BBCs Panorama Who's Watching the Detectives? first aired 19th November 2012, it examines as the Independent Police Complaints Commission [IPCC] is handed the investigation into Hillsborough, the biggest policing scandal in UK history, BBC reporter Mark Daly, investigates whether the body that polices the police is fit for purpose.  Panorama hears from families who say they have been failed by the police watchdog and examines growing concerns that it does not have sufficient power or the independence to hold the police to account.  This too seems to be the same problem with the Hollinshead family, and they hope they too are not going to become yet another statistic.

A Madness Shared by Two, due for release on the 12-12-12, exposes a ‘Police Cover-Up’ took place in the infamous BBCs Madness in the Fast Lane documentary.  Sabina Eriksson was released after only 5hrs of the M6 motorway incident, and that within 72hrs of that she was to be involved with the murder of Glenn Hollinshead.  The book exposes many things, such as the IPCC was called in to view the case just days after the murder of Mr Hollinshead. 

BBC - Madness in the Fast Lane

A Madness Shared by Two to be released

In an extract from the book A Madness Shared by Two, reads:

We were surprised to learn how the IPCC work.  For instance, when you initially contact the IPCC complaining about a police force, they request you give them permission to then pass your complaint over to the police force you are complaining about.  They say; ‘...each police force is responsible for considering complaints made against that force and for recording complaints. If you are not happy with the police’s decision on recording this compliant, you have a right to appeal to us.’ So from the start of your complaint, you face a dilemma.  For why else would someone wish to go to an “independent” body, if it turned out they were not to intervene from the beginning and hand your complaint straight over to the body you are complaining about?  Why are you not told from the onset, that is what will be the first thing that would happen to your complaint? 

     In defence of this procedure, we can of course understand the level of complaint.  If for instance you may wish to complain about the way you were perhaps treated by a particular police of officer or whilst being arrested or kept in custody etc., then perhaps these matters could be addressed by the actual police force involved.  However, in more serious cases such as a murder, you’d expect the IPCC to be there from the on-start of the complaint.  They say in their; ‘Frequently asked questions’: “The severity of the complaint will determine how it should be resolved.  In certain circumstances the complaint would be referred to the IPCC who may oversee a police investigation by conducting a supervised or managed investigation, or in the most serious cases handle the complaint using our own team of investigators.”

     This is why from the very beginning of our complaint, we urged the IPCC to appoint a team of their own investigators.  Yet our request was ignored, so I contacted the IPCC and raised our concerns, the “Customer Contact Advisor” became somewhat incensed and hardly the way you expect a person who is meant to be “completely independent” of the police to react.  He then let slip; “It doesn't work like that in force.”  I picked up on that straight away, and asked; ‘...was that a Freudian-slip of the tongue?  What did you mean by the force?  He totally ignored my question and tried to defend his line of thought and justify why the IPCC will not intervene as yet.   I assume he’s an ex-police officer now working for the IPCC.    I was not happy with this response, so wrote to Dame Anne Owers, Chair of the IPCC.  She didn’t reply herself, but I got a reply from an IPCC “Casework Manager”.  She ironically gave me an address to ‘complain’ about the Customer Contact Advisor.  But I wasn’t complaining about that, his comment just confirmed that at the first line of defence at the IPCC, the department is probably run by ex-police officers.  I was more concerned about the IPCC not appointing a ‘team of their own investigators’, due to the ‘unusualness and severity’ of the complaint.  So in order for the IPCCs Casework Manager to get around my line of questioning; ‘...The severity of the complaint will determine how it should be resolved.’, and the Hollinshead family’s continuous appeal for the IPCC to get involved from the beginning, they now seemed to have changed the goal posts, stating they will only directly get involved in complaints; ‘...such as police shootings and deaths in custody...’ Whereas, we argue the IPCC should be involved in all cases that involves a ‘murder’.  And if that’s now the case, then why is this not the answer on their ‘Frequently asked questions?’     

     Normally when someone contacts the IPCC, it’s because they are complaining about a particular police force.  The Hollinsheads’ complaint is far more complex.  They’re complaining not only about the Merseyside Police Force, but also the Staffordshire Police Force as well.  Though in addition there are the three “professionals” who were employed by the University Hospital of North Staffordshire, who all agreed that Sabina Eriksson was; “Fit and well” to be released from hospital, despite being admitted under Section 136 on the 1983 Mental Health Act.  The Magistrate at Fenton, who sentenced Sabina Eriksson to just ‘one day’ imprisonment without a ‘Pre-Sentence Report’, also has to be questioned; ‘Why did he reach such a decision?’   As do the “Judges” involved in the High Court hearings, alongside members of the judiciary, on both sides of the defence and prosecution teams.  The CPS – Northern Sector, the Coroner’s office at Stoke-on-Trent, alongside Dr Kolar the pathologist whose report was far from clear and correct, and proved to be as such by Dr Shorrock’s own findings that ‘two weapons’ were most probably used.  All these bodies and a series of individual “professionals” seem to be implicated and involved in the complete and utter failure to address this travesty of justice properly.  This is why we recently contacted the Home Office, Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice, before the release of this book, for the Hollinshead family would like to appeal to these establishments to see to it that the IPCC do intervene and reinvestigate this case.  All the heads of these authoritative bodies have commented about the case and defended the police, the courts and medical professional’s actions, despite not knowing the full facts of the case, and especially about our own recent findings.  Will they now alter their stance and course of action? 

     Considering all the new evidence that has come to light, the Hollinsheads’ seek a full and independent investigation and inquiry.

