top of page

The Final Proof of State-Organised Persecution

Since the draft of the book that I had submitted to AuthorhouseUK, Olympia Publishers and my sister for publishing by Gyanajuga Publications of Bhubaneswar Inda, the State was aggravated and launched a complete cover up by Kent Police of the criminalities that I had suffered as a victim with the following letter on 10 November 2015, quoting CO/00212/15:

Dear Dr Panigrahi

This letter is about your appeal against the outcome and process of the Local Resolution of your complaint, which we received on 9 September 2015.

My decision on your appeal has been made based on the requirements set out in Section 13 of the Independent Police Complaints Commission Statutory Guidance. My role is not to investigate your complaint, but to review whether the outcome was a proper outcome and appropriate to the complaint and not simply on the process followed to reach that outcome. My decision will be made on the basis of the available evidence.

I have taken the following points into consideration:

Was the complaint suitable for local resolution?

A complaint must meet both of the following conditions to be suitable for local resolution:

- The appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct that is being complained about (even if it were proved) would not justifify bringing criminal of disciplinary proceedings against the person whose conduct is complained about?


- The appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct complained about (even if it were proved) would not involve the infringement of a person’s right under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights?

I consider that the complaint was suitable for local resolution as it was assessed as meeting the above requirements.

There is no longer a requirement for the complainant’s consent to locally resolve a complaint; however the complainant must be given an opportunity to make comments about the complaint and any proposed actions.

Was the complainant given opportunity to make comment?

Yes the complainant was given the opportunity to make comment, which is evidenced within the complaint form. However, it is clear that the complainant ‘hung up’ on Inspector Shambler when he tried to make contact in this regard.

Was an action plan drawn up and agreed with the complainant setting out the steps to be taken?

No there was no such action plan drawn up and agreed with the complainant as the complainant ‘hung up’ when an attempt was made to discuss the action plan.

Was the outcome of the local resolution a clear consequence of the actions agreed?

No the outcome was not of a clear consequence of the agreed actions as as no such actions were agreed.

If relevant was any explanation given sufficient, clear and comprehensive to address the complainant’s concerns?

An additional attempt was made by Inspector Shambler to contact the complainant via email. Although a response was received the papers reveal that the complainant did not accept the explanation given.

Have any lessons learnt been identified from the complaint and whether this has been identified and communicated to the complainant?

No there have not been any lessons learnt identified.

I have now taken all the above into consideration alongside your letter of appeal, and made my decision in respect of your appeal:

It is clear to me that the original advice that you were given by the operator when you telephoned Kent Police on 2 April 2015 remains valid. There is no evidence of information to believe that a crime has taken place.

You ought to challenge the decision of the judicial process (EAT) via the recognised routes, i.e.your legal representative. The papers that I have read indicate that you are trying to usurp the proper means of appeal by making criminal allegations. This appears to be an abuse of the process. I respectfully suggest you contact your solicitor to discuss how best to challenge what you believe to be an unjust outcome.

I have considered the second element of your appeal insofar as you state that Inspector Shambler is harassing you. Quite the contrary, he was trying to engage with you to better understand your complaint and how to resolve it. The advice that you were given by Inspector Shambler, to contact the tribunal authorities, was correct in my assessment. I shall be recording no such complaint against him, less so investigating one.

I consider that local resolution was the appropriate method of resolving your complaint.

The fact that you did not consent to the local resolution does not mean it was not suitable and appropriate. The conduct complained of would not justify any disciplinary action being sought against any officer. Your rights under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not infringed. I consider that local resolution was the most appropriate method of resolving your complaint. You were given a right of appeal against both the process and the outcome.

Your appeal is therefore not upheld and no further action will be taken.

My decision in respect of your appeal is final and there is no further right of appeal, should you still be dissatisfied you may seek to challenge the decision through judicial review. Should you wish to seek a judicial review, you will need to obtain independent legal advice or contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau for further information.

Yours sincerely


Mr Lee J. Catling

Head of Professional Standards Department.

