Leading legal charity, Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ) have responded as follows to the interim report published today
The Louise Casey report is damning indictment of the Met police and her findings in relation to misogyny and sexual misconduct echo what we have seen in the police super-complaint we submitted two and a half years ago.
The problem identified in Louise Casey’s report is not just a Met police problem but common to many police forces across England and Wales. However, from the cases we have seen misogyny and racism are endemic within Met.
Of 165 plus women who contacted us as victims of police perpetrated abuse, 67 have provided us with detailed accounts of their experiences of being a victim of police misconduct. Of those 67, 10 have been the victim of officers within the Met police.
In addition to inadequate disciplinary processes and the failure to deal with multiple allegations, we note that in many cases following a criminal investigation where no further action is taken, there are frequently very inadequate misconduct investigations if one is conducted at all. When there is a criminal investigation of an officer, the matter should go straight to Professional Standards Department (PSD) for internal misconduct proceedings but often it does not.
Our findings strongly support Baroness Casey’s concerns about the Met failing to take issues raised seriously and leaving complainants unsupported. Many of the women who spoke to us described having to make multiple reports before their cases were investigated. We agree with Baroness Casey that complaints against officers are too often being treated like grievances, forcing victims to continually chase for action to be taken, rather than senior officers recognising that it is vital for the integrity of their force that such allegations to be investigated swiftly and rigorously.
Case Studies
One woman told us that she had to enlist help from her MP, who wrote directly to the former Met Commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick’s office, before her reports of coercive and controlling behaviour from her partner, a serving detective sergeant with the Met, were investigated. Even then, and despite significant further chasing, there has still not been any charging decision over 15 months later. During this time the woman and her children have been made homeless and her ex-partner continues to work in the Met.
Another woman, who had been in a long-term relationship with a Met firearms officer told us that she knew of 10 crime reports having been made against her ex-partner over a seven-year period. She was informed by a DCI in the Met that these had been reviewed, safeguarding issues had been considered and that there were no outstanding matters to consider. She, herself, had reported incidents when her ex-partner had put a gun to her head in their family home, as well as financial abuse and other abusive behaviour towards her and her child. All of these allegations were NFA’d. She had to seek protection through the civil courts to obtain a non-molestation order.
Other findings from our own investigations
Staff within the police have no right as civilian complainants do, to request an IOPC review where they are unhappy with an investigation
Cases are rarely referred for IOPC oversight
When matters are discontinued, officers not only are not disciplined but sometimes promoted even to lead roles in domestic abuse and sexual violence investigation
There are additional difficulties when the victim is also a police officer or civilian member of police staff. She has to report to colleagues who are likely to know both of them. The ‘victim credibility test’ is stricter, their experiences are often belittled and in many cases they are subject to misconduct proceedings themselves. In many cases, some women officer victims are pushed towards informal resolution with their complaints not treated as allegations of criminal offences. Some face counter allegations for which they were investigated and seem to be moved and/or disciplined themselves. Unsurprisingly, few report as they fear being disbelieved and know this could signal the end of their career.
We also saw evidence of:
Officers being investigated accessing the evidence in their own cases on force systems, or colleagues accessing on their behalf
Information from the survivor being inappropriately shared with the suspect officer, enabling them to tailor his evidence to fit the allegations made and/or make counter allegations against the complainant to undermine her credibility
Survivors in the police being disincentivised to report because close colleagues can become aware of their private matters
Colleagues supporting suspects and helping victimise and build evidence against the complainant – causing her to be investigated
Our super complaint found the scale of problems in having police officers investigated by their own force so deep rooted there needs to be a fundamental change to a different system including:
External police force to investigate
Disciplinary aspects overseen by IOPC
Bespoke reporting route to IOPC so victims don’t have to go straight to the force where the suspect has numerous colleagues, contacts etc
Police officer survivors should be given equal protection to civilian complainants and be given the right to appeal outcomes