Actions following report of concerns of online grooming - Northamptonshire Police, November 2016

In December 2014, Northamptonshire Police received a report from a woman who was concerned that her teenage child was the victim of online sexual grooming.

The investigation was allocated to a detective constable who pursued enquiries with Interpol, as the suspect was believed to be residing outside the UK. In addition to this, the victim’s mobile phone was submitted for analysis and download of the text/photo messages and videos. The detective constable was informed via email that the results of the mobile phone download were available for him to view.

The detective constable opened, read and deleted the email. He did not view the results of the mobile phone download. There were a number of Interpol enquiries for further information in relation to the content of the messages and conversation between the victim and the suspect. The detective constable did not respond to those requests, believing it would be disproportionate to do so. In March 2015, the investigation was closed.

In March 2016, there was another incident (not involving the suspect) whereby the family contacted Northamptonshire Police. On that occasion, the victim disclosed that they were still being contacted and controlled by the suspect.

Northamptonshire Police re-opened the December 2014 investigation. A new officer in charge examined the results from victim’s phone, which had been available since January 2015. There were 3,925 texts, photos and videos on the phone download, many of which were of a sexual and explicit nature and demonstrated the control the suspect exerted over the victim.

In 2016, the suspect received a custodial sentence and an extended sexual harm prevention order for offences against the teenage child.

Northamptonshire Police received a formal complaint from the teenager’s family in November 2016 saying that, had a thorough investigation been conducted in 2014, their child would not have been subjected to continued abuse until the suspect was arrested.

During our investigation, investigators served the detective constable, detective sergeant and the detective inspector involved in the investigation in 2014 with notices saying that there was an indication that their conduct potentially breached the standards of professional behaviour, possibly amounting to gross misconduct.

The police sergeant and police inspector both provided written statements in response to their notices. The detective constable did not answer any of the questions put to him during his interview but provided two written statements.

The Investigator also obtained statements from several witnesses.

The Investigator concluded that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal could conclude that the detective constable may have a case to answer for gross misconduct, and that the detective sergeant and the detective inspector may have a case to answer for misconduct.

We sent our report to Northamptonshire Police in September 2017.

After reviewing our report, Northamptonshire Police agreed that the conduct of both the detective sergeant and detective inspector had breached the standards of professional behaviour. They proposed to deal with this through management action in this case, delivered by a senior detective who would review the incident with both officers and reassure themselves that the officers are now more intrusive and prescriptive in similar cases.

As the detective constable had transferred to the Metropolitan Police Service, we also sent them a copy of our report. They agreed to hold gross misconduct proceedings for the detective constable.

The gross misconduct hearing took place in late 2018.

The panel found gross misconduct for the detective constable for failing to view or otherwise use in any way the evidence available from the download of the mobile telephone, and for failing to provide Interpol with information so that the line of enquiry through the authorities of the other country could be followed through.

The panel also found misconduct for the detective constable for failing to secure evidence from the victim by conducting or arranging an ‘achieving best evidence’ interview, and for failing to bring concerns about his skill set, competency, welfare or training to his supervisors to seek assistance to enable him to carry out this work diligently.

The detective constable had resigned from the force in February 2018. The panel found that, had he still been a serving officer, he would not have been dismissed.