A HARD drive of a Pembrokeshire County Council computer that could have held evidence relating to alleged grant fraud was 'not retained' according to detectives.

The computer is thought to have held details of grant applications made to the Commercial Property Grants Scheme in Pembroke Dock - the subject of a five-year investigation by Dyfed-Powys Police - but no records of the information had been kept and the hard drive could not be examined by police.

The loss of the hard drive was revealed in a letter (see below) from a top officer outlining why the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to prosecute in the case.

The letter from Detective Chief Superintendent Steve Cockwell said there were several major concerns that would have undermined any prosecution.

DCS Cockwell said that while there was no evidence of collusion involving council staff in an alleged fraud, "it is clear that there were failings in process and procedure in the authority around the handling of the scheme."

He went on: "Overall, it was considered that the evidence from representatives of Pembrokeshire County Council was conflicting and was not consistently credible and reliable. It would be open to challenge by the defence and the prosecutor considered that a jury properly directed would not convict in this case."

DCS Cockwell also outlined concerns relating to allegations, made publicly, that internal documents had been 'interfered with.'

He said: "Prior to the police becoming involved there was an internal investigation and all documents relating to the enquiry into the grant process had been kept in a room within the council. There were allegations made by a councillor that documents were interfered with and that documents were subsequently missing and/or replaced. Whilst this was not proven, the integrity of the documents was bought into question by the councillor who publicly made allegations of collusion."

DCS Cockwell also said a councillor's blog posts about the grants scheme and investigation "despite being warned on numerous occasions by police not to do so as the investigation was live" meant an investigating officer "did not have confidence that they were able to record and retain all relevant material in relation to the investigation."

At full council on Thursday, Councillor Mike Stoddart who had first uncovered alleged irregularities in the grant scheme, said he believed DCS Cockwell was referring to posts on his oldgrumpy.co.uk blog.

Cllr Stoddart said he did not believe he had ever been directly approached by the police about his blog postings and called on DCS Cockwell to either justify the statement or withdraw it.

Full council has voted to appeal the CPS decision not to prosecute.

*The full letter from DCS Cockwell, as posted on Cllr Jacob Williams' website, jacobwilliams.com

Dear Mr Westley

Re: Advice on alleged fraud – Commercial Property Grant Scheme

I am writing to inform you that we have received advice from the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to a fraud allegation that was referred to Police on 4th September 2014 by the Welsh European Funding Office (WEFO). The case involved an allegation that a property owner, received payments under the Commercial Property Grant Scheme that they were not entitled to. They were assisted by an architect who facilitated the applications for the grant (which was to renovate commercial use buildings such as those with shop fronts and convert to residential accommodation) and a builder who was involved in completing work and providing false invoices. The grants came from the Welsh European Funding Office but were administered by Pembrokeshire County Council.

The Crown Prosecution Service have determined that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any of the suspects. The Prosecutor Code states that a case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it is.

The Crown Prosecution Service have stipulated that they have no issue with the investigation conducted by the police or the reasonable enquiries undertaken during the investigation. They also found no evidence of collusion on the part of any Pembrokeshire County Council employees; although state it is clear that there were failings in process and procedure in the authority around the handling of the scheme.

Whilst this has been a Crown Prosecution Service decision, I have summarised some of the evidential difficulties that have been identified in this case: –

Pembrokeshire County Council Investigation and Disclosure

There were three particular issues that were highlighted, which presented a high risk of the defendants not being able to have a fair trial in this case. These issues fundamentally undermined the prosecution case and would have given rise to an abuse of process argument by the defence.

• The hard drive from the computer of a case worker on the grant scheme was examined as part of the internal investigation, but had not been retained for Police and no dossier of information relevant to the examination of the hard drives was kept. The case worker was interviewed as part of the investigation and indicated that there was relevant material on their computer relating to the grant applications, which was now unavailable.

• Prior to the police becoming involved there was an internal investigation and all documents relating to the enquiry into the grant process had been kept in a room within the Council. There were allegations made by a Councillor that documents were interfered with and that documents were subsequently missing and/or replaced. Whilst this was not proven, the integrity of the documents was bought into question by the Councillor who publically made allegations of collusion.

• A Councillor has published a number of articles on their local blog regarding the grant scheme, despite being warned on numerous occasions by police not to do so as investigation was live. As a result, the Investigating Officer did not have confidence that they were able to record and retain all relevant material in relation to the investigation.

Inconsistencies in evidence

The Crown Prosecution Service considered that there were significant reliability and credibility issues with the evidence. Whilst a detailed Commercial Property Grant Scheme Procedure Manual was produced by Pembrokeshire County Council, it is accepted that the case officers were not trained properly and that staff administrating the scheme did not carry out sufficient checks on the work completed before payment was made.

The Crown Prosecution Service considered that there was conflicting evidence in relation to what proof of defrayment was acceptable; in relation to whether the work done at different properties was completed to the required standard; if all work paid for was in fact eligible to be paid for under the grant; the competence or otherwise of the case worker.

Overall, it was considered that the evidence from representatives of Pembrokeshire County Council was conflicting and was not consistently credible and reliable. It would be open to challenge by the defence and the prosecutor considered that a jury properly directed would not convict in this case.

It is also worth noting that whilst the grant money (£189,224.26) has been repaid to Pembrokeshire County Council in full, this has not informed the decision making process. As the evidential test has not been met, the Crown Prosecution Service have not been required to consider the public interest test, where this information would have been taken into account in reaching a charging decision.

I understand that some people may be disappointed with the decision that has been reached. There is also learning for Pembrokeshire County Council in terms of administrating any future grant schemes. If you are unhappy with the decision that has been reached, you may consider the Victims’ Right of Review Scheme.

In order to do this, you should (normally) contact CPS within five working days from the date of the communication of the decision, to advise that you would like them to review the decision. You should quote file reference URN – 63CH0083916 and contact the Cardiff Office at the following address.

Specialist Fraud Division

Crown Prosecution Service

19th Floor

Capital Tower

Cardiff

CF10 3PL

Yours sincerely

Steve Cockwell

Detective Chief Superintendent

Head of CID