This was a an email to the senior prosecutor and director of confidence & standards and statury reviews regarding the malcious prosecution, i was also convicted in magistrates with out a trial. This is the state of UK policing / Courts & CPS

All supporting data will be uploaded at a later date.

Director of Confidence, Standards and Statutory Reviews

Dear [REDACTED],

I write further to the above matter to formally raise serious legal, procedural, and public-interest concerns regarding the prosecution currently being advanced.

Having reviewed the Initial Details of the Prosecution Case, MG5 summary, charge sheet, and witness statements, it is apparent that the CPS is attempting to advance a prosecution that is internally incoherent, legally defective, and capable of amounting to an abuse of process, particularly when viewed alongside related police and regulatory complaints that are already live. 1. Fundamental defect: incoherent and unlawful identification of the “victim”

The prosecution documents are irreconcilably inconsistent as to who the alleged victim is:

• The charge sheet alleges harassment of [REDACTED].

• The MG5 Case Summary expressly states: “The victim in this case is: [REDACTED] which is an NHS Doctors Surgery.”

• Police statements repeatedly refer to the surgery itself as the victim.

• The compensation section lists [REDACTED] as the victim.

• A “Victim Personal Statement” is provided by [REDACTED], but speaks on behalf of “the practice”.

This is not a drafting irregularity. Harassment under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires a natural person as the victim. A GP surgery — being a building or organisational entity — cannot in law experience alarm or distress and cannot be harassed.

The prosecution appears to be advancing a case for the benefit of an institution & GP’s, while inconsistently attributing victim status to an individual. This is legally impermissible and renders the charge fundamentally unsound.

2. Conduct relied upon is institutional correspondence, not personal harassment

It is accepted by all prosecution witnesses that:

• Emails were sent to [REDACTED], a generic NHS inbox.

• Emails were not sent directly to [REDACTED], Myself had no direct email address to either [REDACTED] nor [REDACTED].

• The content related to an ongoing dispute regarding DVLA medical disclosures and data handling, and a parallel Civil Negligence claim being handled by MPS and other issues as evidenced in emails with some emails not being included in evidence.

• No threats are alleged.

• No physical following, surveillance, or direct personal contact is alleged.

The practice elected not to block or filter communications, instead creating an internal folder to store them.

Complaint correspondence directed to an organisation does not, without more, constitute harassment of an individual. The prosecution has failed to establish targeted personal conduct, which is a core requirement of section 2.

3. Statutory defences ignored rather than analysed

The file itself acknowledges that the communications arose from a dispute concerning DVLA disclosures and references correspondence with the ICO.

However, the prosecution does not engage with whether the conduct was:

• For a legitimate purpose, and/or

• Reasonable in the circumstances,

both of which are express statutory exclusions under section 1(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. These are not discretionary considerations; they are mandatory legal questions which the file simply avoids.

4. Prior police decision of “no further action” is unexplained

[REDACTED]’s MG11 confirms that an earlier harassment allegation was closed due to lack of evidence, and that I was informed of this outcome.

The CPS file fails to explain:

• What materially changed,

• What new conduct crossed a criminal threshold,

• Or why substantially identical conduct is now characterised as criminal.

This omission undermines both the course of conduct and knowledge elements of the offence.

5. “Alarm and distress” asserted without objective support

Assertions of alarm and distress are unsupported and non of the below is evidenced

•CCTV,

• Objective corroboration,

• Or analysis of proportionality.

The statutory test is objective reasonableness, not retrospective institutional discomfort. That analysis is absent.

6. Prejudicial narrative contamination

[REDACTED]’s statement introduces allegations relating to:

• “verbal abuse”,

These matters are not charged in this case, are not evidenced within the bundle, and are irrelevant to the offence alleged. Their inclusion risks unfair prejudice and raises CPIA fairness concerns, Furthermore disclosures of CCTV and also BWV is selective in CPS Disclosures which also guve wider concerns in regards to CPIA Fairness.

7. Conditional caution section is legally defective

The MG5 notes that I did not admit the offence, yet still asserts suitability for a conditional caution, citing historic convictions.

A conditional caution cannot lawfully be offered without a full admission. This internal contradiction further illustrates the procedural unreliability of the file.

8. Police complaints, IOPC escalation, and regulatory context

Alongside these proceedings:

• I have made formal complaints to [REDACTED] regarding:

◦ Harassment and oppressive conduct towards myself,

◦ Malicious or retaliatory complaints, With one occuring after a made requests for witnesses to attend court to [REDACTED] both verbally & in emails - this led to an arresst attempt by [REDACTED] officers on [REDACTED] with BWV turned off as they attended my home address.

◦ Police action following lawful requests for witnesses to attend court; as above,

•

• These complaints have been acknowledged under police reference numbers including: [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].

• Matters relating to police conduct & CPIA and escalation are also subject to IOPC consideration.

• In parallel, I have active complaints and correspondence with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), NHS Governance & GMC concerning governance failures, conflicts of interest, and the handling of complaints and data by the GP practice with the conflicts of interests being directly attributed to [REDACTED] being a Clinical Director of my local PCN & also my previous practice.

This wider context is relevant because it demonstrates that the criminal process is being engaged against the backdrop of regulatory scrutiny, ongoing complaints, and lawful attempts by me to obtain accountability, SAR and also audit data relating to a ********** diagnosis that existed on NHS app but wasnt present in core medical file, i’ve had no GP in three year, this diagnosis can not possible exist, is’nt some thing i have and is proven by multiple blood tests and was never clincally treated for this condition,

This also appeared alonside, as another made factually incorrect disclosures to DVLA in medical corrospondance

9. Abuse of process concern

Taken together, the above gives rise to a serious concern that this prosecution is being advanced:

• On legally incoherent grounds,

• With a misidentified or impossible “victim”,

• By reframing a regulatory and data-handling dispute as criminal conduct,

• And in circumstances where further police involvement followed my request for witnesses.

In those circumstances, the continuation of this prosecution risks amounting to an abuse of process, namely the use of the criminal courts to protect an institution or its senior staff from scrutiny rather than to prosecute genuine criminality.

10. Requested action

I therefore formally request that the CPS:

1 Reviews whether this prosecution is legally viable, given the failure to identify a lawful victim.

2 Considers discontinuance on the basis that both the evidential and public-interest tests are not met.

3 Confirms how the CPS reconciles advancing a harassment charge where the alleged victim is alternately described as an individual and a building.

I reserve all rights in relation to abuse-of-process applications, disclosure challenges, and further complaints to oversight bodies should this matter proceed without proper correction.

Yours faithfully,

[REDACTED]