Was a crime-recording decision separate from the decision about further investigation?

Six follow-up questions

Use only the lines that fit. A numbered request makes an incomplete answer easier to identify without turning the letter into an accusation.

1. 01

   Please answer this question directly: Was a crime-recording decision separate from the decision about further investigation?

2. 02

   Please identify the person or role responsible for the answer and the date of the decision.

3. 03

   Please identify the legal power, published policy, procedure or test relied upon, including its current version.

4. 04

   Please identify the reported act, decision-maker, possible offences considered, evidence checked, recorded reason and review route.

5. 05

   If any part cannot be answered, please state whether the information is not held, cannot be disclosed, or requires a different request route.

6. 06

   Please identify any review, correction, complaint or appeal route and the deadline that applies.

Preserve the answer and the route to it.

Memory changes, reference numbers join separate systems, explanations can drift, and retention periods may expire. The point is a usable chronology kept by the reader, not evidence submitted to this website.

• □Date, time, place and method of contact
• □Name, role, organisation and team, if provided
• □The exact question asked and exact answer where possible
• □Every incident, complaint, case and document reference
• □The decision or refusal, reasons given and decision-maker
• □Evidence offered, what was accepted and what was declined
• □Promised action, deadline and next contact
• □Original documents and files, including metadata where available

Where the answer may be buried

These links are selected for this topic, not offered as a complete statement of the law. Read the current page, its jurisdiction and any stated deadline.