I replied by email as follows:

Your letter dated 10 Nov 2015: CO\00212\15

Shan Panigrahi <>


PSD General Enquiries Kent

Nov 14 at 8:13 AM


Mr Lee J Catling

Head of Pofessional Standardsl Department

Kent Police

Dear Sir

1. Your letter that I received yesterday concerning the investigation and prosecution of criminals who have terrorised me in the four cases that I reported to Kent Police (Greenwich Legalities, Internet Complaint, UKIP Proceedings and Shell Tribunal) is a deliberate act of covering up the criminalities that I reported to the Police.

2 I am therefore planning to renew my referral of this criminal act by you to the Administrative Court of the High Court despite the fact that the Court criminally harassed me when I last approached it about your persecuting officers at various levels and positions.

3. You should accordingly subject yourself to the Crown Prosecution Service for the issue of this letter at this time so as to be prosecuted for your roles in the criminality.

4. Please note that failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to charge you may lead to my having no alternative to issuing private prosecution proceedings against you personally.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3Hoath Lane



Kent ME8 0SL

After waiting several days for a reply and with none coming, I decided that I would have to go down the route of a private prosecution of the Police and to prepare for it sent the following email again to PSD Kent Police:

Freedom of Information Act Requirements (7)


Shan Panigrahi <>


PSD General Enquiries Kent

Nov 19 at 8:28 AM


Professional Standards Department

Kent Police

Dear Sir\Madam

1. I refer to my emailed letter to you 14 November 2015, 8.13 am, in which I requested Mt Lee J. Catlng, Head of Professional Standards Department of Kent Police to avail himself to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for its consideration of its charges that I have sought for prosecution.

2. Your silence in this matter is unacceptable. I need to know whether Mr Catlin voluntarily or through the processes of policing has brought this Case to the CPS. If the referral was not made I need the full written reasons. If the referral was made I need to know if this was a voluntary decision by Mr Catlin or a decision of the Police Force responsible.

3. If the referral to the CPS was made I need the full arguments presented to the CPS, and the written decision of the CPS with reasons.

4.Please note that the information I am seeking will be rightly required by the Magistrate or Judge presiding over the private prosecution that I have to consider in due course so that it is in the interest of justice through due process that I am informed now of the decisions that have been taken.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane



Kent ME8 OSL

When no email acknowledgement came I decided to seek legal assistance to take this action and emailed a local Solicitor Fosters Law by forwarding my Freedom of Information Act email. It said that it did not undertake such actions but gave me the details of Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors who specialised in taking actions against the Police. I asked Fosters Law to forward my email to this Firm but it would not respond to this request and I said to that that I considered this to be wrong and appropriate for investigation by the Legal Ombudsman. It did not reply. That evening I deposited a message in the contact point website of Hodge Jones and Allen giving details of Fosters Law and asking if it had referred the Case to this firm. It would not answer the question, but indicated that it was willing to examine whether it could help me with legal assistance. Email correspondence followed but it seemed to be getting nowehere so that on 23 November 2015 I lodged a formal complaint at Legal Ombudsman for the lack of progress. The Legal Ombudsman did not reply but Hodge Jones and Allen resumed correspondence with me by email. I provided details of what I required comprehensively as follows:

(a)The Shell Tribunal matter.

Shan Panigrahi <>


Natalie Crabbe

Nov 23 at 4:41 PM

Dear Ms Crabbe

1. With regard to the Shell Tribunal matter, on 20 November 2015 I received a letter (dated 19 November 2015) in the post delivered to my house from Employment Tribunals (Montague Court, 101 London Rd, West Croydon, Surrey, CR0 2RF) citing Case No 2302960/2014 C, as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013; Regional Employment Judge Hildebrand has instructed me to write to the claimant. This case is closed and no further correspondence can be entertained. Signed: Zionah Jaldo, For Secretary of Employment Tribunals.

