Transcript of private session: Ms OO and Ms QQ

The names of these witnesses have been changed, and their submissions redacted, to avoid the identification of the individuals and any third parties.

Monday, 26 April 2004
12.15 pm

Sir William Morris: Good morning, and welcome to you both. Can I first of all say please make yourselves as comfortable as you possibly can, there is some water around, and when you are ready, we shall begin, as they say.

Fine. Can I first of all just ask how you like to be addressed; O?

Ms O: O is fine.

Sir William Morris: Okay, thank you very much indeed. Can I first of all thank you very much for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this morning, and thank you also for letting us have your written submission which we have found extremely helpful; brief, but succinct, it is very clear.

I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, any process of this nature may seem somewhat daunting, so I thought it might be helpful if I just set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning.

But first of all, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. My name is Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, but, as you can see, there are two other members of the panel: on my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as a former Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and distinguished career in the police service. On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC; Anesta is an eminent barrister, she sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She is also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

O, 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. Our focus is in fact 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 the policies, the practices, the procedures, the conventions, even, which govern the Met -- how all those factors operate and impact on individuals.

Although we are a public inquiry, we have decided to conduct this hearing, and some others, where we hear from individuals in private. The reason for this is that we are very keen to hear from individuals, like yourself, who have had problems with the way that the Met operates, but we also understand that some people might feel a little reluctant to answer questions if they believe that the MPS is in some way listening, the fly on the proverbial wall.

I hope that you will find the arrangements that we have made satisfactory, and I hope that you will feel confident enough with the arrangements to speak freely to us this morning.

Let me say that, although we are meeting in private today, we are a public inquiry, and that means it might be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about what you have said in writing or indeed what you tell us. However, if we decide to seek further clarification, then we will do so without in any way identifying your good self.

Also, let me assure you that we will try, if we find it necessary to seek further clarification, to minimise any inconvenience which such a course of action would cause you, and we would not seek further clarification without first seeking your permission.

The inquiry that we are conducting is inquisitorial, it is not adversarial in character or indeed in any other way. We are very keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice within the Met, rather than concentrating on criticisms of individuals or indeed the organisation.

We have no wish to go back over the details of your circumstances, because we have had your written submission, we have read it carefully, and we are very clear about the events.

What we want to do, nevertheless, is to ask you one or two questions which would enable us to draw on your experience in order to inform our work.

At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues will lead on our questions to you; the remainder of the panel may, and I emphasise "may", wish to ask one or two supplementary questions for clarification. When we have finished our questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make brief closing comments, if you so wish.

It is fair, nevertheless, that I should draw to your attention that a transcript is being taken, so that we have a proper record of the evidence given to us 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 all references to your name and any other personal details, in order that we can be sure that it contains no information which identifies you or any other individuals.

But before I ask Miss Weekes to lead our questions, for the benefit of the transcript, could I ask you, please, to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry?

Ms O: Certainly, I am O O, I am a PC, and I am based at [Redacted] police station.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, O. I will invite Miss Weekes to lead on our questions.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you, O. Thank you once again for your very helpful submission, which quite succinctly set out the nature of the very regrettable, very serious incident that you went through. I would like to summarise, if I may, that incident, because I do not intend to go back over the detail of it, but it will highlight the questions I would like to ask you, and these questions are to get your recommendations, your views of how you could have been better dealt with, so that another woman does not have to go through what you went through.

You joined the Met in [Redacted], and you went through, from [Redacted], a period of some six months, I think, unwanted sexual advancement and inappropriate behaviour by your line manager.

Ms O: Yes, that is right.

Miss Weekes: And it got so bad, on two occasions you were in fact indecently assaulted by him.

Ms O: Yes, that is correct.

Miss Weekes: Two of those incidents were witnessed by other officers, and a senior officer who was in a position to do something about it.

Ms O: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: I want to come back to that fact. He was investigated, and eventually disciplined, but the investigation took some two years to complete, and you waited all that time.

Ms O: That is correct, yes.

Miss Weekes: The sanction at the end for the findings of two counts of indecent assault was 13 days' pay. None of the other officers, or indeed the [Redacted] who clearly must have known and did witness what went on, were ever disciplined.

