RE: EXTERNAL - Outcome of Complaint CO/00099/23:CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY CHARGE
Inbox
from: PSD Complaints Kent <PSD.Complaints@kent.police.uk>
to: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>
date: 6 Sept 2024, 09:45
subject: RE: EXTERNAL - Outcome of Complaint CO/00099/23:CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY CHARGE
mailed-by: kent.police.uk
Signed by: kent.police.uk
security: Standard encryption (TLS) Learn more
: Important mainly because it was sent directly to you.
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
Good morning,
Please see the attached outcome report as requested. This was originally emailed to you on 4th June 2024.
Kind Regards
Complaints Team
Professional Standards Department
🖂16 Edinburgh Square, Kent Police, Sutton Road, Maidstone, ME15 9BZ
Kent Police two line colour
Working to keep Kent safe
From: Shantanu Panigrahi <shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 6:59 AM
To: PSD Complaints Kent <PSD.Complaints@kent.police.uk>
Cc: CPU Driver Diversion External Use Only Kent <driver.diversion@kent.police.uk>; KDE@kent.gov.uk; se.magistratescourt@cps.gov.uk; KentCPO <KentCPO@justice.gov.uk>
Subject: EXTERNAL - Outcome of Complaint CO/00099/23:CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY CHARGE
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. DO NOT CLICK LINKS or OPEN ATTACHMENTS unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
It is not unusual to receive an email from someone for the first time but this can be a sign of phishing, so do please be vigilant.
To
Kent Police
Dear Sirs
With regard to my application for a Retrial on the 10 November 2023 Speeding Offence relating to the 5 October 2022 incident; a Trial that should never have taken place, I have reactivated the application for a reconsideration of the matter as linked here: https://www.knowledgeassessmentanddissemination.com/post/criminal-conspiracy-charge-retrial-of-10-november-2023-at-medway-magistrates-court.
The mitigation is now updated with the attached submission to the Magistrates: ToFOSPHSOStripeCenLonCtyCrtMedCtyCrtCourtofAppeal(CASE OUTCOMES J00me572_E35YM660_CA-2023-000750)5Sep2024.docx.
This action has become necessary for the reason that I have still not received a comprehensive Report on Complaint CO/00099/23 from the Professional Standards Department at Kent Police.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Wigmore
Gillingham
Kent ME8 0SL
United Kingdom
Tel: 07967789619
This email and any other accompanying document(s) contain information from Kent Police and/or Essex Police, which is confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) or bodies to whom it is addressed. The content, including any subsequent replies, could be disclosable if relating to a criminal investigation or civil proceedings. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by contacting the sender or telephoning Kent Police on 01622 690690 or Essex Police on 01245 491491, as appropriate. For further information regarding Kent Police’s or Essex Police’s use of personal data please go to https://www.kent.police.uk/hyg/privacy/ or https://www.essex.police.uk/hyg/privacy/. Additionally for our Terms and Conditions please go to https://www.kent.police.uk/hyg/terms-conditions/ or https://www.essex.police.uk/hyg/terms-conditions/
2 attachments • Scanned by Gmail
(a)
Protecting and serving the people of Kent
Professional Standards Department
For the attention of the addressee only
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane,
Wigmore
Gillingham
ME8 0SL
Via Email: shanpanigrahi3000@gmail.com
Date: 04 June 2024
Reference: CO/00999/23
Dear Dr Panigrahi,
The investigation into your reported complaint has been concluded. It is regrettable that Kent Police did not meet your expectations on this occasion, but it is hoped the matter has now been resolved to your satisfaction. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Please find enclosed the outcome to your complaint, which was dealt with via a Flexible Approach under Schedule 3 of The Police Reform Act (2002).
You have a ‘Right of Review’ if you remain dissatisfied with the outcome or process of this Flexible Approach. Any appeal must be directed to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC),
who will have the responsibility for making a determination on your review application.
Should you decide to submit an appeal, please be aware that it is not the role of the OPCC to reinvestigate your complaint, make a judgement on legal issues, or operational matters such as on-going or concluded criminal cases. It is solely their role to determine whether Kent Police have acted reasonably and proportionately in response to your complaint.
An appeal can be requested online at:
By email: opcc.reviews@kent.police.uk
Or in writing to:
The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
South Block
Kent Police
Sutton Road
Maidstone
ME15 9BZ
16 Edinburgh Square, Kent Police, Sutton Road, Maidstone, ME15 9BZ
This is available in
large print on request
(b)
RESTRICTED (when complete)
Professional Standards Department
Public Complaints
RESTRICTED (when complete)
SCHEDULE 3 COMPLAINT: Flexible Approach Form
Complaint Reference CO/00999/23
Complainant’s Name Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
DOB 08/08/1957
Address 3 Hoath Lane,
Wigmore
Gillingham
ME8 0SL
Contact Details 01634379604
07967789619
Agent/Interested Party
None
INVESTIGATOR’S DETAILS
Rank Force Number Surname Location
ADS 12133 CAULFIELD SITTINGBOURNE CID
RECORD OF DISCUSSION WITH COMPLAINANT
DS 14005 MUCHEMWA had initial contact with the complainant Dr Panigrahi SHANTANU and requested clarification on his complaint and set out the parameters of the investigation and provide clarity of the investigator’s remit.
