Allegations of failure to properly investigate allegations of childhood sexual abuse - Essex Police, February 2018

In 2012, Essex Police investigated a man in relation to allegations of sexual abuse against a young girl. During the course of the investigation, electronic devices were taken from the man and examined. Indecent images of children were found on the devices. The images were considered ‘borderline’ and no further action was taken against the man. The devices were returned to him.

In 2017, another young girl alleged sexual abuse against the same man. When investigating this offence, Norfolk Police found devices in the man’s possession that contained indecent images of children. A number of these items had been examined as part of the 2012 Essex Police investigation.

This matter came to our attention in February 2018 as a conduct referral. During our investigation, our investigators interviewed the officer in charge of the case in the 2012 investigation, as well as their supervisor, under misconduct caution. We looked at whether the officer in charge of the case in 2012 had failed to appropriately investigate the alleged offences in 2012, and had returned to the man items which shouldn’t have been returned to him, and whether their supervisor had failed to adequately supervise the investigation.

Our investigators obtained witness statements from two other officers regarding their involvement. Investigators also asked questions about the procedure and workload experienced at the time. The electronic devices seized as part of the 2012 investigation were examined further.

Our investigation found that the officer in charge initially graded the images as ‘borderline’. The officer said they hadn’t been trained in grading images, though they didn’t flag this with a senior colleague. Our view was that the officer’s failure to seek support for gaps in their training meant that supervisors were unaware, and therefore did not mitigate risks to the completeness of the investigation. We were of the opinion that this may be considered as misconduct, but suggested this could best be dealt with by management action.

Evidence indicated that the officer’s supervisor reviewed the case on at least two separate occasions, and based their direction on the initial assessment of the officer in charge. We were therefore of the opinion that the supervisor had no case to answer.

We completed our investigation in January 2019.

After reviewing our report, Essex Police did not agree that the officer in charge had a case to answer for misconduct for failing to appropriately investigate the allegations. They considered the investigative actions taken by the officer, their apparent lack of experience and training, and the lack of clarity and direction by the various line managers regarding next steps. As a number of reforms and reviews of the force’s Child Abuse investigation teams (CAITs) had taken place in 2012 and 2015, resulting in increased capacity of experienced child abuse investigators, they considered that no further action was needed.

They did agree, however, that the officer had a case to answer for a failure in duties and responsibilities for returning to the man the computer containing indecent images of children. Their view was that this would be best dealt with through management action.

After considering their views, we agreed that their proposals were appropriate.