Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.

This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the private session with AA, on 19 April 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of private session: Ms AA
  • Questions by Miss Weekes

This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering.

Transcript of private session: Ms AA

The name of this witness has been changed, and her submission redacted, to avoid the identification of the individuals and any third parties.

Monday, 19 April 2004
10.30am

Sir William Morris: Miss A, good morning to you. Please make yourself comfortable. If you wish to have some water, then please do.

Can I, first of all, say thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this morning and also for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful.

I do appreciate that, for some of our witnesses, the whole process might seem somewhat daunting, so I thought that, before we started, it might be just helpful if I set out exactly how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning, and get your evidence.

But first of all, I think a little introduction would be appropriate, so I will start by introducing myself, I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, but as you can see, there are three of us on this particular panel. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary after a very long and distinguished career in the police service; and on my left is Miss Anesta Weekes. Anesta is a barrister, and she sits as a recorder part-time. She is also a part-time chairperson of industrial tribunals, and she was counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry, so she comes with a lot of experience.

Miss A, as you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters within the Metropolitan Police Service itself. We have deliberately taken as our focus the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the organisation. Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals in order to understand how they are affected by the policies and practices and procedures which govern how the Metropolitan Police Service operates and how it carries out its functions, statutorily and otherwise.

Could I say that, although we are a public inquiry, and, by definition, we would normally meet in public, we have decided to conduct this hearing and some others where we hear from individuals – we decided to conduct it in private. The reason for this is that we are very keen for individuals like your good self, who have had problems with the way the Metropolitan Police Service operates – but we also understand that some of our witnesses might feel a little bit reluctant in responding to our questions if they feel that the Metropolitan Police Service is an ear on the wall, listening in.

I hope you do find these arrangements helpful, and I hope you feel confident in being able to speak freely to us.

Can I also say that, although we are meeting in private today, as I have said, we are a public inquiry, and that means it might be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about what has been said in written submissions and about what you may want to tell us today. If we do decide to seek further clarification, then we will do it in a fashion without identification, without identifying your good self.

Also, let me assure you that we will try to ensure that any additional evidence, any clarification is carried out with the least possible inconvenience to you, and it would only be done after we have sought your permission to do that.

I say to all our witnesses, so that we can just set the culture of the Inquiry, that the inquiry that we are conducting is what we call inquisitorial; we are seeking to find out, rather than adversarial. We do not see anybody as an adversary here, we think everyone who comes, comes to help us, and we want to enquire.

But we are very keen to enquire into the issues which make up our terms of reference, and the purpose of that is so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice within the Met, rather than just concentrating on criticism of the Met itself.

We have no wish to go back over the areas of detail about what has happened here, because, quite frankly, your written submission has carefully set out the areas of events, and we are happy to stand with that.

So what we now want to ask is questions which will enable us to draw from your experience to help us in our work.

At the end of these introductory comments from myself, one of my colleagues will lead on the questions to you, and, if at some point, at the end of whichever one of my colleagues leads, either of us, the other two, feels the need for any supplementary questions, they will naturally put those to you.

When we finish all the questions, before you leave us, I will offer you the opportunity to make any closing or additional comments which you might wish to. It is fair as well that I should tell you that a transcript note is being taken, so that we can have a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. We are hoping to publish this transcript, together with your written submission, on our website in the next few days, but we will only do that after we have taken out references to your name, or any other personal details, in order to be sure that it contains no information that identifies you or other individuals. You have our assurance on that.

Before I ask Miss Weekes to begin the questions, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder whether you would mind just formally introducing yourself.

Ms A: Yes, fine. My name is AA, I have worked for the Metropolitan Police as a member of police staff for nine years. I started off working, actually, in the [Redacted] over at [Redacted] police station, dealing with road traffic accidents and process, and things like that.

Then I went on to the front counter, I worked as a station reception officer, dealing with members of the public, which I really enjoyed, and then, since then, I have transferred to [Redacted] borough, and I have been working in the [Redacted] unit, which has been a really good role for me, because I have been able to develop myself. So I was there doing administration, but I then took on [Redacted] et cetera, and I did my Certificate in [Redacted] with [Redacted] University, and I am looking to do my [Redacted] award, and it has been a good job.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. Could I pass you straight over to Miss Weekes to start her questions?

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you. Would you prefer A or Miss A?

Ms A: A is fine.