The complainant responded stating that, “I cannot comment on these limitations as it is under Judicial scrutiny at the Central London County Court under Claim E35YM660 in which I am claiming £100 million in damages and compensation from the Treasury of the United Kingdom which will be prejudiced against me if I agree to what you have suggested. Please direct all your evidence for the Circuit Judge at the Central London County Court to consider. Please note that any further communication to me from Kent Police will be read and filed with no action being taken by me.”
After DS MUCHEMWA reviewed the initial complaint, the complainant made to the police in which stated that he believes he was arrested unnecessarily by Kent Police on 5 occasions
RESTRICTED (when complete)
RESTRICTED (when complete)
between 15 September 2021 and 20 April 2023 with a 6th coerced interview, with him being falsely accused that he had stalked and sent out malicious communications to various individuals
and institutions.
DS MUCHEMWA thereafter specifically asked the complainant what he objected to about these arrests and whether there were specific actions by any individual officer or whether he thought the arrests were not legal, proportionate, or necessary.
Complainant responded stating that, “I cannot tell at this stage whether these were lawfully proportionate as the other 5 Enforced Arrests were or were not, but the very fact that I was fully exonerated as linked here:
https://www.knowledgeassessmentanddissemination.com/post/charge-refused-certificate-from-kent-police-and-the-restoration-of-seized-property means that it is for Kent Police to provide me with all the documents that were examined during each of the 7 arrests so that I can work out whether the procedures employed on me were lawful and proportionate.
Kindly provide me the the documents before we meet.”
With the complainant not providing the specifics of his complaint, the investigation thereafter looked at whether, the arrests were lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
I ADS CAULFIELD have not personally had contact with the complainant due to the above.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
N/A
ALLEGATION/S TO BE INVESTIGATED
Complaint
Allegation 1
Category: B - Police powers, policies and procedures
Sub-Category: B3 - Power to arrest and detain
Summary The complainant believes he was arrested unnecessarily by Kent Police on
5 occasions between 15 September 2021 and 20 April 2023 with a 6th coerced interview, with him being falsely accused that he had stalked and sent out malicious communications to various individuals and institutions
Subject Officer(s) DC 15060 Field PC 15002 Nicholls DC 14767 Corbishley
ACTION PLAN
Review all material held on the police system to establish if Dr PANIGRAHI’S arrests and VAI (voluntary attendance interview) were unlawful and did not comply with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Codes of Practice.
RESTRICTED (when complete)
RESTRICTED (when complete)
OFFICER/STAFF MEMBER ACCOUNTS
No issues found therefore officers accounts were not requested and they were not spoken to by me or DS MUCHEMWA. Complainant was unable to provide any specific issue that he had with the officer’s conduct except that he believed he was arrested unnecessarily by Kent Police.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND ACTIONS TAKEN
The complainant believes he was arrested unnecessarily by Kent Police on 5 occasions between 15 September 2021 and 20 April 2023 with a 6th coerced interview, with him being falsely accused that he had stalked and sent out malicious communications to various individuals and institutions. Research has been completed on the Kent Police system to identify each of these arrests and the VAI. My findings are as follows:-
Arrested on 13/07/2023 – Investigation Reference 46/75492/21 - Stalking (re-investigated from arrest on 24/11/2021). OIC DC 15060 FIELD. Arrest was lawful, proportionate, and justified and investigated thoroughly resulting in the CPS refuse charging the suspect.
Arrested on 20/04/2023 and 28/03/2023 - Investigation References 46/66393/23, 46/66390/23,
46/55364/23, 46/49284/23, 46/33494/23, 46/5552/23, 46/5519/23, 46/243341/22,
46/240709/22, 46/225794/22, 46/200574/22 – Malicious Communications. OIC PC 14767
CORBISHLEY. Arrests were lawful, proportionate, and justified and investigated thoroughly resulting in the CPS refuse charging the suspect.
Arrested on 23/11/2022 – Investigation Reference 46/225794/22 – Malicious Communications.
OIC PC 15358 SARPONG. Arrest was lawful, proportionate, and justified and investigated thoroughly resulting in the suspect being refuse charge by police.
Arrested on 24/11/2021 – Investigation Reference 46/75492/21 - Stalking. OIC DC 15060 FIELD. Arrest was lawful, proportionate, and justified and investigated thoroughly resulting in the CPS refuse charging the suspect.
VAI’d on 01/10/2023 – Investigation Reference 46/158945/23 – Malicious Communications. OIC
PC 30554 SMITH. VAI was lawful, proportionate, and justified and investigated thoroughly resulting in no further action being taken, police decision.
RESTRICTED (when complete)
RESTRICTED (when complete)
OUTCOMES
Outcome for Allegation 1 – SA - The service provided was acceptable
As per the summary above the matters subject of this complaint were dealt with lawfully, proportionately, were justified and investigated thoroughly resulting in the outcomes as shown.
Performance satisfactory.
Was Body Worn Video instrumental in deciding whether the service provided was
acceptable or unacceptable? No
LESSONS LEARNED
No lessons identified.
I apologise to the Complainant on behalf of Kent Police for this negative experience.
Date: 04/06/2024
Officer signature: ADS 12133 CAULFIELD
Date submitted to
Complaint Manager: 04/06/2024
Complaint Manager’s
Signature:
This Flexible Approach form will need to be quality assured and
signed off as completed by the Operational Complaints Manager
Seen by OCM North. 58450
Date:04/06/2024
留言