I have just made jpegs of around 20 extracts from the Police reports and will put them up later today or tonight.
I will also be making available all the full reports as pdfs.
A key thing to reember with the Police reports is they have dozens of pages investigating the authorisation offence which was the minor offence and the harder to prove offence.
You’ll find this hard to beleive, but there is basically no record at all of them investigating seperately the over-spending offence. And this is the offence which was the more serious and the one which was easier to prove because it was of strict liability. In fact all their investigating took place before they even received the complaint about over-spending from the Electoral Commission.
Now we had this bizarre Police media release which said there was a prima facie case for a brech of the authorisation section but they did not find a prima facie case for the over-spending. This flies in the face of logic as they use the same legal definition and the over-spending has a much lower threshold of proof. Well the answer is the Police never investigated the over-spending. Seriously
The final Police report devotes just two paragraphs to it. And all it says is Mike Smith says he didn’t pay for them, so he is not liable. Absolutely incredible. Never mind he agreed to include them in his return and changed his mind. They didn’t even ask him about this. Never mind the law is 100% clear that it doesn’t matter who pays.
They spent all their time investigating Section 221 and neglected Section 214B which was far more serious and far easier to prove. I’ve gone through nearly 1,000 pages looking for the details of their Section 214B investigation and it simply isn’t there.