Ms O: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: And they have not been to date?

Ms O: No, they have not, and I still have to work with that senior officer.

Miss Weekes: I want to ask you this, because I think it is important for the transcript that I ask you this: you say in your submission that you were currently looking at work opportunities outside the service. Are you still doing that?

Ms O: Very much so.

Miss Weekes: Because that is, I think, an indication of how you have felt about what has happened to you.

Ms O: Yes, very much so.

Miss Weekes: I gather, and I do not want to guess, but you joined the police force because you wanted to.

Ms O: That is correct, it was a career I saw myself taking through until retirement.

Miss Weekes: Right, something you wanted to do.

Ms O: Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: And because of this, and only because of this, you are now looking for other work?

Ms O: Because of the way I feel I have been treated, I think it is absolutely disgusting.

Miss Weekes: There is no other reason why you are suddenly going to leave the force that you actively wanted and did join. Well, you have the panel's regret for that, that is all we can say, but I think we should say it publicly; I am sorry you have gone through that.

Can I now turn to the questions I would like to ask, and the first is about delay? Two years was an unreasonable length of time to wait.

Ms O: I believe so.

Miss Weekes: Why do you think that was?

Ms O: Because it is stressful, and a lot of people were involved, ie witnesses, the senior officer who chose to turn a blind eye -- but throughout the two years, I had to continue working with these people.

Miss Weekes: And how difficult was that?

Ms O: I am quite a strong character, I sort of knew I was in the right, and I am quite headstrong, and I continued to work, but there were people that I was aware of working for the other side -- when I say that, the line manager that was guilty of the indecent assault, initially, when it all came out, he was to be transferred to a sister station, which I was unhappy with at the time, but he was told to have no contact with me; he was served with a 163, I do not know if you know what that means.

Miss Weekes: Yes.

Ms O: And the condition on that was that he had no contact with me, and then 2.00, early hours of the morning, when I was in the control room, he came to the station, knowing there was only three people at the whole station, and let himself in the back door, and absolutely, completely frightened the life out of me, completely and utterly.

As a result, [Redacted], so he was not in the same building, but what he was doing was getting people that he knew to try and get statements from probationers on the team that I worked to say what a good person he was, good character, et cetera.

So I am having to work with people that are being approached to basically, for want of a better word, go with the other side, so there was always the element of I did not quite know who was going to be giving evidence on his side, but the unfortunate thing is I believe that people gave evidence not knowing the exact facts of what had gone on. People believed they were giving a character reference because he had held my hand, and I did not see the funny side of it, and that is the story that still goes on.

Because I have never stood up to people that do not know what went on and said, "This is what has gone on, blah blah blah", because I am a private person, and I believed I would have the support of the Metropolitan Police Service, so people actually gave character references not knowing the true facts of what had actually gone on.

And I find that quite difficult, because I think, if they had known the true facts, would they have gone along quite willingly and given that character reference? But I was told I was not in a position to go round telling people what has gone on.

Miss Weekes: Well, this is a public inquiry, and there is a certain degree of good common sense about having your full say, if you wish. One of the things that I think is quite important is your position and why you say docking somebody of 13 days' pay was totally inappropriate for what you went through.

Now was it just a matter of holding your hand? If you do not want to go into the detail, you do not have to --

Ms O: No, I do not mind, it has all come out through the discipline trial anyway. There were several cases; one case was holding my hand, and that was after the first indecent assault, so you can imagine, I now have a huge problem with this man coming anywhere near me.

The two counts of indecent assault, there was a comment made by the back door -- this is a line manager that I have recently met, never had any dealings with him, I do not really know him, he was recently transferred on to our team, and post comment, he has basically shoved his hand between my legs and made a further comment.

Miss Weekes: This is in the workplace?

Ms O: In the workplace, in full uniform, in front of several people, including an [Redacted] of the Metropolitan Police Service.

Miss Weekes: I think it was important just to have that said, because it would be quite regrettable if the impression given was that it was a matter of holding your hand. I do not want to dwell on that, but I think it was very important that it was made clear, because I want to come back to the sanction in due course.

