Wednesday, 15 June 2011

Hats of to Cleveland CC Sean Price


In 2004 a 2 year old boy, Kyle Fisher, tragically died in Hartlepoole 2 days after being taken to hospital from the care of a babysitter, Suzanne Holdsworth. Kyle's short life was not the happiest one. Neighbours stated that his mother was a regular drinker and sometimes left Kyle alone at their home which was in a filthy state. He had an injury to his eye socket, allegedly caused when he fell out of his buggy, while in his mothers care months before. He was due to have an operation to rectify this.

An autopsy report stated that Kyle had fresh bruising to his head and that he had died of a bleed on the brain caused by a significant trauma or blows to the head. Holdsworth was arrested and lied in interview. There was evidence, for example, to show that she had gone shopping while babysitting but she had denied this.

On the basis of the medical evidence that Kyle had died of blows to the head while in Holdsworth's care and that Holdsworth was a liar, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was sufficient evidence to charge her and she went to trial and was convicted by a jury.

Holdsworth spent 3 years in custody before being granted a re-trial. This was granted on the basis that there was further expert medical evidence to show that Kyles death could have been brought about by a seizure following a blow to the head earlier, probably within the last 24 hours. Holdsworth claimed that Kyle already had bruising to the head when she went to look after him that night. At the re-trial in 2008, the jury were basically told that either Kyles mother or the babysitter caused the blow that brought on the seizure and Holdsworth claimed it wasn't her. The jury acquitted her, although this hardly confirms her innocence.

Following her acquittal, Holdsworth's partner made 27 complaints against the police. After all, if his girlfriend was 'innocent' it must be the fault of the police that she was tried and convicted. The IPCC carried out the investigation and have dismissed all the complaints but recommended that the police apologise to Holdsworth. No significant faults were found in the investigation that resulted in Holdsworth's conviction. The medical evidence, her lies and those of other witnesses were the main contributors. Chief Constable Sean Price has basically told the IPCC to get stuffed. There will be no apology. Quite right too. You can read his far more eloquent comment on the case here. Hats off to Sean Price!

Yes, this is the same Sean Price who is under investigation for using undue influence in appointing a member of staff. Hence the caption! But lets give credit where it is due.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. English please Melv, unless you could tell us, in your vast experience of investigating SUDC/ child murders, what the police should have done differently?


  3. MTG's usual inane comments have been binned. I have no interest in anything he has to say. Lex

  4. Good,another blog he has been banned from.He is a one trick repetitive pony.
    I asked him once how he would cope with violent drunken idiots apart from getting hands on? I assume he would use clever word play or Shakespearean quotes to subdue his opponent.

  5. Trust me - Sean Price is a complete knob..

  6. If your report of the Chief Constable's reaction to the IPCC is correct then two events need to happen asap. Firstly the CC should be fired forthwith, and secondly it is now abundantly clear that the IPCC needs beefing up. It's findings and recommendations should be mandatory.


  7. @ Jez - I disagree entirely. The IPCC is an organisation desperate to prove that it is really is independent and has teeth and credibility. Consequently, they are not independent and go to extraordinary lengths to try and prove the police have done wrong to ingratiate themselves with the anti police brigade.
    In the above case, there was sufficient evidence to charge Holdsworth, partly because she was a proven liar. The independent Crown Prosecution Service agreed to charge and prosecute on the evidence available and she was convicted and imprisoned. On appeal she was acquitted and released. A complaint was made on the basis that as she was acquitted the police must have failed in some way.
    The IPCC investigated the complaints. They found nothing in the police investigation that might have resulted in Holdsworth being charged because of improper actions during the investigation. If they had found wrongdoing, they can direct that discipline action is taken against officers.
    In this case, having found that the police investigation was entirely appropriate they announced this but suggested that the police should apologise to Holdsworth as she had gone to prison and had subsequently been acquitted.
    The Chief Constable, quite rightly in my view, decided that as the police had done nothing wrong; that Holdsworths lies to the police partly resulted in her prosection and conviction; and that she may still be guilty in any case, it was wholly innappropriate for the police to apologise. Quite right!


    worth a read