Miss Weekes: A, okay, thank you. I have read very thoroughly your very helpful submission, which set out for us a number of events which undoubtedly would have caused you, and probably still does, a great deal of distress. I may refer to them, but only to, as it were, deal with some of the issues that you can help me on in terms of how you would wish someone else to be treated differently to the way that you were treated; what are the improvements, what are your suggestions about how the Met should deal with a woman who had or went through those rather distressing incidents?

Can I just summarise them by saying that, originally, in [Redacted], there was an event which you described which amounted to sexual harassment by a police officer, and that that resulted in disciplinary proceedings against him; you gave evidence, along with another female colleague. That officer was in a position of supervisor/line manager to your female colleague; you both gave evidence at the disciplinary hearing. Just to summarise, that is the first incident in [Redacted], is that about right?

Ms A: Yes, what was that about the supervisory –

Miss Weekes: He was in a supervisory position, was he? He line managed the other female?

Ms A: No, he was placed in the front office on light duties, and so was a colleague really.

Miss Weekes: Just a colleague, okay. Forgive me if I got that wrong. She actually reported it to her supervisor?

Ms A: She reported it to her supervisor, yes, and it was her supervisor that asked me my working relationship with him.

Miss Weekes: That was dealt with through disciplinary proceedings, and he was suspended for a length of time, and the outcome was that he was dismissed from the service.

There was an appeal, and we know that Assistant Commissioner [Redacted] dealt with that appeal, and you have told us about your meeting with him.

Can I just stop there? Because I would like to raise a number of questions about that incident, before we come to it later on.

Ms A: Yes, sure.

Miss Weekes: Anyone who reads that story may have thought that it was not particularly very serious, because Assistant Commissioner [Redacted] took the view that he should alter the outcome, the sanction, because he allowed him back into the police force, and he is still in practice now, is that right?

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: And I think he may well have had to pay a financial penalty, something like that, is that right?

Ms A: To the officer? I mean, I do not know, but I would assume, I suppose, that if he was then found not guilty at an appeal, that probably is a possibility.

Miss Weekes: Do you say it was serious enough for that officer to have been dismissed?

Ms A: I would say, in relation to mine, it was conversations and a magazine and asking very sexual explicit questions, et cetera, which you – in comparison to my colleague, [Redacted], that was a sexual assault, so I would say that mine was less serious than hers. It was my colleague that actually reported it to her line manager, and she basically said that she did not want to work with him any more. She did not say any more than that. Then, of course, it opened the doors.

You see, the thing is as well, subsequently, after reporting or speaking to her inspector, he used to be on my team, and I actually got quite a lot of support from my team, because they had had problems with him as well, but it was all dealt with in that team, and it was dealt with, I believe, by the inspector, who had a word with him, as far as I know.

So they actually were very supportive to me, and said, "I think you are doing the right thing, because he does seem to have a problem, or he seems to feel that he can talk to women when they are on their own, asking" – you know, the thing is as well, it is almost like a grooming, because he would come across very friendly, very nice, and you are almost drawn into a false sense of security, in a way, but then he would see how far he could go each time.

Of course the other thing that was difficult as well was he very much was aggressive, so if you did not reciprocate – he would do a lot of gestures, if you did not reciprocate, he would become aggressive towards you. So it just made the whole working environment very, very difficult indeed.

Miss Weekes: I am grateful for that, because in fact that has filled in a little bit more detail the actual circumstances in which you had to work, so it was clearly, from what you just told us, a very serious situation.

Ms A: Yes, it was. I mean, if you were to look at the complete merits or read my statement in relation – you know, as to whether or not it is bad enough for dismissal, you know, I would say yes. I mean, this person is obviously in a position of trust, and he would be dealing with victims, possibly, that have been sexually assaulted or whatever, so you just felt – it was described to me, [Redacted] line manager described it to me that the grievance procedure is a safety net, whereby they are not going to get it right with everyone who joins the job, but it is there as a safety net to weed out people who are not suitable in order to deal with members of the public, et cetera.

I thought that actually made a lot of sense, you think, "Okay, this is the right thing to do".

Miss Weekes: So your evidence and [Redacted]'s evidence, can I ask this, was there any other evidence from others within your department who clearly knew he was a problem?

Ms A: No, not as far as I know. There was a WPC who had problems with him, and, as I say, the team dealt with him, but she did not want to come forward on any of those.

Miss Weekes: All right. We now have Fairness at Work, you have probably heard about that. Are you familiar with the Fairness at Work procedure?

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Was that available at the time that this problem came up in 1999? It probably was not, because it was new only last year.

