Allegations made by a former officer (Operation Talon) - Cleveland Police, December 2017
This investigation arose as a result of complaints made by a former Cleveland police officer. There are two separate strands to the complaints made:
The first of these arise from an allegation that the former officer was subjected to bullying and racism whilst posted to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID). The former officer reported these matters to senior officers within Cleveland Police in April 2011. In July of 2011, the Cleveland Black Police Association (CBPA) submitted a report to a senior officer within Cleveland Police, highlighting their concerns over potential institutional racism within the force. The report from the CBPA prompted Cleveland Police to commence a process known as the ‘Equality Review’ which ran between 2011 and 2012. This was a fact-finding enquiry which the former officer engaged with and the intention was for it to be a response to the concerns raised by Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) officers and staff.
The former officer subsequently alleged that the scope of the Equality Review was deliberately changed to hide discrimination within the force and that Cleveland Police’s then Chief Constable misrepresented the review’s findings to the media by failing to disclose information given to the review by BAME officers and claiming there was no institutional racism within Cleveland Police.
The second strand of the former officer’s complaints were made to the IOPC in 2014 when it was alleged that, following the complaints of bullying and racism, there was a campaign orchestrated by senior officers within Cleveland Police to undermine and ‘destroy’ the former officer.
The former officer later claimed that Cleveland Police failed to make sufficient efforts to identify a witness who was able to provide evidence to support the claim that there was an organised conspiracy to ‘destroy’ the former officer. It was suggested that this witness could provide evidence of organisational criminality and corruption by the force but this information was supressed by Cleveland Police.
The former officer made complaints to Cleveland Police between April and June 2014. They were recorded by the force and voluntarily referred to the IOPC on 26 June 2014. The IOPC passed the referral back to Cleveland Police so that they could be investigated locally. Due to the sensitivities around the allegations and the high potential for a conflict of interests, Cleveland Police asked the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to conduct the investigation on their behalf. The MPS carried out an investigation (under the operational name of Op Talon), into all the allegations made by the former officer. The MPS investigation commenced in July 2014 and was concluded on 24 June 2016, when they reported they had found no evidence to support the allegations.
On 6 September 2016, the former officer appealed to the IOPC against the findings of the Op Talon investigation. The appeal was partially upheld and the IOPC decided that further additional investigation should be conducted to explore specific areas of the complaints. An IOPC independent investigation began in December 2017.
During the IOPC investigation, witnesses, who the former officer suggested may be able to assist the investigation, were interviewed and statements obtained. Material gathered by the MPS (Op Talon) investigation has also been examined and considered. The former officer also indicated that evidence presented to named employment tribunals and a Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) hearing would be relevant to the complaints. This material has also been examined by the IOPC.
The IOPC independent investigation was completed in July 2020. The investigation found that none of the witnesses who were spoken to were able to provide evidence in support of the former officer’s specific complaints. The material gathered by the MPS (Op Talon) was examined and found to be consistent with the findings of that investigation. Material presented to the employment tribunals and the HASC hearing were examined but found not to be evidentially relevant to the complaints.
The IOPC has not upheld the complaints made by the former officer and found no evidence to indicate misconduct or criminality on the part of any of the Cleveland police officers or members of police staff named in the complaints.