Multiple misconduct allegations - Metropolitan Police Service, January 2016
We investigated a number of allegations raised by the colleagues of a Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer. At the time the allegations were raised, the officer (officer A) was an acting Detective Sergeant (A/DS), line managing a number of police constables (PCs). These PCs approached a senior officer and reported a number of instances when Officer A’s behaviour had caused them concern. Many of the allegations dated from when Officer A was acting as a Detective Sergeant.
The allegations included Officer A having possession of offensive weapons, using racist and derogatory language, having obtained and shared a photograph of a personal nature from a colleague’s phone without her consent, behaving in a bullying manner towards subordinates, and moving a key piece of evidence in an attempt to strengthen a case against a suspect in a burglary investigation.
These allegations came to our attention on 22 January 2016 as a conduct referral.
Officer A was suspended from duty in June 2016 following further allegations that arose during the course of our investigation.
In the course of our investigation we obtained over 100 statements from police officers and members of the public, and examined over 350 documents and 100 exhibits. We also examined a number of national and local policies.
All of the officers who reported concerns provided us with detailed witness accounts. We also obtained additional statements from other MPS officers, police staff and members of the public.
We interviewed Officer A under criminal caution three times regarding the allegations.
When interviewed regarding the allegation that they had provided factually inaccurate information in a statement as to where a key piece of evidence was found, Officer A declined to answer any questions in interview, choosing instead to provide two written responses, denying the allegation.
We also investigated concerns raised by a number of the officers whom Officer A worked with that Officer A had used racially offensive and discriminatory language in person, in emails and via WhatsApp messenger in regards to the ethnicity, sexuality and perceived disability of members of the public and colleagues. Evidence indicated that Officer A appeared to use words, phrases and epithets that may be perceived as offensive on a regular basis. Officer A’s use of words that were racist or misogynistic or otherwise offensive appeared contrary to the Code of Ethics.
Evidence suggested that Officer A possessed offensive weapons and had on occasion carried a knuckleduster while on duty. Other evidence indicated that the officer had interviewed a man who was on bail without authority, and had obtained and shared a personal photograph of a colleague without her authorisation.
On the basis of the evidence available we were of the opinion that a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find that Officer A had a case to answer for gross misconduct.
We completed our investigation in November 2017. We sent our report to the MPS who determined that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct.
Officer A attended a gross misconduct hearing in autumn 2019. The independent panel considered the following allegations:
Allegation 1: the independent panel noted that Officer A completed a statement saying they had found a stolen battery in a suspect’s bag during a police search. Other evidence contradicted their evidence. The panel found that Officer A had made an untruthful statement and that the allegation was proven and amounted to gross misconduct
.Allegation 2: at the hearing, Officer A admitted to using some offensive and/or discriminatory language between 11 April 2014 and 14 January 2016. Officer A denied using other language of a racist nature, as heard by other officers. The Panel accepted the officers’ account and concluded that Officer A had used the racist language, and that the allegation was proven.
Allegation 3: a colleague of Officer A alleged viewing a photo of a colleague of a personal nature on Officer A’s mobile phone. Although the Panel did not see the photograph, the Panel noted that a degree of trust and evidence existed between Officer A and the colleague who made the allegations, and rejected Officer A’s account that their colleague had made it up. The allegation was found proven at the level of gross misconduct.
Allegation 4: a knuckleduster was allegedly seen in Officer A’s bag, and Officer A also admitted being in a possession of a police-issued lock knife they should have returned when leaving the specialist police unit that had issued it. The allegation was found proven at the level of misconduct.
Allegation 5: Officer A was alleged to have attended the home address of a suspect on bail without authorisation. The panel found the allegation proven at the level of misconduct.
The panel considered a further allegation, but found this to be unproven.
Officer A was dismissed without notice. Officer A will now be placed on the College of Policing’s barred list, preventing them from working within the Police Service.