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: So it was the old-fashioned grievance that you had, was it not?

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: As a woman, often you do not want to go to another male officer about something as sensitive as this, especially if it is a supervisor and it is the supervisor with whom you are having the problem. Who did you go to first about this? Who did you feel comfortable about talking to, the first line of contact?

Ms A: In fact, the first line of contact was [Redacted], because she told me that she had spoken to her sergeant, spoken to her inspector, and the inspector wanted me to come in and talk to him, so I said, "Okay, fine," so in fact the first person I actually told was my inspector, who is male.

He did ask if I wanted somebody else to be with me, et cetera, and I said no, it was okay, not a problem, and that was it, basically, we just went through the conversations and things that were said, and what have you, which then he said, "That would amount to sexual harassment". I was comfortable with that.

Miss Weekes: You were comfortable with that; in your experience, are women always comfortable with that?

Ms A: No.

Miss Weekes: Well, that brings me perhaps to the first stage of an important issue I would like you to help us with. Now, if you were to help us on making recommendations, where a woman is not comfortable about going to another police officer at all, it could be a male, it could be a female officer, but they are within the hierarchy, within the working environment, they may not want to talk to them.

What is the way forward for that, with these very difficult, sensitive issues?

Ms A: They have a first contact kind of scheme where there is a list of people – if you do not feel you can talk to your supervisor, that you can talk to somebody else, you literally can go through and pick the name of who you would actually want to confide in.

I personally feel, if I wanted to speak to somebody or confide in somebody, it would be somebody I trusted and it would probably be a friend, and that would be the person that I would speak to, because there is always that concern that whoever you are talking to will not be discreet, you know, the sort of breach of confidence, if you like.

So I know there is that available at the moment, and a mentor kind of scheme as well, which I know is sort of available, so if there is any problems, you can –

Miss Weekes: Who compiles this list, and where is the list?

Ms A: Personnel, because where I have been off sick, the list came through to me, as I may want to talk to somebody in relation to my return to work or whatever, and there is a list of names that were on there, some police staff, some police officers.

Miss Weekes: Is this list of persons – are they trained, do you know, to deal –

Ms A: I think they have been on a course of some sort, I believe.

Miss Weekes: Have you, yourself, ever used anybody on the list?

Ms A: No.

Miss Weekes: And why did you not?

Ms A: Because I have trusted friends, if you like. In fact, my person, in relation to the recent event, my old line manager has been the person that I have actually spoken to, because she is very professional, and she is very discreet, and I trust her implicitly. So she is the person that I have actually spoken to.

Miss Weekes: Okay. In your experience, does the list work for some people and others may not choose it?

Ms A: I think possibly, I do not know. I think possibly. There may be a name on that list that you think, "Yes, I could talk to that person." For me, there was not anyone on there particularly that I thought I could really go and talk to.

Miss Weekes: All right. Can I move to the hearing itself, the disciplinary hearing? I know that you mentioned in your submissions that it was quite a harrowing experience, because there were lawyers there, quite legal procedures, and your credibility was put on the line. No doubt you expected that, to a degree.

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: But apart from the obvious, which is that you were going to have to be challenged, what do you say about the procedure, from having experienced it; what do you say is bad about it, and what could be improved?

Ms A: The one thing that was not particularly good was the actual layout of the board, because literally, I would be sitting here and [Redacted] would be there, so that was far, far too close for me to really feel comfortable to be talking about everything that had happened, and he had his barrister sort of next to him, but it was very – literally, his chair would be there (indicates). I found that very uncomfortable. It would have been far better to have maybe had him away a little bit.

But then the rest of it, as you say, you expect a lot from it, and I did expect that obviously, my credibility and everything would be challenged.

I know for a fact, actually, to let you know, [Redacted] actually contacted me and said my submission would be going on the Morris Inquiry website, and he said, "Maybe you want to have a look at some of the submissions to see what they are like". I had a look at some of the other submissions, and I know that [Redacted] has put a submission in, and I recognised it and I read it.

This was yesterday, and I was a little bit upset with some of the things he obviously had to say, and I know that obviously he is going to be very bitter about things, and it was, I suppose, a bit enlightening, seeing it from his point of view as well.

There is a lot of inaccuracies and things, and it is funny, because I just thought, "Where is the way forward for that?", in a way. I almost would actually like to sit down with [Redacted] or his girlfriend, or whoever it was who put the report in, to actually – you know, "Let us draw a line under this, because this has gone on for so long," and some of the points that have been raised in that, to sort of address them.