2. I do not know what this letter was issued to me in response to.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

(b) The £5 million Claim that I lodged earlier in the summer at at Medway County Court against Kent Police that I wished the firm to activate on a No Win No Fee basis:

From: Shan Panigrahi [] Sent: 24 November 2015 15:09 To: Natalie Crabbe <> Subject: Re: Enquiry at Hodge Jones & Allen solicitors

Dear Natalie

1 The pamphlet given to me by Fosters Law following my enquiry when I was referred to your Firm stated the following:



Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors are running free advice clinics on the first Friday of the month covering:-

Assault and battery

False imprisonment

Malicious/wrongful prosecution

Misfeasance in public office

Abuse of Police Powers

Human Rights

Harassment or discrimination by Police

Immigration detention

Inquests following deaths in custody or following police contact

Medway Citizens Advice Bureau clinic 10.00am - 1200 pm; Maidstone Citizens Advice Bureau Clinic between 2.00 pm and 4.00 pm

A free 20 minute initial appointment is available....To book an appointment Telephone ....

The clinics will be run by a solicitor from Hodge Jones and Allen LPP, who are ranked in Legal Publications Chambers & Partners UK and Legal 500.

Hodge Jones & Allen solicitors

2. Obviously, I would like the dispute to be resolved under Abuse of Police Powers, Human Rights and Harassment or discrimination by Police. Specifically, It was entirely improper conduct for Mr Nigel Shambler (PC) to telephone me one morning under false pretences and when I said that I did not wish to talk to the Police in view of their brutal treatment of my reports of crimes he sent me an email to manipulate the legal proceedings that I had undertaken. This was evident from the fact that when I followed up his email with pertinent and relevant questions on how Judge Kurrein got hold of a specific document of mine to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, he terminated the discussion which indicated that he was protecting the Tribunal officials from their criminal acts against me. This was covered up by Mr Catling in his letter to me of 10 November 2015, which I strongly protested about as Fosters law is aware.

3. The outcome I wish to achieve is for the Police to be prosecuted for these acts in their protection of the criminals in the Shell Tribunal, Greenwich Legalities, UKIP Proceedings and Internet Complaints issues and thereby leaving me vulnerable to legal problems arising from my protests.

4. I had therefore asked Medway County Court for £5 million in damages from Kent Police for what I suffered. This is the kind of financial outcome I would settle for on a No Win No Fee basis that your Firm could undertake on my behalf, as I made clear to Fosters Law in relation to my financial situation.

5. I am accordingly waiting for the telephone call that you indicate that I will now receive from your colleague Brenel.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

I further clarifying the Shell Tribunal matter with the following email:

Shan Panigrahi <>


Sebastian Del Monte

Nov 25 at 5:27 PM

Dear Mr Del Monte

I require a solicitor because Judge Hildebrand has seemingly issied a threat to me that I must not myself as claimant write to the Tribunal again to point out the unlawful nature of its interpretation and implementaion of TUPE regulations with the submitted evidence that I had stayed the Case against Shell in 2008 pending investigations of criminality in the workplace against me.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

Again Hodge Jones and Allen stalled me and with the Legal Ombudsman also taking no action I decided that the two of them were part of a concerted attempt by the judicial authorities of the State to deny me access to the justice that I was now in the process of seeking. Accordingly, I decided that this had to be a corporate private prosection for those so united to prevent me from pursuing my judicial attempts. I sent the following email to Hodge Jones and Allen and the Legal Ombudsman:

Legal Ombudsman's Final Opportunity to Discipline Hodge, Jones and Allen Solicitors: Corporate Private Prosecution to Follow (2)

Shan Panigrahi <>


27 Nov 2015 at 8:18 AM

Dear Sir/Madam

Please note the correction of date on my earlier email sent to the Legal Ombudsman, and inform Chatham Magistrates Court of your decisions in your replies - unfortunately I do not have the email address of this court.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

On Friday, 27 November 2015, 7:25, Shan Panigrahi <> wrote:


Legal Ombudsman

PO Box 6806,