“...that immediately following the outcome of her trial for the manslaughter of Glenn Hollinshead at Nottingham Crown Court, on the 1^st and 2^nd September 2009, Stoke-on-Trent MP, Rob Flello, said; “I think there needs to be an inquiry into what happened.  It is a tragedy for everyone.  Where things have been done wrong they need to be put right so that they don't happen again.” 

     Glenn’s brother, Garry Hollinshead, said: “I do question the criminal justice system for allowing somebody like this to be let out when she is capable of committing such a crime. - Her mental condition should have been properly assessed after what she did on the motorway and the experiences the police had. - Her mental disorder should have been picked up prior to her being let out in to the community.” 

     Paul Hollinshead also said: “...is convinced this ‘Puff of madness’ diagnosis is very, very convenient for the state, and since Sabina is to be released in April 2011, she is not going to be closely watched/monitored after her discharge”. 

     Jon Hollinshead asks: “Why did the hospital not keep her in hospital for observation over night as they do with all head injuries?  What was the rush to get her processed by the police?  Why was she ejected from court with no fixed abode, no money etc., like a piece of dirt cast out onto the general (unsuspecting) public in Fenton?”

   “She was then arrested and charged with this man’s murder.  Through our own investigations we have amazingly uncovered evidence that indicates the possibilities that more than one person was involved in the murder of Mr Hollinshead, and if this is the case, which we’re convinced it was, then it suggests this person/s are still at large.  The evidence uncovered in this book has led the Hollinshead family contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission [IPCC] and the Staffordshire Police force asking them to reinvestigate this case.  In addition, legal action is to be taken against various authoritative bodies and an enquiry is to be called for in the House of Commons.”  

“The BBC’s Madness in the Fast Lane documentary, first aired on 10^th August 2010, in which one preview that appeared in The Guardian newspaper, stated: ‘On no account miss this documentary.  It opens with what is perhaps the most extraordinary footage I’ve ever seen on TV.’  It was this programme that exposed that Sabina had been discharged from hospital just five hours after the M6 incident, and whilst her twin Ursula was still being operated on.  Unfortunately, the film incorrectly portrays what happened in the previous hours and before their cameras were able to capture what occurred on the M6 motorway, and even then that account is not entirely accurate.” 

“...all the legal teams and people involved in the trial, whether it was the defence or prosecution solicitors and barristers, they have all been approached, including the judges, the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS], the Independent Police Complaints Commission [IPCC], Merseyside Police, Staffordshire Police and their legal representatives, known as the Professional Standards Departments [PSDs], the University Hospital of North Staffordshire [UHNS], and the Stoke-on-Trent Coroner’s office.”   

“Up to the time of writing, the IPCC have handed the complaints over to the relevant PSDs, and each of the police forces involved, are looking into the complaints to see whether the matter will be ‘recorded’.  Merseyside Police have since confirmed they have ‘recorded the complaint’, and told me they are looking into it.  Also on the 31^st August 2012, the Staffordshire police force, said they have not currently ‘recorded’ it.  This may result in the Hollinshead family going back to the IPCC and appeal for the case to be investigated by them.  We were worried this would be the case with the Merseyside police, for before they agreed to ‘record’ the complaint, they wrote on the 25^th July 2012, that stated: ‘In the event that the issues raised are over twelve months old it will be classed as out of time and we may seek dispensation from the IPCC.’  Obviously it’s well over twelve months, and seeking dispensation in this instance, means they would be asking the IPCC to exempt them from the complaints procedure.  The Hollinshead family would have needed to appeal to the IPCC to instigate their own investigation had the Merseyside Police force refused to ‘record it’.” 

In a response to MP Rob Fello, making enquiry’s into what had happened that day at the UHNS, Det. Supt. P. Bladen, Head of the PSD of Staffordshire Police, stated in his reply dated the 21^st August 2012, that: “Following the initial incident on Saturday 17^th May 2008, the matter was referred by the Professional Standards Department of Staffordshire Police to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.  This matter was returned for the completion of the road traffic investigation.”

“Following the death of Mr Hollinshead the updated circumstances were further referred by the PSD to the IPCC.  That referral was returned to the Head of the PSD at the time, Supt. Popadynec on the 22^nd May 2008.  It was the view of the IPCC that there was no evidence of any link between the short period of detention and the actions of Ms Eriksson or of any misconduct by any police officer.  The matter was referred back for the force to deal with as appropriate.”

“It was then appointed to Anthony Fellows, as the Investigating Officer within the PSD and he monitored the ongoing investigation being conducted by the Major Investigation Department.  On the 18^th October 2008 he reported that no complaints had been made in respect of the case and that the matter should be filed as no further action.”   

“You will be aware that a thorough investigation into all the circumstances of this case was carried out by members of the forces Major Investigations Department.  The investigation was led by Detective Chief Inspector Ken Raper a Senior Investing Officer [for Staffordshire police].”

     This is because, technically speaking, there was ‘no one’ at the time actually ‘complaining’.  It seems it was done as a precautionary measure, were it to arise that the Hollinshead family or someone else was to come forward and complain to the IPCC about why was Sabina released so soon from hospital, among other matters in general.  Along with recommendations, procedures and guidelines to adhere to within the 1983 Mental Health Act, we also have to consider the aforementioned issuing of a “Warning of Arrest”.  The Holinshead family ask; ‘Why were all these guidelines and procedures ignored?’ 

 A Madness Shared by Two, is not only the true untold story about the lives of Sabina and Ursula Eriksson, alongside the murder of Glenn Hollinshead, based on a critique re-examination of the BBC’s Madness in the Fast Lane documentary that had 7 million viewers [with a conservative estimate of around a further 15 million people having since watched this film via the internet and on websites such as

https://www.facebook.com/AMadnessSharedByTwo?ref=tn_tnmn

https://www.amadnesssharedbytwo.com