I do not know, it is strange, because I had no idea – and what has bothered me about that as well is the fact that he knows about the second allegation, and he knew about that very early on, when people in my borough did not even know about it, and it bothers me that he knows about it, of all the people to know about it.

Miss Weekes: That has obviously made you feel very uncomfortable.

Ms A: It has made me feel very uncomfortable, and it is just – you just feel very vulnerable. It has bothered me as well that he has got all the tapes of that board, and all the statements.

Miss Weekes: That is the second board or the first?

Ms A: The first one.

Miss Weekes: Have you had access to those?

Ms A: No, I do not have access to any of that. Is it necessary for him to have access, for him to have all that, so he can play that to whoever he wants to? So again, you just feel like running away. You just end up feeling you have got to leave the organisation, because you just cannot seem to get away from it.

Miss Weekes: Do you want to pause and have a glass of water? (Pause). I will come back to some of those matters, because I think what you have mentioned about the status quo is obviously very important, and I think you will probably need some sort of support in relation to that, I think, because you are going back into the work environment and he is still there.

Where does he work now?

Ms A: Who, [Redacted]? I do not know.

Miss Weekes: You have not bumped into him?

Ms A: I have not bumped into him. I last heard he was going to be going to [Redacted]borough, and [Redacted] had a problem with that, when we spoke to AC [Redacted], because she lives in [Redacted], and she said, "You know, I might phone the police and it might be him that is turning up, so he said he would move him, and that is the last we had heard. But reading that submission, it looks as if he is on light duties and I do not know where.

Miss Weekes: Okay. Can I just come back to the disciplinary hearing again, because it is something that we want to keep on board in terms of how the Met deal with disciplinary proceedings in relation to officers who are complained about and officers who have to be witnesses like yourself.

Apart from the very important point you mentioned about the layout and how it did not assist you in giving evidence in a relaxed fashion, is there anything else, in relation to the conduct of the lawyers, that you might want to comment upon? I know you accept that they have to ask you questions, but personally, if you want to say anything else about that, do, because we know that the three commanders sat on this, did they not? And they were in control of the proceedings, or should have been. Is there anything you want to say about that, about how things were being handled?

Ms A: I do not think so. I mean, yes, the questions were vigorous, and the questions were very much aimed at sort of "Where are you going" – in your mind, you think, "Where are you going with this?"

But no, you have to expect it, I think, you have to expect it. It was fine – because I think, I suppose, with my thing, trying to come up with some sort of motive as to why me and [Redacted] would sort of make an allegation, and it transpired, by the end of the time, by the finishing of all the questioning, that it was that he was really good at his job, and we were not, and got jealous and wanted him out of there.

I can actually remember laughing at that, because I just said, "If somebody is good at their job in the front office, you would want them to stay", because you have got a lot of customers to deal with, you do not want somebody who is very good at their job to leave.

I just thought, "Oh well" – and that was the whole basis of their defence, and it took me a while to work out exactly where they were going with some of the questions, but as I say, I expected a lot of it, really.

Miss Weekes: Information and communication to you throughout this time; was it good, was it bad? How would you describe it?

Ms A: It was a long time, two years, I think it was.

Miss Weekes: You say that is too long?

Ms A: Far too long, yes.

Miss Weekes: Did you know why it took two years?

Ms A: No, I do not know. I think [Redacted] was sick, and I do not think they could interview him, as far as I am aware. We had given a statement, and I think [Redacted] ended up giving about three in the end. I think I only gave the one, yes, I think – no, I gave two, because I had to clarify a point.

Yes, far too long, because you have got that just hanging over your head the whole time.

Miss Weekes: Did you complain about the length of time to anyone? Did anybody try to find out?

Ms A: No, there was a sergeant in the DPS who was very good actually, he was very professional; I cannot remember his name. Whenever I e-mailed or whatever, he would reply, and apologised really, but I felt as if it was not in his control.

Miss Weekes: Right. So are you able to help at all as to what you would like to see put in place to avoid another woman having to wait two years for having her complaint dealt with?

Ms A: Well, if it was that it took that length of time because [Redacted] was sick, and they could not interview him, then I would have to sort of say, "Can something be done in relation to that?" Because there must be other cases whereby they have taken a length of time because the person has gone sick, can he not still be interviewed, even though the person is sick?

In criminal law, that would be the case, would it not?

