In a dramatic turn of events, South Yorkshire Police (SYP) has reversed its stance on a complaint of serious corruption allegations that UKCP.UK exclusively revealed in this article,
SYP reluctantly referred themselves to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) just weeks after receiving a pre-action letter threatening judicial review of their decision not to refer themselves to the IOPC.
This development centres on allegations of fabricated evidence and a deliberate cover-up by two SYP officers, PC Katie Gillatt and DI Dakin, who are accused of giving false statements to justify an arrest for a non-existent rape allegation as well as PSD for their complicitness in the matter.
As detailed in our earlier report, the saga began in around September 2024 when the complainant was arrested and detained for over 35 hours for a supposed allegation of rape, an offence that SYP investigation logs later proved had never been alleged.
Nine months after the incident (when the coverup was discovered and referred to PSD) the complainant chased PSD for updates for over two months, demanding a mandatory referral to the IOPC, only to be stonewalled.
Letter of Claim
With the help of UKCP.UK, on 27th August 2025, the complainant sent a pre-action letter to the Chief Constable of SYP Lauren Poultney (as the defendant) and SYP legal services, seeking damages for;
- False imprisonment
- Assault and battery
- Trespass to the person
- Misfeasance in public office / serious corruption
- Breach of the Data Protection Act 2018
- Aggravated and exemplary damages
The pre-action letter alleged PC Katie Gillatt and DI Dakin’s lied during the complaints process and that can only have been to conceal their fabricated rape allegation and that their conduct now amounts to a criminal offence of misconduct in public office.
The following day, on 28th August 2025, South Yorkshire police PSD (who are implicated in the allegations) attempted to keep the complaint in-house refusing to refer themselves to the IOPC (as is mandatory for serious corruption) citing incorrect information.
Dear (name redacted)
Please be advised when your complaint was assessed it was reviewed by the AA (Appropriate Authority) who decides on how your complaint is dealt with and if the complaint meets any of the mandatory referral criteria; Death in Custody Life threatening or life changing injuries that occurred in custody Death following police contact Potentially life threatening or life changing injuries following police contact DSI requiring declaration of critical incident or potential community impact Incident meets mandatory or voluntary referral criteria and a PIP is considered. Therefore your complaint will be dealt with in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002, in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Kind regards Complaints Resolution Team South Yorkshire Police Professional Standards Department Unit 20 Churchill Way Sheffield S35 2PY
Pre-action letter for Judicial Review
On 12 September 2025, (again with the help of UKCP.UK), the complainant issued a pre-action letter under the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review, again addressed to SYP’s Chief Constable Lauren Poultney (as the defendant) and SYP legal services, which laid out clear grounds of unlawfulness, irrationality, and procedural unfairness, the relief demanded the immediate referral to the IOPC for investigation into the officers’ and PCD’s alleged misconduct on the basis of serious corruption. A response was required within 14 days.
14 days later, on 26 September 2025, principal lawyer, Katherine Lindley, who is the Head of Litigation for Humberside and South Yorkshire Police, wrote to the complainant stating;
Dear (name redacted), I write further to your pre action letter dated 12th September 2025 concerning the decision not to refer your complaint CO/xxx/25 to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
Following further consideration, I understand that your complaint has now been referred to the IOPC for review and the matter will be progressed under their established assessment procedures in relation to retaining conduct and further investigation. In light of this decision I trust that the proposed Claim for judicial review will not be necessary however please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
SYP Concede to threat of Judicial Review
On 1st October 2025, PSD wrote to the complainant, struggling to admit to the mandatory referral, Judicial Review or corruption, stating
Dear (name redacted),
Having reviewed complaint reference CO/xxx/25 I wish to inform you that the decision was made to refer this matter to the IOPC. The referral was completed and sent on Wednesday 24th September 2025. To date the IOPC have not yet responded with a decided method of investigation.
The decision was made to make a voluntary referral due to the fact that the allegations made may have a significant impact on public confidence.
In addition to this, allegations 5 & 6 are direct allegations against the Professional Standards Department. As such it was deemed there was a requirement for independent involvement.
The IOPC must assess whether the case qualifies as serious corruption, given the clear deliberate deception by serving officers, putting the complainant through horrific unnecessary trauma which potentially could have ended in suicide.
Further evidence links the matter to a named police Inspector in another police force who is known to have a vendetta against the complainant, raising serious concerns this may be a cross force attempt to maliciously harm the complainant.
Broader implications for SYP are within the complaint including evidence tampering, suspiciously failed custody CCTV and obstructed Subject Access Requests, all point to alleged systemic failures and alleged cover up that demand an investigation.
The complainant welcomes the referral but remains sceptical, awaiting further details the IOPC.
I am happy that SYP have referred themselves to the IOPC, but it is a disgrace that police will turn a blind eye to such a serious matter. I have suffered significant mental health due to this and which caused me to consider taking my own life due to the stigma of a rape allegation and the trauma of believing I was considered a rapist. I will not stop until the officers involved are held to account.
This case serves as a stark reminder that legal pressure can pierce institutional veils of silence.
For those facing similar injustices, it underscores the power of the pre-action protocol’s of the civil procedure rules. When used properly, can compel even the most reluctant authorities to act lawfully.
SYP have still not provided the complainant with a crime reference number for the alleged criminality despite repeated requests, breaching the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) and National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS)which mandates that a crime must be recorded the same day (or the following day at the latest) of the reported incident when there is no clear evidence to the contrary, raising further allegations that the police are putting themselves above the law when the suspect is a police officer.
Be the first to comment