Table of Contents

This article presents the emphatic stance of a Bournemouth entrepreneur, former owner of “Phones Rescue,” in response to the findings of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), authored by Kathryn McCarthy, concerning the actions of Dorset Police officers. It is an expression of profound disappointment and fundamental disagreement with a decision that, in the entrepreneur’s view, ignores crucial evidence, glaring irregularities, and possible fabrication of accusations, leading to a lenient assessment and a lack of real consequences for the officers responsible.

Introduction: Systemic Injustice and Broken Trust

The Bournemouth entrepreneur, having experienced systemic injustice, feels compelled to publicly challenge the IOPC’s findings, as presented in Kathryn McCarthy’s report. The Bureau’s decision, in his assessment, not only fails to deliver justice but also perpetuates a sense of impunity and ignores fundamental problems within policing. His life and business were ruined as a result of false accusations and, he claims, grossly improper actions by Dorset Police. The IOPC, an institution established to protect citizens’ rights, has, in his opinion, failed by not holding officers genuinely accountable.

The False Allegation of “Intentional Strangulation” – The Basis for Suspicions of Manipulation

The central point of the entrepreneur’s outrage is the handling of the “intentional strangulation” allegation. This accusation, as the IOPC itself indicates (paragraph 22 of Kathryn McCarthy’s decision), emerged during the creation of a Public Protection Notice (PPN) involving his former partner and officers. Furthermore, according to the Bureau’s findings (paragraph 13 of the IOPC decision), it became one of the grounds for his arrest.

The entrepreneur wishes to emphasise forcefully – a fact seemingly entirely downplayed by the IOPC in Kathryn McCarthy’s report – that his former partner never raised any allegation of strangulation on the day of the incident (24th June 2023), nor in her numerous and extensive statements, nor in the formal charges later presented in court. This stark discrepancy raises justifiable and serious concerns about the fabrication of initial accusations and report content by Dorset Police officers.

How is it possible that an allegation of such gravity, supposedly crucial to the arrest decision, simply “vanished” from the alleged victim’s later, formal testimony? Why did the IOPC, under Kathryn McCarthy’s authorship, not recognise this contradiction as an alarming signal indicating potential evidence tampering or, at the very least, extreme unreliability in the police’s PPN drafting? The IOPC report offers no satisfactory answers to these questions.

A key question also remains: in connection with such a serious allegation, did the police commission, or did the entrepreneur’s former partner undergo, any medical examination to document the alleged injuries? An act of strangulation should leave marks. The absence of such an examination undermines the credibility of the allegation.

Moreover, the entrepreneur was never granted access to the content of the aforementioned PPN. This prevented him from mounting an effective defence and, in his view, constitutes a violation of his fundamental right to information and a fair trial. How can the IOPC, through Kathryn McCarthy’s report, deem the proceedings proper when key documents, forming the basis for drastic actions such as arrest, were withheld from him?

Insufficient Consequences and a Lenient Assessment of Police Actions

The IOPC’s decision, penned by Kathryn McCarthy, reduces numerous and serious failings by Dorset Police officers (including PC Pratt) to the category of errors allegedly rectified by “management action/learnings.” This response is, in the entrepreneur’s opinion, entirely inadequate given the scale of the negligence and its devastating consequences for his life: wrongful arrest, loss of his home, the destruction of his business “Phones Rescue,” and immense stress.

The IOPC appears to accept police explanations uncritically within Kathryn McCarthy’s report, without considering:

The fact that the entrepreneur was a victim of domestic abuse, which was documented (including a broken nose), yet he was treated as the perpetrator.
Numerous pieces of evidence pointing to bias and a lack of thoroughness in the investigation.
His justified concerns regarding gender discrimination – as a male victim of domestic abuse.
The systemic nature of the problems in Dorset Police’s actions, which go beyond isolated “mistakes.”

The statement in paragraph 62 of the IOPC decision by Kathryn McCarthy, that “there is no indication that the officers’ actions constituted misconduct,” is, in light of the above facts and particularly the suspicions of a fabricated strangulation charge, difficult for the entrepreneur to accept.

Context of the Case: Victim Treated as Perpetrator

The basis of the entrepreneur’s complaint is the events in which, as a victim of domestic abuse by his former partner, he was wrongfully arrested as a result of her false accusations. Despite him presenting evidence of the abuse he suffered (including a broken nose) and his former partner admitting to some actions and making false statements, he bore the consequences.

The arrest and subsequent actions of Dorset Police bore, according to him, the hallmarks of numerous irregularities, including potential gender discrimination and breaches of the Victim’s Code of Practice. As a result of false accusations, he was evicted from his home, leading to the collapse of his business “Phones Rescue” and the loss of his savings. The police investigation into the allegations against him concluded with a No Further Action (NFA) decision due to lack of evidence. However, his allegations regarding the domestic abuse he experienced, and the irregularities in police actions, including the alleged falsification of police reports, were not, in his opinion, thoroughly investigated, even in Kathryn McCarthy’s review for the IOPC.