Miss Weekes: Unless you cannot speak, of course.

Ms A: But it seems – and then the whole process is prolonged, and I would say that, even if they go sick with stress, they should still be interviewed, and therefore, the process could be a lot quicker.

Miss Weekes: All right. Your welfare generally; did anybody enquire as to how you were coping? Did you have regular support by a designated welfare officer?

Ms A: Yes, I was seeing a counsellor through occupational health.

Miss Weekes: And that was the Met, the Met paid for that?

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: And that was given to you straight away?

Ms A: I think it was offered to me and I did not take it, and then eventually I did. I had a lot of other problems going on at the same time, I was going through a divorce, which was extremely stressful, also my ex-husband was on bail for [Redacted], so I had a lot on my plate, so I was seeing a counsellor for those sort of issues as well.

So I really did not need this with [Redacted] whatsoever, because work was actually my sanctuary; work was my eight hours of the day that I could get away from my own personal problems, and I was actually good at my job, and I actually dealt with the public, I felt, in a very empathetic – you know, a very professional way, and I could switch off to everything.

Miss Weekes: Your other colleagues, I know you have very fairly said that a number of them were in fact very supportive. Did you have any difficulty with colleagues who appeared to resent the fact that you had taken out a complaint, and how did you deal with that?

Ms A: I never had anybody outright say anything to me. The repercussions of these sort of allegations is really what people do not say, and what will happen is that suddenly, it will just be conversations about work and that is it really. They are very wary that you have made an allegation, and so, therefore, their guard is up.

Miss Weekes: And did you sense that?

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: That obviously does not help in relation to people coming forward to make the complaint in the first place.

Ms A: No.

Miss Weekes: Now, how much do you think that goes on generally, with women backing off because they know they are going to be treated with kid gloves?

Ms A: Oh, predominantly, I would say.

Miss Weekes: And what gives you that basis of saying that, what is the evidential basis for saying that?

Ms A: Well, even in relation to this latest event, when I spoke to [Redacted], her reaction was, "I cannot go through with that, I am not going to – I cannot have that over me, I cannot have people thinking that I am – you know, bad of me", and things like that. That was her automatic reaction – and that was my automatic reaction. You do have to be strong in yourself to see something through.

And I can say, sitting here, I would not do it again, and even now, I regret doing – you know, going ahead with this second allegation, it has just been a complete nightmare.

So yes, I do not know. I do not know what the answers are.

Miss Weekes: I was about to ask, but it is a very difficult question, is it not?

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: What sort of support would a complainant in your position need to ensure –

Ms A: The biggest thing, actually, you really want is something which I do not think can be provided, and it is confidentiality. If you could say, "Yes, okay, this happened and I will make the allegation and I will see this through, but can you protect me from all of this that is going to go on as a consequence?" You know, it would be fantastic if you could say to people like [Redacted], "Do not talk to anybody about any of this", because you have got the sort of gossip network that starts to spread.

As I say, in relation to my second allegation, only three or four people knew about it, and yet [Redacted] found out about it in [Redacted], and it only happened – you know, it only became aware sort of at the beginning of [Redacted].

If there is any way of stopping and protecting that, that would be absolutely fantastic, but I do not think it is realistic, so I think, to a certain extent, you have got to be prepared to accept it.

Miss Weekes: Who are the people within the Met who could better control that sort of situation? Because we know the Met is very hierarchical, and the more senior the officer, the more likely his views are going to be followed.

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Can you think of any system that might assist? Because these allegations are extremely serious and should be dealt with, otherwise the perpetrator will still remain within the Met.

If there was a very senior officer who could better control what happens to the complainant, what happens to the perpetrator, for the time being, would that help?

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: As opposed to leaving it to be sorted on borough, with the supervisor and just whoever you get your protection from, because it is quite haphazard, is it not?

Ms A: Yes. Are you referring to the second one, or –

Miss Weekes: Really both of them, because you would require some support and protection throughout the whole time, would you not?

Ms A: You would, yes.

Miss Weekes: To ensure you can get on with your work, and to ensure you do not become too vulnerable.

Ms A: Yes. But we are saying that; I have gone back to work, in relation to this second incident, and I have gone back to my old role, and it was said to me, "How do you want to go back to work?", and I started – I worked with [Redacted], who is, as I say, my old line manager in another [Redacted] unit. I went there for a week, and then I was going to return back to [Redacted].

I was assured that there would be no contact from the suspect whatsoever, and that he was under close supervision and he is at another station, and that is it, so you think, "Okay, great, fine, I can deal with that".

