On 9 March 2021, a serving Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer was arrested in connection with the disappearance of Ms Sarah Everard. He was later identified as the suspect for incidents of indecent exposure and was further arrested for this offence.
Prior to working for the MPS, the officer had been employed by the Civil Nuclear Constabulary between 2011 and 2018 and had also been a special constable in Kent Police between 2006 and 2009. The special constabulary consists of volunteer, uniformed officers who have all the powers of a regular police officer.
Our investigation focused on an historic report of indecent exposure to Kent Police in June 2015.
A member of the public provided comprehensive details about the indecent exposure. These included the location, description of the driver, car make, model, colour and registration.
On 12 June 2015, an officer attempted to speak with the informant but spoke to staff at his address as the informant was not available.
Kent Police conducted checks on the vehicle and managed to confirm the name of the registered owner.
On 18 June 2015, the officer filed the investigation for closure after the informant’s reliability was questioned and he did not want to be further involved in the police investigation. No further action was taken by Kent Police.
We specifically investigated, the decisions and actions taken by the police and officer in charge of the indecent exposure investigation.
We considered whether they followed all reasonable lines of enquiry before marking it for closure.
We also investigated whether there was any indication any officer knew the officer who committed indecent exposure, or were aware that the suspect of the indecent exposure investigation had previously been a special constable with Kent Police.
We investigated whether actions were in line with local or national policies, procedures, and legislation.
During our investigation, we reviewed crime reports, call recordings and obtained accounts from police staff and officers involved.
Our investigation concluded in March 2022. We waited for all proceedings relating to this case, and those linked, to be finalised before publishing our findings.
We concluded there was an indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner justifying the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.
We concluded the officer had a case to answer for misconduct for failing to investigate the allegation of indecent exposure appropriately and thoroughly in June 2015. The evidence demonstrated that the officer had no known link to the officer committing the offence, nor was he aware the subject has served as a special constable for Kent Police.
In April 2023, Kent Police held a misconduct meeting for the officer.
The panel found that the officer had breached the standards of professional behaviour, but that it didn’t amount to misconduct nor warrant a written warning. It was determined that reflective practice would be the most appropriate outcome.
The panel commented that the subject officer could have contacted and interviewed the suspect. By doing so, appropriate intelligence recording may have been made against the police national database to link the suspect to subsequent investigations. This could have affected future vetting applications but there is no certainty this alone would have prevented further offending.
An officer reflecting on their actions is a formal process reflected in legislation. The reflective practice review process consists of a fact-finding stage and a discussion stage, followed by the production of a reflective review development report. The discussion must include:
• a discussion of the practice requiring improvement and related circumstances that have been identified, and
• the identification of key lessons to be learnt by the participating officer, line management or police force concerned, to address the matter and prevent a reoccurrence of the matter.
The chair of the misconduct meeting specifically mentioned that the officer should be provided with training on sexual offences and attend the crime academy to develop his understanding on investigatory processes.
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 identify areas of organisational learning and consulted with Kent Police over several key areas of improvement.
We discussed whether Kent Police can improve their guidance for conducting volume or low-level criminal investigations, providing more specific information on lines of enquiries.
We also discussed a review on existing guidance on sexual offences and call gradings to ensure relevant witness details are captured.
There was also potential learning identified that related to the appropriateness of response officers handling indecent exposure cases and whether its severity warrants the investigation by specialist, investigative teams.
Following consultation, we issued one recommendation to Kent Police.
An act of parliament that provides the core framework of police powers to combat crime and provide codes of practice for the exercise of these powers.
Leads and manages the development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The body that represents the interests of all police constables, sergeants, and inspectors.
Deals with someone’s inability or failure to perform to a satisfactory level, but without breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Focuses on putting an issue right and preventing it from happening again by encouraging those involved to reflect on their actions and learn. It is not a disciplinary process or a disciplinary outcome.
Department within a police force that deals with complaints and conduct matters.
Refers to lower-level misconduct or performance-related issues, which are dealt with in a proportionate and constructive manner.
This means doing what is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the facts and the context in which the complaint has been raised, within the framework of legislation and guidance.
The average is calculated using the individual results of the forces in that most similar force group.
An investigation carried out by IOPC staff.
Carried out by the police under their own direction and control. The IOPC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report when it is complete. Complainants have a right of appeal following a supervised investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
This act sets out how the police complaints system operates.
How a police force is run, for example policing standards or policing policy.
An investigation carried out by the police under the direction and control of the IOPC.
The organisation that is responsible for assessing how to deal with a complaint. For example – whether it can be handled locally or reaches the criteria for referral to the IOPC. The appropriate authority may be the chief officer of the police force or the PCC for the force. If a complaint investigation finds that someone has a case to answer for misconduct, the appropriate authority is responsible for arranging any misconduct proceedings. If you make a complaint, the appropriate authority for your case will contact you.
An intelligence-led agency with law enforcement powers, it is also responsible for reducing the harm that is caused to people and communities by serious organised crime.
Policing bodies include police and crime commissioners, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
Investigations carried out entirely by the police. Complainants have a right of appeal following a local investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
IOPC guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.
A complaint or recordable conduct matter that doesn’t need to be referred to the IOPC, but where the seriousness or circumstances justifies referral.
Parameters within which an investigation is conducted.
A person is adversely affected if he or she suffers any form of loss or damage, distress or inconvenience, if he or she is put in danger or is otherwise unduly put at risk of being adversely affected.
This is where a manager deals with the way someone has behaved. It can include: showing the police officer or member of staff how their behaviour fell short of expectations set out in the Standards of Professional Behaviour; identifying expectations for future conduct; or addressing any underlying causes of misconduct.
This could be the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A breach of standards of professional behaviour by police officers or staff so serious it could justify their dismissal.
A matter where no complaint has been received, but where there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
Quarter 1 covers 1 April - 30 June
Quarter 2 covers 1 April - 30 September
Quarter 3 covers 1 April - 31 December
Quarter 4 covers the full financial year (1 April - 31 March).
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
Used to house anyone who has been detained.
Complainants have the right to appeal to the IOPC if a police force did not record their complaint or notify the correct police force if it was made originally to the wrong force.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts behind a complaint, conduct matter, or DSI matter and reach conclusions. An investigator looks into matters and produces a report that sets out and analyses the evidence. There are three types of investigations: local, directed and independent.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
A person who makes a complaint about the conduct of someone serving with the police.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
List of officers and staff who have been dismissed from policing, or would have been if they had not retired or resigned.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
An independent judicial officer, the coroner enquires into deaths reported to him/her.
A breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that would justify at least a written warning.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
A record is made of a complaint, giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
This is a format where information is written in plain English and short sentences.
The IOPC must be notified about specific types of complaint or incidents to be able to decide how they should be dealt with.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
Casework involves assessing appeals. Casework staff also have a role in overseeing the police complaints system to help ensure police forces handle complaints in the best possible way.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
Conduct includes acts, omissions, statements and decisions (whether actual, alleged or inferred). For example: language used and the manner or tone of communications.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
