A probation officer at Stratford Probation Office on Romford Road E15, took a dislike to a person on license. The officer then attempted to place him on MAPPA and raise him to high risk. In the next available meeting, Mr. Mensur took his chance. At the meeting were representatives from the police and local council. The probation officer, Mr. Mensur (not his real name), then gave false information to everybody at the meeting. Advising those present that the person on probation had been seized with the largest amount of GHB (date rape drug) in the whole of the UK and was also known to abuse children.
The probationer was not going anywhere after being falsely accused of such a heinous crime.
The speed of the Civil Service dealing with a complaint was excrutiately long. Finally, on the stage TWO of the complaint the National Probation Service admitted that this was totally false information. However they explained the mistake away as an error committed by the “Person taking the minutes, who was currently unable to be interviewed about the mistake”
After spending 3.5 years in prison and being classified as 'Low-Risk' by 4 different prisons and several officers during assessments, why were there no checks in place when a probation officer suddenly declared 'Child Abuse', added additional drugs to the offense, and requested MAPPA and enforced weekly meetings.
Why did EVERY person present at the MAPPA meeting sign off the minutes, confirming they were an accurate record of what was said by Mr. Mensur.
Why was the complaint initially dismissed at Stage One, declaring Mr. Mensur was correct? Did Mr. Mensur initially defend his actions and maintain it as truth? What reason would the NPS have to initially try and defend this lie?
Why did it take the best part of a year to clear up the mistake? 12 months of hell for the person on probation resulted in "oops - it was the minute taker" at the end.
How was a 'minute-taker' able to accidentally invent a drug that was never found and also record it as the "Largest Seizure in the Country"?
Why was everybody available to be interviewed, apart from the minute-taker? Would the minute-taker have given a different version of events?
We reviewed all the documents including POM Reports, COM Reports, several OASys reports, the MAPPA minutes, email communication, meeting reports, and Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints and replies and transcripts of meetings.
The response by the National Probation Service was egregious.
The way the complaint was handled by the NPS was borderline incompetent.
If the Probationer had not made a Subject Access Request, they would not have realized what had been written. The following questions remain.
Everything we have seen on paper suggests a cover-up after a stich-up.
Probation Officer = Unimpeachable
Ex-offender = Unbelieveable
Enquiring World have seen all the evidence.
Mr. Mensur made written accounts, yet failed to take accountability.
However, the ex-offender had never been found with GHB and was therefore neither arrested, charged, nor prosecuted for it. The charge and quantity were a total lie. Additionally, the defendant had never been accused, arrested, charged, questioned, investigated, or prosecuted over child abuse. This was another fabrication, possibly invented to ensure the ex-offender’s fast-track to MAPPA high risk.
After the meeting, Mr. Mensur changed the ex-offender’s meetings from ‘once every six weeks’ to weekly. Risk level was also changed from ‘Low risk’ to ‘High Risk’. Not understanding what had been done, the probationer made a Subject Access Request (SAR).
This is what happens when probation officers are given total power to write what they want in reports. Totally baseless, without facts, without evidence, yet their word is believed beyond question. Shame on the National Probation Service for initially trying to defend probation officer Mensur due to its blanket policy of
Have you had a similar experience? Has it been at Stratford? The need for people to make SARs is paramount. Probation Officers rely on the fact that they can state anything with impunity simply because most people on licence never request their file, and it is your word against theirs. Truth and lies are decided before complaints are even made.
Need help getting your SAR?