And then, on the day that I was told by my CERT officer that he is going to be interviewed finally, you are sort of thinking – the whole time you were sort of aware of it, and you think, "Okay, right, today is the day, he is going to be interviewed".

I go into work at [Redacted] and I get an e-mail from the suspect, and it was addressed to not just me, it was addressed to the [Redacted] unit, and it was a work related – it was, "Are you in the database, can I go in?" So the actual content of the e-mail was nothing contentious, but the effect that had on me was absolutely devastating, because I was assured there would be no contact, and that to me meant in person, e-mail and by phone.

It was his way of saying to me that he was still about, and it was supposed to have been a day he was going to be interviewed, and I just think, "This man, he has got a problem with being told not to do something, whether it is at work or whether it is down a dark alleyway", and it took me back to that incident.

The effect that had was I had to pack my stuff, clear my desk out and leave, because I cannot control what he does, and I cannot control the [Redacted] at [Redacted] borough, for the assurances that they gave me, but I can control what I can do, so it was very much, "I am going to get myself out of this situation".

Miss Weekes: Do you want to pause a bit? Do not worry, these things are not easy to deal with. (Pause).

Whilst tissues are being fetched, what is terribly important is that you are able to have your say, and I hope you do not think that is a bad thing.

Ms A: No, I do not.

Miss Weekes: It is really important to get it out. But also what is quite important is how we can assist to ensure that no other woman goes through what you have gone through.

So if in fact somebody has been given that very clear direction, what could you have done to have stopped him sending that e-mail? Because he must have understood that no contact –

Ms A: Meant no contact.

Miss Weekes: Absolutely. Did you manage to report it at the time?

Ms A: Well yes, because – I sent an e-mail to my [Redacted] and the chief inspector of the [Redacted] unit, who is supposed to have been supervising him, from what I was told, and just basically saying – just in big letters, "I do not want contact from this person, it is not too much to ask, please", you know.

Then I sent another one, just basically saying, "I am not putting myself in this position; for my own sanity, if I return back to work, it cannot be at this borough", because he is working at [Redacted], but still within [Redacted]. We are still under the same umbrella.

I have basically said, "Is it really feasible that we can work under the same umbrella, as if we are one big happy unit?" It is not. As far as I am concerned, it is not, but I have been very much told that he cannot be disadvantaged. Okay, I can accept that. I can accept that, because I am not obviously unreasonable, but I would have to say, "Well, you cannot expect a victim and a suspect to work under the same umbrella, on the same borough, as if it has not happened."

Miss Weekes: So that is something undoubtedly that we should look at, what happens to a female officer who has undergone a very serious event which has caused her hurt, and both officers, perpetrator and complainant, have to come back to the same area.

What do you say should have happened?

Ms A: What should have happened?

Miss Weekes: Whether it is workable or not does not matter, I am very interested in your views.

Ms A: Okay. I personally think that there should be guidelines in when to suspend and when not to suspend. I do not know if there are or not. It seems some people get suspended and some people do not, and it seems to be on different reasons.

I personally think, if there is a criminal investigation into somebody, they should be suspended, and if it is that there is not enough evidence to actually prosecute, then bring him back into the work environment and it is dealt with by discipline, in which case, okay, then it may not be necessary to suspend that person.

But, you know, I have been very conscious of the fact that he is still on borough, and that these very serious allegations have been made. It has taken three months before he has even got interviewed on it, which is a hell of a long time; if it was a member of the public, he would have been arrested and done the same week probably, but three months, in which time he has got a lot of time to prepare, and whatever, as to what he is going to say.

I would say it has to be – it should be looked at as to what is disadvantaging somebody and what is not. I mean, in my mind, he is a police officer, I would have thought he could have got deployed somewhere else, and not be disadvantaged, but it seems very much that they were conscious of the fact that he should stay within [Redacted], but then you have got an impossible situation then.

Miss Weekes: Now, who makes decisions like that?

Ms A: Well, the decision was made by the senior management.

Miss Weekes: I mean, you say, essentially, that the Met should go back and re-look at how two people in the situation that you both are, what is best for the working environment and what is best for both?

Ms A: I know it must have been difficult, and it has got to be a difficult decision for them, and I feel as if – I felt they were learning as they were going along, they had not – it was almost as if they had not had a situation like this before, and what could they do in order to sort it out?

