournemouth 21-05-2025.
The former owner of “Phones Rescue” continues his fight for justice, responding to correspondence from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) regarding his earlier complaint about the actions of Dorset Police. Despite the IOPC’s clarifications on the scope of its review, the entrepreneur upholds his allegations of discrimination, fabrication of evidence, and the catastrophic impact of police actions on his business and family life. His response, addressed to Kathryn McCarthy of the IOPC, underscores his profound disappointment and determination to see those responsible held accountable.
The case, which led to the collapse of the “Phones Rescue” business and had a devastating impact on its former owner’s life, is currently under review by the IOPC. The entrepreneur recently received correspondence from Kathryn McCarthy, explaining that the IOPC is assessing whether his original complaint against Dorset Police was handled in a “reasonable and proportionate manner,” rather than re-investigating the complaint itself. In response to this stance, the man details his unwavering conviction about the gravity of the allegations and the injustices he has suffered.
The Crux of the Original Complaint: The Foundation of the IOPC’s Review
It is worth recalling that in his original complaint, now the basis of the IOPC’s review, the former owner of “Phones Rescue” accused Dorset Police officers of actions amounting to discrimination, fabrication of evidence, and making unfounded accusations. He claimed he was prepared for a confrontation with what he believed were false statements from his former partner, but not for “having to face the actions of Dorset Police officers,” which he considers contrary to the principles of the rule of law. He raised the issue of unequal treatment before the Family Court in Bournemouth, where he felt he was perceived as the guilty party, while his former partner, the initiator of the accusations, was treated as the victim. He saw this as a direct result of Dorset Police’s failure to initiate proceedings against her, despite a legal obligation to do so.
The IOPC’s Stance: A Limited Scope of Review
In correspondence with the entrepreneur, Kathryn McCarthy from the IOPC explained that her role is limited to assessing the information contained in the original complaint and reviewed by the complaint handler at Dorset Police. She stressed that “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.” She also informed him that matters beyond this scope would require a new complaint, and if the entrepreneur is dissatisfied with the outcome of the review, the IOPC advises seeking independent legal guidance.
Ms. McCarthy confirmed she would examine issues regarding investigation delays and conflicting information concerning the handling of domestic abuse cases. She also relayed information that one of the cases (occurrence 55230098162) was closed as NFA (No Further Action) on 13th June 2024.
The Entrepreneur’s Response: Disappointment and an Unyielding Fight for Truth
In his comprehensive response to Kathryn McCarthy, the former owner of “Phones Rescue” thanks her for the information provided, which “shed new light” on the matter, while not hiding his deep disappointment and frustration. He emphasises that although he was prepared for his ex-partner’s actions, he “was not ready to face the actions of Dorset Police officers, which in my opinion bear the hallmarks of discrimination, fabrication of evidence, and the formulation of baseless accusations.”
The entrepreneur again draws attention to his feeling of being treated as the “guilty party” in the Family Court, which he believes was a consequence of Dorset Police’s omissions. He cites possible violations of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He suspects his former partner used Dorset Police for personal revenge, which should be “severely punished, not covered up by officers.”
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). He states with bitterness: “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.”
The most damaging consequence, he stresses, is the destruction of his company, “Phones Rescue,” which has a “catastrophic impact on the lives of my daughters,” preventing him from providing for them (pointing to a potential breach of Article 8 ECHR).
Despite the scope of the review outlined by the IOPC, the entrepreneur declares: “I will persistently strive to ensure that both my former partner and all Dorset Police officers who violated the law in this matter face severe consequences for their actions.” He expresses hope that the IOPC will “thoroughly investigate the circumstances I have presented and take appropriate action to clarify all irregularities.”
What Next in the Case?
The entrepreneur’s response to the IOPC’s position shows that his fight for justice is far from over. Although the IOPC has clearly defined the parameters of its current review, the determination of the former owner of “Phones Rescue” to achieve a full clarification of the matter and to hold those responsible accountable remains unshaken. The outcome of the IOPC’s review and any potential further legal steps will undoubtedly be closely watched.