Police response to vulnerable woman’s concerns investigated – Metropolitan Police Service, November 2023

A woman called the police to report that a resident at the house she was staying at was causing a disturbance. She told the police she believed the resident had mental health issues and she was scared. Police officers arrived and recorded that no crime had taken place.

The woman called the police again two days later. She said she had been assaulted by the same resident in their shared kitchen. The police report described the woman as vulnerable with mobility issues. An ambulance was requested, and police officers were sent to the home.

The matter was recorded as an allegation of common assault, but the crime report was subsequently closed because there were no grounds to support an arrest.

The following day the woman contacted the police again to report that the same resident had attacked her. Police officers arrived and the woman was taken to hospital where it was found that she had a fracture to her wrist and spine, and a bleed on the brain. Police records show that the suspect was not at the home when they arrived.

Later that morning, the police received a report of two men fighting in a street. Police records indicate that a man attacked a cyclist, causing him a significant head injury. Police went to the scene and arrested the suspect. They established that the suspect was the same resident that attacked the woman earlier that morning.

The resident was arrested and charged on suspicion of grievous bodily harm.

We received a mandatory conduct referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the police response to the woman’s reports about her neighbour.

We examined the actions and risk assessments of the police officers, including any attempts to gather intelligence and evidence, and the decision to take no further action. We also looked at what safeguarding measures they considered and put in place, and whether the police officers involved acted in accordance with local and national policies, procedures, training and guidance. Three police officers were served with notices of investigation.

Our investigators interviewed the three police officers under misconduct caution, obtained accounts from the woman, and reviewed body worn video and CCTV footage. We obtained and reviewed local and national policies and guidance, including on general investigations and protection of adults at risk.

We concluded there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence, but two of the officers had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found these two officers had a case to answer for misconduct for failing to take positive action to safeguard the woman and investigate the incident, or conduct intelligence checks. The woman was a vulnerable person and should have been treated as such from the outset, and opportunities were missed to mitigate the risks posed to her. These officers also failed to make sure entries on computer reports were accurate.

We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the two officers and that they should take the form of a misconduct meeting.

One of the officers resigned from the force before the misconduct meeting was held. The other officer attended a misconduct meeting in May 2025. Misconduct was not proven, and the officer was dealt with using the reflective practice review process (RPRP). This process is used to give police officers the opportunity to learn from and reflect on what could have been done better. The third officer also received feedback using the RPRP.

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

We did not identify any organisational learning in this case.