I would think that if there was a policy – if there is not one – if there was a policy made in relation to work colleagues, and somebody has made an allegation against their colleague, that it is laid out as to what should be done to the person who has been – you know, the allegation has been made against, and also the victim, so there is no grey area.

At the end of the day, this must happen quite a few times, I would have thought, and you have got chief superintendents and superintendents making decisions, different decisions, in relation to that. I would have thought guidelines in place would be far better.

And I would think as well that in relation to this – because I know Superintendent [Redacted] said he had contacted – I do not know who it was, but it was in relation to the employment law, and this is when he was saying to me, "I cannot disadvantage [Redacted]", which is why he had it in his head that he had to stay within [Redacted] at [Redacted], and I think maybe there should be some sort of liaison between employment and the Met Police as to what is acceptable, what is disadvantaging, and what is not.

Miss Weekes: You do not know of any guidelines that would deal with this situation, you were not shown any, you just know it is simply a decision that they talk about, and they make?

Ms A: It seems the decision is made – they have a meeting, and decision logs are put together, what is the best way in order to deal with this.

Miss Weekes: Were you invited in –

Ms A: No.

Miss Weekes: – at a meeting to be asked, "Now we want to hear your views, we want to know your routine and how" –

Ms A: No.

Miss Weekes: Not at all?

Ms A: No, no. And in relation actually to the second one, I actually stated I wanted the DPS to deal with it, but it was very much, "No, what is going to happen here is that we are going to get [Redacted] to deal with your one". We are going into a different – I do not know if you want to discuss that.

Miss Weekes: I would like to just come to how we might deal with some of the recommendations on the second, because that is a difficulty in the sense that one of the incidents occurred in [Redacted], and a reason put forward by the Met is, "We cannot deal with it because it is [Redacted]".

Do you know what the rules are in relation to when the Met take a disciplinary and when they do not? Is that clear to you?

Ms A: It is not clear to me. I felt – just for me, in relation to that, I just wanted to make one statement, and I did not want to have to go through it over and over again with different constabularies and different people and what have you, which is why I thought maybe the DPS would be the best people, because they are impartial, and just take a statement from me.

Miss Weekes: You wanted to be able to give your account to one person which avoids the stress of giving it to three different individuals.

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Because it involved the same person, you wanted one person to co-ordinate it; that clearly made sense to you.

Ms A: Yes.

Miss Weekes: But so far, you have been told that cannot be done?

Ms A: I was told that – first of all, it was going to be that the borough, my borough, were going to deal with it. And then it was, "Right, we have had a meeting, we are not going to deal with it; [Redacted] are going to deal with it, because the main events took place at [Redacted], so we will contact [Redacted] and they will deal with it".

And that is when I said, "Hang on a minute, I can only go through it once", and this, that and the other, and again it was Superintendent [Redacted], he said to me, "I have spoken to [Redacted] and they will take this statement".

Now when they finally contacted me, they made it perfectly clear to me, "One offence took place at [Redacted], we will take a statement on that, and that is it, no more. At the end of the day, it was one-on-one allegation, do you really want to put yourself through all of that? It is going to probably be NFA'd", and do I really want to – no, I do not really want to put myself through that, what is the point, I cannot go through all of that to different constabularies.

So then it was – I spoke to Superintendent [Redacted], and he said, "Right, I have been on the phone to the DCI at [Redacted], they assured me that they will take a cradle to grave statement involving all your allegations and the once and that is it". I said, "Okay, fine."

And what happened there – have you read my letter to [Redacted]? What happened there was, yes, they wanted to get me on my own, they said, "Come to the scene, let us take a look at where it was". We were not there for very long, and then it was off to this pub car park, where I was there for half an hour of them just questioning and interrogating me, that they are not going to be taking a statement of all my allegations, and that I have been misled, that it is not normal, that it would go to three different courts anyway, that you would not have it that one force can actually take a whole statement when offences have taken place in different locations, et cetera, with [Redacted] and [Redacted], Met. And so it went on.

So I found myself in this vulnerable position again, I am in the back of the car, it has got child locks, I asked them three times I wanted to go back home, I had – [Redacted] was there, because I wanted her to be with me while we were sorting this out. [Redacted], my partner, was also there, who I feel they viewed as being obstructive, because he was obviously getting frustrated by this point, that he wanted assurances. He wanted [Redacted] officers to say, "Will you please take a statement, containing all the allegations". He just wanted that assurance, but they were very much sort of like – needed to get me out of there, talk to me on my own, and then questioning me in this pub car park.

