Police officers sacked for 'effectively concealing' strangling of vulnerable woman
PC James Stone and PC Daniel Sweet committed gross misconduct, a tribunal panel ruled
Two police officers who “effectively concealed” the strangling of a vulnerable woman in a drugs-related robbery in a Bristol alleyway have been sacked without notice.
PC James Stone and PC Daniel Sweet committed gross misconduct, a tribunal panel ruled.
The officers neglected their basic policing duties by failing to launch an investigation and acted more like “minicab drivers” in doing nothing but taking the victim back to the BRI where she was an in-patient, the four-day Avon & Somerset police misconduct hearing was told.
The pair were called to the scene of the attack in Drummond Road, St Pauls, at 4.30am on November 11, 2022, but despite the woman telling them she had been strangled and robbed of £280 and a mobile phone by a violent man known to police, they failed to pursue any inquiries.
It was only when she later reported the assault that an investigation was started and it emerged that the constables had not recorded a crime, taken any notes or marked their bodyworn camera video as containing evidence.
Barrister Alan Jenkins, representing the constabulary, said this would have been “a gift for the defence” had the case gone to court, although the victim, a known heroin and cocaine user who was found at the scene wearing only pyjamas and a gown on a cold night, later withdrew her complaint.
He said PC Stone then took 76 days to submit a statement about the incident despite half a dozen reminders from the officer in charge of the case, while PC Sweet took 96 days.
Both denied breaching standards of professional behaviour for police officers in terms of honesty and integrity, duties and responsibilities, and discreditable conduct, but the panel found these proven.
Announcing the decision on Monday, May 13, the panel’s Legally Qualified Chair, Peter Cadman, who is independent of policing, said the officers were responsible for operational dishonesty.
He said they had “effectively concealed the wrongdoing” of the perpetrator in terms of drug dealing and violence against women, in this case a “highly vulnerable victim”.
Mr Cadman said: “Nothing other than dismissal without notice is needed in this case.
“Anything less than that would be manifestly inadequate.”
During the hearing at force headquarters in Portishead, PC Sweet admitted making mistakes during the incident but said the victim’s immediate welfare was his priority over any crime allegations.
He said it would not have been appropriate to take a statement from her on the night because she was under the influence of drugs and not coherent, so this should happen later.
However, he failed to put adequate steps in place to ensure this happened, the hearing was told.
PC Stone claimed he had not heard the woman mention the attack because he was focused on driving the police car and was wearing a radio earpiece.
But that panel concluded that PC Stone did hear but did nothing and then closed the log without indicating further action was needed.
Mr Cadman said it was “implausible” that the officer would not have asked why PC Sweet was examining the woman’s neck with his torch if he did not know she had been strangled.
He said the panel found that because PC Stone was aware of the offence, he submitted a statement knowing it was untrue.
Mr Cadman said there was “no positive action of a cover-up” by the pair but that there had been a delay and “positive inaction”.
He said both Bristol-based officers provided impressive character references and were of good character.
Barrister Nick Walker, representing PC Sweet, 31, said: “This was a brief episode in an extremely promising and valuable service to these communities.”
He said the officer had an exemplary police record and had gone through “years of misery”, details of which were outlined to the panel in a private session of the hearing.
Mr Walker said: “This should have been resolved as a performance issue and not misconduct.
“This was a welfare-focused officer who got the balance wrong but did it for the right reasons.”
Barrister Julian King, representing PC Stone, 32, said: “This was a relatively inexperienced officer who was within his probationary period.
“There was still a background of care and concern for the woman.
“He recognises he could and should have done better, but his behaviour does not amount to a breach of the standards of professional behaviour.”
He said PC Stone was a compassionate officer.
Both lawyers argued the officers should be given final written warnings instead of dismissal.
Afterwards, head of professional standards Detective Superintendent Mark Edgington said: “These officers failed to take action to record and investigate a serious offence against a vulnerable woman.
“They have then failed to respond in a timely and professional way to requests from colleagues who were investigating the offence of robbery.
“Honesty, integrity and diligence in the exercise of their duties are fundamental requirements for any police officer.
“The failure of these officers to fulfil what many people would see as the basics of policing – recording and investigating a crime – are exacerbated by their failure to support their colleague’s investigation.
“There is no place for them in policing.”