[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

As for the allegation of a failure to seize Mr Deveney’s computer and/or the hard drive retained by Ms Gaisford on 14^th November 2007. I have already made my factual findings. Mr Deveney had left a year before the day of action (with the Claimants then having control of his work equipment) and therefore there was unlikely to be a focus on finding his computer. In any event the allegations in respect of pornography were known and raised within the investigation. Further the hard drive remained under the Claimant’s control and was given to the Claimants’ solicitors by Ms Gaisford and anything of significance within its content could have been raised. This was always an allegation which added nothing to the Claimants’ case.

The Claimants raised the issue that the workbook of DS Brownsell for the time when Mr Ward was interviewed has never been made available. Given that all other workbooks have been disclosed and the limited importance of the matters which could have been covered by the book (if it ever existed) I accept that it either never existed or has been lost. There is nothing in this issue and it points in my view to an attitude of a starting point of assuming malicious motive or misconduct in any act or omission.

For the sake of completeness I should add that there was a strange pleaded allegation that the Holmes data base was not fully used. This database was the one used to store statements etc in complex enquiries so as to allow cross referencing. I raised the allegation at the outset of the hearing and it quickly became clear that it had been pleaded without any understanding of what a criticism made by the IPCC of the enquiry actually meant (it meant that they should have uploaded all materials to the database). It was wholly misconceived and provided no conceivable support for the Claimants’ case.