strawman

XXXXXXXXXXXX,
Red Lodge,
Suffolk
IP28 XXX
14th February 2011
Sgt. Keith Grant,
Mildenhall Police Station,
Kingsway,
Mildenhall,
Suffolk
IP28 7HS
Your ref: P1101260159/KG/JH
Dear Sgt. Grant,
Thank you for your letter dated 11th February. I too note with interest the different perceptions created during our
telephone conversation – perhaps your recording of the conversation can confirm that what you say is correct.
I have discussed the matter of harassment by letter with an experienced Magistrate who deals solely with criminal
cases and the view was expressed that believing that no offence was being committed would not normally be
considered to be any kind of defence in a matter where the person alleged to be harassing had been notified and
asked to cease the perceived harassment.
The decision in this case, of course, rests with yourself. However, as a layman, I really would appreciate being
directed by yourself to the specific legislation which influences your assessment of this particular case, as it does
seem confusing. If, for instance, ‘believing that your actions were allowable’ were a defence, then the alleged
‘honour killings’ committed in the UK, are presumably not offences at all in spite of the fact that murder is without
question a criminal offence.
Thankfully, in this instance, nothing as extreme as murder is involved, but the principle of non-involvement by the
police appears similar and is something which I personally find confusing. Some months ago I asked a member of
Suffolk Constabulary to inform me of the police procedure in cases of harassment. I was told that the procedure
was that the first complaint was noted, the second complaint caused the police to speak with the offender and
issue a warning, and on a third complaint, more direct action, possibly involving prosecution, would be taken.
Presumably, this is not the case, so perhaps you could define the current procedure in these cases.
In passing, my name is Patrick-James of the Kelly family and I am not Mr Patrick Kelly. If you choose to respond
to this letter, then I would appreciate it if you would not call me Mr Kelly.
Thanking you in advance,
Patrick-James
The statement about consulting an experienced Magistrate is, of course, perfectly
factual and correct and the conversation was extensive.
The reply was:
124