No further action following complaint of alleged 'corrupt practice' against Gwent police chief

No further action following complaint of alleged 'corrupt practice' against Gwent police chief

No further action following complaint of alleged 'corrupt practice' against Gwent police chief

COMPLAINT: Farooq Dastgir.

First published in News
Last updated
by

NO FURTHER action will be taken following a complaint of alleged 'corrupt practice' made by a senior Torfaen council officer against Gwent Police Chief Constable Jeff Farrar, the Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner has said.

The Argus reported how Farooq Dastgir, who was cleared of fraud following a trial earlier this year, had made a complaint about the chief constable and said he was "looking for justice".

The complaint was also made against previous chief constable Carmel Napier.

But today Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner Ian Johnston said he had dealt with the complaint and did not propose to take any further action.

He said: "“As the police and crime commissioner for Gwent I am responsible for holding the chief constable to account for the delivery of local policing. This includes responsibility for complaints by members of the public about the conduct of the current and former chief constable.

“I can confirm that I have dealt with a complaint from Mr Dastgir and do not propose to take any further action. There are procedures to be followed in such cases, including a right of appeal against my decision and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment any further at this time.”

A spokeswoman for Mr Farrar said: "The chief constable absolutely refutes the allegations made by Mr Dastgir but welcomes the transparent, open scrutiny and review that anyone in public office might expect when complaints are made."

When asked whether he will make an appeal, Mr Dastgir said he hadn't received all of the answers from the police yet as his complaint was about a few others and not just the chief constable and former chief constable.

The Argus previously reported how complaints had also been made against Detective Chief Superintendent Geoff Ronayne and three other Gwent Police employees.

Mr Dastgir said: “When I have got all of the responses back I will continue forward.

“My legal team and I will make a decision whether to appeal not once all of the responses from the other people involved are back.

“I am not sure at this moment in time when that will be.”

A Gwent police spokeswoman said:"With regards to other individuals within the force the complaint was referred under mandatory criteria to the IPCC and referred back to the force. 

"We have notified the IPCC of new information received since then, which is currently being assessed. “

"No enquiries will be made or investigation carried out by Gwent Police until the IPCC have made a decision."

Mr Dastgir, 53, ran an IT centre dealing with data from Torfaen Council, Monmouthshire Council and Gwent Police before he was suspended on full pay in 2011.

He and his co-defendant Gary Inchliffe were accused of false accounting during a high profile three-week trial in which the prosecution claimed Mr Dastgir used council money to pay for a South Wales Argus supplement advertising digital developments in Torfaen which he was told should be funded through private sponsorship.

A jury took less than three hours to return its verdict at Cardiff Crown Court and the pair were unanimously acquitted.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:01pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Ultimate Worrier says...

What a surprise.
What a surprise. Ultimate Worrier
  • Score: -3

12:19pm Wed 13 Aug 14

KarloMarko says...

"Cosy" - small, comfortable, and warm. : friendly and pleasant. : suggesting or showing a closeness between two people, groups, ...
"Cosy" - small, comfortable, and warm. : friendly and pleasant. : suggesting or showing a closeness between two people, groups, ... KarloMarko
  • Score: 1

12:40pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Bart45 says...

Gwent Police didn't investigate alleged illegal practices at Caerphilly council due to their 'close relationship'. Closer than participation in the SRS with Torfaen, or the relationship with the then director? Would it not have been appropriate for them to have passed on the SRS investigation to another force? Dastgir's complaint could have had even less merit then.
Gwent Police didn't investigate alleged illegal practices at Caerphilly council due to their 'close relationship'. Closer than participation in the SRS with Torfaen, or the relationship with the then director? Would it not have been appropriate for them to have passed on the SRS investigation to another force? Dastgir's complaint could have had even less merit then. Bart45
  • Score: 7

1:23pm Wed 13 Aug 14

davidcp says...

Couple of things. If you don't know what the specific allegation was, you can't assume that this decision is wrong. He might have accused the CC of 'not liking him very much so shouldn't have been involved', which means no criminal should be prosecuted because the police don't like them very much. Such an allegation would be immediately bin-worthy, and let's face it, if the IPCC saw anything in it they'd have jumped at the chance to pot a Chief!

