Investigations in the public interestEvidence. Enquiry. Accountability.

CPN appeal · Named accountability

Bradley Ithildîn

Jump to all 4 questions addressed to this recipient →

Police Constable · Devon and Cornwall Police · PC 18754 in the correspondence · Torrington / Holsworthy, Devon

The private emails. The evidence passed on. Where was their account examined?

Professional identity and role in the record

The official Holsworthy neighbourhood-team page names Bradley Ithildîn, Police Constable. The case emails are signed Brad Ithildîn, PC 18754: Torrington Response D in 2024 and Holsworthy NBM in June 2026. The officer number and dated postings come from those signatures.

Police directory; PDF pages 31–34 and 64–86 · Official professional source

Answer the evidence and the decision.

Miss E and Mr J challenge a process they say did not obtain their evidence before issuing restrictions. Their allegation of collusion is put against the dated correspondence and the assessment of competing accounts not supplied in the reviewed record. The questions below identify this recipient’s responsibility and the records needed to examine it.

Read the Mayo–police correspondence →

The direct questions

Prepared 23 September 2026; not yet sent by this publication. Historical requests and official replies are set out in the linked reporting.

CPN-02

Where is the invitation to give their evidence?

To: Bradley Ithildîn · Ian McIver · Devon and Cornwall Police · Torridge District Council

Miss E and Mr J say neither was asked to give evidence about the incidents for this notice-making process before the notices arrived. Produce any dated invitation, interview, account obtained and assessment of their response. If none was sought, explain how their account was tested before action was taken.

Grounds and supplemental statement; PDF pages 64–80; Mr J’s account, 23 September 2026 · Read the context

CPN-03

Independent assessment—or a process shaped around Mayo’s case?

To: Bradley Ithildîn · Ian McIver · Devon and Cornwall Police · Torridge District Council

Answer Miss E and Mr J’s allegation of collusion. In the 31 July and 2 August emails, the ASB route is discussed alongside Mayo’s injunction and his statement and exhibits are sent as the evidence. What independent checks tested that material, what contrary evidence was considered, and where is the record showing that the decision was not simply driven by one litigant’s account?

PDF pages 70, 74 and 80 · Read the context

CPN-09

Do the incident logs support the account used against her?

To: Bradley Ithildîn · Donna Gutteridge · Devon and Cornwall Police

Produce the underlying records for 0569/26 June, 0347/29 June, 0348/29 June and 0504/26 July 2024, with an appropriate privacy review. Which record is Miss E’s call for assistance? Are the two 29 June entries separate incidents or reports of the same event, and how was that distinction handled?

PDF pages 96–103 · Read the context

CPN-11

Why end correspondence without answering the document questions?

To: Bradley Ithildîn · Devon and Cornwall Police

The 7 June 2026 reply says no further emails will be answered. Which previous response answered Miss E’s specific questions about the notice’s origin, custody, preparation and service? If they had not been answered, who was made responsible for providing the records and an explanation?

PDF pages 31–34 · Read the context

Response and records

Read the existing response record · Provide a response or source document.

The complete question index

Questions across the case

4 existing questions addressed to Bradley Ithildîn. Each link opens its full wording, source and response position.

Filter the full register for this recipient