Date Document Created: 19 May 2025 (Reviewed by me:** [Please specify when you received or became aware of this Court Order]
Incident Type: Review of Court Order Regarding Variation/Removal of Bail Conditions and Comparison with Initial Police Bail Documentation.
Document Source:
Berkshire Magistrates' Courts (Court Order)
Police (Bail Sheet MG0Date of Court Order)
Date Document Received/Reviewed by me: [Please specify when you received or became aware of this Court Order]
Incident Type: Review of Court Order and Comparison with Police Bail Sheet Regarding Bail Conditions.
Document Source:
Berkshire Magistrates' Courts (Court Order)4a)
Case Number (Court Order): 432500106081
Reference (Police Bail): Custody No CRLC25009759 (related to arrest 15/04/2025)
Key Details from Court Order (dated 19 May 2025):
The Order states: "Application to vary conditions of bail imposed by Thames Valley Police on 15/04/2025 by the removal of all conditions..."
It further states: "Conditions of bail granted by Thames Valley Police on 15/04/2025 varied. The defendant must attend at Maidenhead Police Station on 02/07/2025):**
The Court heard an application to vary conditions of bail stated on the order as having been "imposed by Thames Valley Police on 15/04/2025," relating to an offence025. All bail conditions removed."
The document is issued by "Berkshire Magistrates' Courts" and names "Julien Vanytghem - Head Of Legal Operations (South East) Justices' Clerk."
Key Details from Police Bail Sheet (MG04a, Custody No CRLC25009759, dated 15/04/2025):
Identifies "Station: of Harassment/Stalking under investigation.
The Order states: "Conditions of bail granted by Thames Valley Police on 15/04/2025 varied. The defendant must attend at Maidenhead Police Station on 02/07/2025. All bail conditions removed."
The order is attributed to Julien Vanytghem, Head Of Legal Operations (South East), Justices' Clerk.
Identifies "Officer in Case: Constable P4867 H LACEY."
The section "Details of court / police station (grant of bail only)" states: "CUSTODY MAIDENHEAD - CRIMINAL JUSTICE" at the address "CUSTODY MAIDENHEAD - CRIMINAL JUSTICE, BRIDGE ROAD, MAIDENHEAD, WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD, UK, SL6 8LP."
TheDetails from Police Bail Sheet (MG04a, Custody No CRLC25009759, dated 15/04/2025):
- The "Station" is listed as "MAIDENHEAD."
The "Officer Granting Bail" is listed as "Sergeant P5299 BOTTING."
The "Officer in Case" is listed as "Constable P4867 H LACEY."
Under "Details of court / police station (grant of bail only)," the location is specified as "CUSTODY MAIDENHEAD - CRIMINAL JUSTICE" at a Bridge Road, Maidenhead address.
The form itself form itself is titled "Police bail, Custody Sgt Authorisation." The term "Thames Valley Police" does not appear prominently as the explicit granting authority of the bail conditions within the main fields of this initial bail sheet.
My Observations and Perceived Discrepancy:
I observe a clear difference in how the authority imposing the original bail conditions on 15/04/2025 is described.
The Court Order dated is titled "Police bail, Custody Sgt Authorisation."
The term "Thames Valley Police" does not appear as the explicitly named entity granting bail in these key sections of the bail sheet provided to me.
Discrepancy Noted by Me:
I observe a difference in how the granting authority of the original 19 May 2025** explicitly and repeatedly attributes the granting of the original bail conditions to "Thames Valley Police."
Conversely, the Police Bail Sheet (MG04a) dated 15/04/2025, which is the primary document I received at the time of my release detailing these conditions bail conditions is described. The Court Order dated 19 May 2025 explicitly states bail was "imposed by Thames Valley Police" and "granted by Thames Valley Police."
However, the Police Bail Sheet (MG04a) from 15/04/2025, which is the primary document detailing the initial conditions I received, identifies the granting location as "CUSTODY MAIDENHEAD - CRIMINAL JUSTICE" and names individual officers (S, does not explicitly name "Thames Valley Police" as the granting authority in its main descriptive fields. Instead, it refers to "Station: MAIDENHEAD," "CUSTODY MAIDENHEAD - CRIMINAL JUSTICE," and the individual officers involved (Sgt Botting, PC Lacey).
My Perception of Impact and Significance of this Discrepgt Botting, PC Lacey) but does not use the specific phrase "Thames Valley Police" as the entity granting bail in these sections.
My Perception of Purpose & Impact (including analysis of significance):
The Court Order dated 19 May 2025 is critically important as it confirms that all bail conditions initially imposed on me on 15/04/2025 were officially removed by the court. This is a significant positive outcomeancy:**
This discrepancy in documentation is significant to me. The initial document imposing restrictions on my liberty (the bail sheet) did not, in my view, make the overarching institutional responsibility of "Thames Valley Police" as clear as it could have. It focused on a specific location ("Custody Maidenhead") and individual officers. regarding those specific restrictions.
Regarding the discrepancy in wording: I perceive the lack of explicit attribution to "Thames Valley Police" as the granting authority on the initial bail sheet I received as a significant lack of clarity. While the bail sheet is a policelt was only later, through a document from a separate institution (Berkshire Magistrates' Court, dated 19 May document and names police officers, the absence of the overarching force's name in the critical sections detailing who granted bail could,2025), that the bail conditions were explicitly attributed to "Thames Valley Police" as the granting body. in my view, obscure direct institutional accountability to the person receiving the bail conditions. The later Court Order provides this explicit institutional * This raises concerns for me about the clarity, transparency, and consistency of official documentation provided to individuals subjected to bail attribution.
This difference raises concerns for me about the transparency and clarity of initial police documentation provided to individuals upon conditions. I question whether this lack of explicit institutional attribution on the initial bail document is a systemic issue that could obscure clear arrest and bail. I question whether this lack of explicit institutional attribution on the bail sheet itself is a systemic issue that could make lines of accountability from the outset.
From my perspective, this difference in how the granting authority is presented between it more difficult for individuals to identify and hold the correct overarching police body accountable from the outset.
For the two documents is not a trivial matter. It feels like another instance where the full picture of institutional responsibility is not immediately my case, this observation contributes to my broader concerns about procedural irregularities and a lack of transparency from authorities.
Context/Link to Other Events: This order directly relates to my arrest on 15/04/20 apparent on the documents given to me at critical moments, potentially creating confusion or making it harder to identify the correct body to hold accountable. This is particularly relevant given my ongoing efforts to address perceived misconduct by Thames Valley Police as an institution.
The most25 (CRLC25009759) and the bail conditions initially imposed. The removal of these conditions on 19/05/2025 is a key event for my ECHR application regarding Article 5 (significant outcome stated in the Court Order is that all my bail conditions were removed as of 19 May 20Right to Liberty and Security) as it signifies a formal judicial decision that the ongoing imposition of those specific conditions was no longer warranted25. This fact is critical evidence that the continuation of those conditions was deemed no longer necessary by the court.
. The noted discrepancy in wording will be highlighted in my submissions to the ECHR and other bodies as an example of procedural Context/Link to Other Events: This analysis is part of my ongoing review of all documentation related to my arrest concerns.
Evidence: Copy of Berkshire Magistrates' Court Order dated 19 May 2025 (Case on 15/04/2025 (CRLC25009759) and the subsequent bail conditions. The removal of these conditions is a key development for my ECHR application concerning Article 5 (no: 432500106081); Copy of Police Bail Sheet MG04a (Custody No: CRLC25009759).