Actions following an allegation of grievous bodily harm - Metropolitan Police Service, February 2017

On 5 February 2017, the London Ambulance Service called the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) after dealing with a man with a head injury. On arrival, two officers were informed by the victim that he had been hit on the head with a bottle and had his phone stolen by a man who he named as X, and that X had said ‘tell Y it’s on’. The man signed the reporting officer’s pocket notebook to the effect that he was not willing to assist with the investigation. The investigation was closed. An officer reviewed and re-opened the matter the next day and it was closed again on 21 February. During that period, three attempts were made to contact the victim, but no other actions were completed.

On 27 February, a man was killed and a suspect known as X arrested. The victim’s brother was known as Y. The grievous bodily harm investigation was subsequently reopened on 2 March and reallocated to the same officer. No actions were completed and the case was reallocated to another officer on 20 March.

During our investigation, investigators interviewed the officer, along with members of his team and supervisor. Our investigators also gathered relevant documentation, including reports on the force’s crime report information system, emails between officers, as well as local and national policies on conducting and supervising investigations.

Based on the evidence available, we were of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find on the balance of probabilities that the officer’s actions – i.e. failure to conduct a thorough and proper investigation after the GBH investigation was reopened on 2 March 2017– amounted to misconduct. Our view was that it was the officer’s professional responsibility to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry (particularly as he had received express instruction to do so) and to complete or pass on all relevant tasks to others and ensure that these were completed, or to effectively highlight to others his inability to complete the tasks and seek re-allocation.

After reviewing our report, the MPS agreed that the officer had a case to answer for misconduct. The force held a misconduct meeting, at which misconduct was proven. The officer received a 12-month written warning.