The entrepreneur contends that Dorset Police failed to correctly identify him as the primary victim of domestic abuse, focusing instead on his former partner’s allegations, which may have stemmed from gender bias. He accuses officers, including PC Rose Pratt, of breaching professional ethical standards and the Victim’s Code of Practice.

Detailed Challenge to the IOPC Report’s Findings – Main Points of Contention

The entrepreneur challenges a number of the IOPC report’s findings, authored by Kathryn McCarthy, including (paragraph numbers refer to the IOPC report):

Para 7 (Legality of arrest): His arrest was unlawful. He was the victim, not the perpetrator. His former partner admitted she did not feel threatened and called the police due to suspicions of infidelity, not because of a real threat.
Para 8 (Propriety of the investigation): The police did not properly investigate his counter-allegations and did not identify him as the primary victim.
Para 11 (Eviction): His eviction was the result of false accusations and wrongful arrest.
Para 13 (Bail conditions): The imposed conditions, including a ban on approaching his home, were unjustified and led to the collapse of his business.
Para 15 (NFA decision regarding former partner): His former partner admitted to making false statements and to violence (his broken nose). The NFA decision was flawed.
Para 19 (Reliability of police reports): He asserts that police reports contained falsehoods and inaccuracies. Biased language was used, referring to him as the “offender” before any conviction.
Para 20 (Application of the Victim’s Code): He, as a victim of violence, was deprived of his rights under the Victim’s Code.
Para 22 (No gender discrimination): He claims he was discriminated against as a male victim of domestic abuse. A glaring example is the conduct of Officer Rose Pratt, who demanded additional medical documentation from him when he reported a broken nose (which his former partner admitted to causing). Was similar scrutiny applied when requesting medical documentation from his former partner regarding the alleged “intentional strangulation”? Kathryn McCarthy’s report fails to adequately address this disparity.
Para 24 (No grounds for misconduct): His allegations concerning falsification of reports, ignoring evidence, discrimination, and breaches of the Victim’s Code indicate potential misconduct.
Para 31 (PC Rose Pratt’s conduct): He accuses PC Rose Pratt of, among other things, gender discrimination and breaching the Victim’s Code.
Para 52 (No evidence of officers intentionally misleading): He maintains that police reports contained untruths, suggesting deliberate action or gross negligence.
Omission of Key Witnesses: He also raises the issue of the failure to interview key witnesses, such as his neighbours or his friend, who was present in their home in the period immediately preceding the alleged assault. Her testimony could have been crucial.

Overarching Failings: Mismanagement of Domestic Abuse and Discrimination

The analysis of the entrepreneur’s case reveals fundamental failings in how Dorset Police conducted the investigation and in how the IOPC, through Kathryn McCarthy’s report, assessed that investigation:

Improper Management of Domestic Abuse Allegations: The police failed by not correctly identifying him as the primary victim. College of Policing (CoP) guidelines on identifying the “primary perpetrator” were ignored.
Shortcomings in Conduct and Reporting: He raises serious allegations regarding the reliability of police reports and breaches of the CoP Code of Ethics. He claims reports contained falsehoods and that he was denied his rights under the Victim’s Code.
Allegations of Gender Discrimination: He directly accuses the police of discriminating against him as a male victim of domestic abuse. He questions why Dorset Police management tolerates such discrimination.

Conclusion and Expectations: The Voice of One Crying Out for Justice

The IOPC’s decision, as presented in Kathryn McCarthy’s report, is unacceptable to the Bournemouth entrepreneur, former owner of “Phones Rescue.” It is based, in his opinion, on an incomplete and biased police investigation.

He expects the IOPC to:

Seriously consider his objections and thoroughly analyse the arguments raised against Kathryn McCarthy’s findings.
Re-evaluate the reliability of its report.
Consider issuing a corrective statement to Kathryn McCarthy’s report.
Formulate or strengthen recommendations for Dorset Police regarding, inter alia, training on domestic abuse (with particular attention to male victims), adherence to the Victim’s Code and Code of Ethics, review of arrest procedures, and thorough evidence gathering, including interviewing all key witnesses.
Re-evaluate the issue of disciplinary proceedings against officers, particularly in the context of the allegation of fabricating evidence and discrimination, which he feels Kathryn McCarthy’s report did not adequately address.
Recommend that Dorset Police issue an official apology for the identified failings and the harm he has suffered.

The entrepreneur hopes that his voice, the voice of a man whose life has been ruined, will contribute not only to a fair handling of his case but also to an improvement in the standards of police conduct and oversight. This is a fight not just for his good name, but for a system that is supposed to protect, to actually protect, and not destroy.

You can read the feedback which the entrepreneur submitted to the IOPC below:

Feedback on the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) Decision – 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, [a friend] 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.

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