Miss Weekes: Can I ask you this: have you considered – you now know, of course, that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is now in post, and they do have an ability to oversee and supervise complaints and disciplinary matters that are raised.

Have you considered taking some advice about whether or not this second matter ought at least to be reported to them for their views as to how it ought to be handled?

Ms A: No, I have not. I had a phone call from DCS [Redacted], and I believe they are looking into the investigation. I also actually had a phone call from DCS [Redacted] at [Redacted], now he said to me – he is looking at victim care within the organisation, and he would like to meet with me. And I am actually looking forward to that, because I think that will be a positive meeting. He said he will be looking at policy, reviewing it, and maybe looking to see that maybe there should be policies in place in relation to how –

Miss Weekes: Victims are treated? Yes. That is just my suggestion, I also wanted to know, for the purposes of today, whether you had thought about it.

Just this final question, if I may: there are a number of women organisations within the Met, and there is MET-TUS, which is the unions who represent the Met. There may be good reasons why you have not, by the way, but I wanted to ask: have you ever gone to either of those organisations to say, "Look, this is how I have been treated, I would like some representations to be made to the Met?"

Ms A: No, I have not.

Miss Weekes: Just out of interest, were you aware there were women's groups, and did you not go for any particular reason?

Ms A: Actually, I was not aware that there was any women's groups. I have actually felt I am at my maximum capacity, if you like, because obviously I have done the submission to yourselves. I have got to give a statement to [Redacted] at some point.

Miss Weekes: It is all getting rather too much?

Ms A: Yes, I can only deal with it so much. I do want a positive outcome from it, and I do want – the one thing in relation to everything that has happened, it would be nice to think that something good will come out of it.

The other thing as well is in relation to the second one as well, I went to see occupational health last week, and I ended up getting upset, mainly because I am walking into a police environment again, and it is unfamiliar, and I just feel vulnerable again.

Now, she thought it was a good idea to go and see a psychotherapist at [Redacted], because she thinks I might be suffering with maybe post-traumatic stress or whatever, but I have actually been told that I cannot see anybody professional because, if this case goes to court, particularly court, I suppose, I would be viewed as – it would discredit me as a witness.

So it is almost like you are patched up, but you cannot sort out or get over some of these things, because of that. You end up getting very bogged down and, you know ...

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much indeed for helping me with those questions. I know it has been very difficult but I am very grateful for your effort. I think there may be one or two comments from the Chair.

Sir William Morris: A, thank you very much indeed. I do not wish to cause you any further distress, but at this just ask, I note on one of the correspondence, you sent a copy to the union. Are you a member of the union?

Ms A: I am, yes.

Sir William Morris: And you have asked their support in the difficulties that you have –

Ms A: Yes, I have spoken to the union, and they have basically – they are there for me if I need them.

Sir William Morris: They provide representation for you. And just one final point in terms of victim support, I understand the point about the various women's groups formed by different associations; save for those, are there any informal groups of buddying, as it is called outside in other sectors of the economy, where informally women who are distressed and concerned can phone up a buddy and have a conversation of support? Is there anything like that operating in the Met at all?

Ms A: Within the Met? I do not know.

Sir William Morris: Okay, well, thank you very much. Do you have any –

Sir Anthony Burden: No, only an assurance that Mr [Redacted] is taking matters forward now with some urgency.

Sir William Morris: That concludes the questions that we wanted to ask of you, but you will recall right at the very start I said that before you leave us, I would offer you the opportunity to make a closing comment or statement or whatever you wish. You do not have to, but it is a matter for yourself. So if you really want to make a closing comment to us, then this is the time when you should make it.

Ms A: The only thing that – I would just really like to say that I do hope something positive will come from it, and certainly just with the couple of meetings with Mr [Redacted] and also Mr [Redacted] as well, it is actually nice -- and it is reassuring to think they are taking this seriously and they will be looking at policy, and also to write or change policy where it is needed.

I think it is really just a question of actually talking to victims -- I mean, each victim is going to be completely different, and just talking to victims as to how they felt, and the impact that it had, and the possibilities of trying to lessen the trauma of it all.

Sir William Morris: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, can I just say thank you very much for your written submission, and indeed for coming in this morning, and thank you for the contribution that you are making in overall terms to our work, and we hope that from your experience, something good will come. So thank you very much.

Ms A: Thank you. (Pause).

On this website:

• Evidence: AA
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by AA, in her appearance at the Inquiry.