Allegations of discrimination and computer misuse and how these were handled by supervisors - Metropolitan Police Service, August 2017

In August 2017 the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) referred to us an incident which occurred on 24 June 2017, in which two police officers (officers A and B) used MPS computers, while on duty, to create a letter purporting to be from the Captain of the Guard and attached it to a police noticeboard at St James Palace. It stated that the Captain of the Guard wished for the officer to stop “talking and flirting” with his guards or face a formal complaint. The letter was on paper intended to imitate Household Division letter-headed paper. Although the letter did not explicitly mention any officer, it was understood to have been directed at an openly gay officer (officer C). Managers initially dealt with the letter via informal management advice before an Inspector returned from leave and escalated the incident.

Our investigation looked at whether the actions of officers A and B in using MPS computers, while on duty, to create and post the letter a Household Division headed letter purporting to be from the Captain of the Guard breached the police standards of professional behaviour. It also reviewed managers’ investigation of the incident and examined whether officers A and B’s actions may have amounted to discrimination.

During the investigation, our investigators obtained the letter, interviewed officers involved, reviewed emails sent following the incident and CCTV footage, obtained copies of text and WhatsApp messages as well as statements from several witnesses. We also reviewed relevant legislation, policies and procedures.

Based on the evidence available, we were of the opinion that a reasonable tribunal, properly directed could find, on the balance of probabilities that officer A created the notice on a police computer and posted it in a rest room frequented by police officers, constituting misuse of a police computer. Officer C suffered distress as a result, although there was nothing to suggest that this was the wilful intention of officer A, who posted the letter. There appeared to be no evidence to suggest that officer A was responsible for the wider circulation of the letter on social media. We considered that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find misconduct for officer A, and suggested this could be proportionately dealt with by way of management action.

We were of the view that officer B’s involvement in this incident was minimal. Officer B apologised to officer C. We were of the view that officer B’s actions did not constitute misconduct, but that officer B would still benefit from management action.

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system, and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents. In this case, the investigation did not identify any learning.

We completed our investigation in April 2019.

After reviewing our report the MPS determined that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find misconduct for officer A. Therefore there was a case to answer for officer A with regard to creating a fake letter of complaint on MPS systems, posting the letter on a noticeboard and acting in a discriminatory manner toward officer C due to his sexual orientation. The force was of the opinion that officer A should attend a misconduct meeting for breaches of the following professional standards: Equality and Diversity; Authority Respect and Courtesy; and Orders and Instructions.

The MPS agreed that officer B would receive management action.

Officer A attended a misconduct meeting in autumn 2019, at which misconduct was proven on two counts: breaches of the Authority, Respect and Courtesy standard of professional behaviour, and of the Orders and Instructions standard of professional behaviour. Misconduct was not proven for a breach of the Equality and Diversity standard of professional behaviour. Officer A received a written warning.