Secondly - "A jury took less than three hours to return its verdict at Cardiff Crown Court and the pair were unanimously acquitted. "

Three hours meant they had to think about it, then. Not 10 minutes, like a recent unrelated guilty verdict. If the Jury has to think about it, there must be something in to discuss, eh? They may conclude the party is innocent; they may conclude he did it but there are legal reasons why he is not guilty ('technicalities' but nevertheless valid in law); as juries are not permitted to discuss cases and their decisions we never really know, do we? Oh, and the term 'unanimous' is redundant unless a majority verdict is sought, and it wasn't, was it?

SWA - stop stirring.
Couple of things. If you don't know what the specific allegation was, you can't assume that this decision is wrong. He might have accused the CC of 'not liking him very much so shouldn't have been involved', which means no criminal should be prosecuted because the police don't like them very much. Such an allegation would be immediately bin-worthy, and let's face it, if the IPCC saw anything in it they'd have jumped at the chance to pot a Chief! Secondly - "A jury took less than three hours to return its verdict at Cardiff Crown Court and the pair were unanimously acquitted. " Three hours meant they had to think about it, then. Not 10 minutes, like a recent unrelated guilty verdict. If the Jury has to think about it, there must be something in to discuss, eh? They may conclude the party is innocent; they may conclude he did it but there are legal reasons why he is not guilty ('technicalities' but nevertheless valid in law); as juries are not permitted to discuss cases and their decisions we never really know, do we? Oh, and the term 'unanimous' is redundant unless a majority verdict is sought, and it wasn't, was it? SWA - stop stirring. davidcp
  • Score: -5

7:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Aquarius says...

davidcp wrote:
Couple of things. If you don't know what the specific allegation was, you can't assume that this decision is wrong. He might have accused the CC of 'not liking him very much so shouldn't have been involved', which means no criminal should be prosecuted because the police don't like them very much. Such an allegation would be immediately bin-worthy, and let's face it, if the IPCC saw anything in it they'd have jumped at the chance to pot a Chief!

Secondly - "A jury took less than three hours to return its verdict at Cardiff Crown Court and the pair were unanimously acquitted. "

Three hours meant they had to think about it, then. Not 10 minutes, like a recent unrelated guilty verdict. If the Jury has to think about it, there must be something in to discuss, eh? They may conclude the party is innocent; they may conclude he did it but there are legal reasons why he is not guilty ('technicalities' but nevertheless valid in law); as juries are not permitted to discuss cases and their decisions we never really know, do we? Oh, and the term 'unanimous' is redundant unless a majority verdict is sought, and it wasn't, was it?

SWA - stop stirring.
Well, the Argus is just reporting the news - they're not stirring it as such.

It's news, whether people employed by the police like it or not. Anyone would think you worked for them.... :-)
[quote][p][bold]davidcp[/bold] wrote: Couple of things. If you don't know what the specific allegation was, you can't assume that this decision is wrong. He might have accused the CC of 'not liking him very much so shouldn't have been involved', which means no criminal should be prosecuted because the police don't like them very much. Such an allegation would be immediately bin-worthy, and let's face it, if the IPCC saw anything in it they'd have jumped at the chance to pot a Chief! Secondly - "A jury took less than three hours to return its verdict at Cardiff Crown Court and the pair were unanimously acquitted. " Three hours meant they had to think about it, then. Not 10 minutes, like a recent unrelated guilty verdict. If the Jury has to think about it, there must be something in to discuss, eh? They may conclude the party is innocent; they may conclude he did it but there are legal reasons why he is not guilty ('technicalities' but nevertheless valid in law); as juries are not permitted to discuss cases and their decisions we never really know, do we? Oh, and the term 'unanimous' is redundant unless a majority verdict is sought, and it wasn't, was it? SWA - stop stirring.[/p][/quote]Well, the Argus is just reporting the news - they're not stirring it as such. It's news, whether people employed by the police like it or not. Anyone would think you worked for them.... :-) Aquarius
  • Score: 5

8:45pm Wed 13 Aug 14

davidcp says...

Sorry, not clear. First comment aimed at commenters, second for SWA for using words that create uncalled for emphasis for no good reason. Like the Daily Mail!
Sorry, not clear. First comment aimed at commenters, second for SWA for using words that create uncalled for emphasis for no good reason. Like the Daily Mail! davidcp
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree