Actions during the vetting process of an officer - Cheshire Constabulary, April 2016–March 2017

On 23 April 2016 a man submitted an application to join Cheshire Constabulary as a police constable. Vetting checks were carried out in October 2016, including checks of the Police National Database (PND), and nothing adverse was reported.

On 15 January 2017, Staffordshire Police commenced an investigation into allegations of sexual activity with a child under 16. The subject later transpired to be the man who had applied to join Cheshire Constabulary. On 25 January 2017, West Mercia Police received an allegation relating to the same man persistently asking a girl on social media to meet with him. Although some details were known about the suspect for both allegations, there was not enough information for officers to trace and identify him. On 19 February 2017, Staffordshire Police received an allegation of rape from an adult woman relating to the same man.

While Cheshire Constabulary was still processing the man’s application, the force became aware of the Staffordshire Police investigation into the rape allegation made by the adult woman received on 19 February 2017. Cheshire Constabulary then put the man’s application to join as a police constable on hold, pending the outcome of the Staffordshire Police investigation

On 6 March 2017, Cheshire Constabulary was made aware that the man had been voluntarily interviewed and fully co-operated with the Staffordshire Police investigation, and that no further action would be taken. On the same day, the Cheshire Constabulary vetting team sent an email to an officer within Cheshire Constabulary informing them of the decision made by Staffordshire Police, and asking whether they were content to accept the outcome, or required further information. This officer replied confirming they were content.

The man joined Cheshire Constabulary as a police constable on 24 April 2017.

The man was arrested on 4 November 2017 and charged with the rape of a girl under 16 he met in the course of his duties. He was remanded in custody and dismissed from the force.

Our investigators obtained copies of email chains sent between forces, and further analysis of when details of the crimes mentioned above would have been uploaded onto the PND. They also obtained statements from witnesses. The Cheshire Constabulary officer who confirmed they were content with the update from Staffordshire Police was served with a notice of investigation. They provided two written responses, which were reviewed by our investigator.

Our investigation found that Cheshire Constabulary was not aware of the Staffordshire Police investigation into allegations of sexual activity with a child, which had commenced on 15 January 2017, as Staffordshire Police had not linked that case to the rape allegations made by the adult woman on 19 February 2017.

In respect of the allegations investigated by West Mercia in January 2017, no criminal offences were disclosed, and West Mercia had been unable to trace the man.

We also found that Cheshire Constabulary had vetted the man before the alleged offences were committed/reported, so any details added on to a police database afterwards would not have been shown on the Cheshire Constabulary vetting report.

At the end of the investigation we were of the view that there was insufficient evidence detailing exactly what would be considered to be the Cheshire Constabulary officer’s duties and responsibilities, which meant there would also similarly be insufficient evidence that there had been any breach of the standards of professional behaviour around those duties and responsibilities to the level at which misconduct proceedings would be justified.

In addition, we did not consider that any potential performance lapses by the officer were at the level required for consideration of unsatisfactory performance procedures being considered.

The officer has accepted that, with hindsight, they could have adopted a more interventionist and inquisitive approach. We were therefore satisfied that they had learnt from this and that no further action was required.

After reviewing our report Cheshire Constabulary agreed with our determinations. They confirmed that they had made changes to their internal processes from a vetting perspective prior to the conclusion of our investigation.