Complaint regarding police action following report of racial abuse - Metropolitan Police Service, May 2017

On 10 February 2017, two Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officers visited a member of the public in response to a report of racial abuse. Their accounts corroborate that they discussed a relevant ongoing neighbourhood land dispute at length, however, there is controversy over what was discussed in regard to the report of racial abuse and what actions the officers agreed to take going forward.

Following the home visit, the computer record for the incident was updated with a note saying that this was not a racial crime but an ongoing civil dispute over land. One of the officers reported that they tried knocking at the door of the person suspected of racial abuse (it later transpired that the person whose door they knocked on was not the person suspected of racial abuse).

Approximately five weeks later, the member of the public phoned the Safer Neighbourhood Team to ask for an update and was told that nothing had been recorded. She subsequently made a formal complaint about how her report of racial abuse had not been recorded as requested, and made comments regarding the timeliness of the officers’ attendance and considerations for the welfare of her children and herself.

Evidence suggests that, once they became aware of the complaint against them, the two officers communicated via text and in person, which could have potentially amounted to collusion.

This matter came to our attention in May 2017 as a complaint referral.

During the investigation, our investigators interviewed the complainant, served notices on and interviewed the officers, identified various police witnesses and obtained statements from them, and attempted to contact the racial abuse suspect.

Investigators analysed the complainant’s initial report and subsequent statements, the information available to the officers before, during and after the home visit, and analysed various records, emails and texts sent after the home visit.

Based on the evidence available, we were of the opinion that one officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct for not recording accurate information following the home visit, and for attempting to collude with another officer following receipt of the complaint. We were also of the view that the officer had a case to answer for misconduct for not taking appropriate actions following the report made by the member of the public.

We were also of the opinion that the performance of two other officers could be considered to be unsatisfactory.

We concluded our investigation in April 2018.

After reviewing our report, the MPS determined that there was insufficient evidence to show that the officer had attempted to collude with another officer, and that the officer failing to record accurate information amounted to misconduct only.

We reviewed the MPS’s rationale and did not agree. We directed the force to bring gross misconduct proceedings against the officer.

At a hearing held in spring 2019 an independent panel found that:

• The officer had not been diligent in investigating the member of public’s complaint, and that this constituted misconduct.
• The officer had not deliberately misled the member of the public when they said they had tried contacting the person suspected of racial abuse, but should have made further enquiries; this constituted misconduct (not gross misconduct).

The panel did not find the allegation that the officer had attempted to collude with another officer proven.

The officer received a final written warning.