Now let us look towards the future. If a line manager behaved in that way to a woman today, what would you say is the right approach to be taken? What would you have expected was a proper course to be taken?

Ms O: Well, from the line manager, I would expect instant action with regards to the person that had done it.

Miss Weekes: What do you mean by "instant action"? It may be possible for us --

Ms O: Well, actually even arrest him. I mean, it is an indecent assault. But personally speaking, and this really -- the reason I have come today is to give you my personal opinion of what I have been through; I would actually tell that female officer just to walk away and leave it.

I went through two years to get to discipline, and went through a week of absolute hell of giving evidence, in a discipline hearing where it is very, very one-sided, and I will go into that if you do want me to go into that, the outcome being 13 days' pay for two indecent assaults, six months of hell, from a man that locked me in an office. That was another incident.

Miss Weekes: That was another incident?

Ms O: Yes, that he was not found guilty on. He was found guilty only on the things that were witnessed, found not guilty on anything else.

Miss Weekes: So you feel that badly about the whole thing you would actually advise the woman --

Ms O: Hand on heart, I have got [Redacted] years in the police service, and I know how difficult it is for females within the service, if there was an officer that was young in the service, there is no way they would cope with the two years of the discipline procedure. They would just go under completely.

Miss Weekes: One of the things that we are exploring as a panel is the unacceptable delay for both sides, that is, the potential victim and the person against whom an allegation is made. It is unacceptable that matters like this are left, especially sensitive matters of indecent assault, for two years and three years.

One of the things that we are exploring is some form of statutory process that brings the parties to a table to give an account for why something is taking that long. I am just giving that to you in a general format.

Do you say that that is overdue?

Ms O: Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: Now the detail of it obviously has to be talked about and who would do it, but you know in your experience that a case that came to a criminal court would not be left sitting on a desk for two years without somebody asking questions; am I right?

Ms O: Absolutely, yes.

Miss Weekes: So no doubt you would be rather surprised that nothing happened in the two years to make any demands of anybody as to why it had to take two years. Did anybody ever tell you?

Ms O: No, but I think it is generally accepted within the police service that discipline procedures take a number of years. I think you would probably be more shocked if it took a couple of months.

Miss Weekes: But you do not know of any good reason as to why they do have to take two years.

Ms O: Certainly not. I fully understand that people may make allegations, and they fully have to be investigated obviously, I totally accept that, but I cannot personally see why it took two years.

It was bad enough for me, so for him, on that side of it -- I mean, I should not have any thoughts about him, but for him, for two years of his life, it must have been very, very stressful.

Miss Weekes: That is a very fair comment, because it might be you.

Ms O: Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: So this process, without going into the detail of it, will include a statutory provision that the Department of Professional Standards, who prepare cases, must give an account periodically for the process, how they are getting on, whether they need more time to prepare it, the reasons why they need more time, and that you, as the complainant, would have a right to be present when they make those applications, and you have a right to know exactly what stage they have got to in preparing the case, so you would want to know that, would you not?

Ms O: I would, yes.

Miss Weekes: You would have felt much better.

Ms O: I was not updated; throughout the whole of the two years, I had the odd phone call.

Miss Weekes: And there would also be improvement about communication to you, you would be entitled to know at what stage they are at, you would be entitled to know whether they are asking for more time, and you certainly would be entitled to know, at the first available opportunity, when they intend to fix the disciplinary.

So all these things we have in mind as being a vital, necessary area for reform; would you be happy, in relation to what you went through, that we take that on board?

Ms O: Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: Do you have anything to add to the question of timing?

Ms O: I just think it is very long overdue. How can a professional service like this take two years to investigate an offence? As you say, if it was a criminal offence, it would be in court, you know, done and dusted --

Miss Weekes: I expect most judges would have said, "Case dismissed".

Ms O: Two years is a very long time, a very long time.

Miss Weekes: Obviously there may be sanctions that have to be built into that system. Can I move then to the question of what should happen to officers? You have, and I am grateful for it, given me your personal, immediate reaction, that that man should be arrested, because, of course, you have in mind, as a police officer, that it is a criminal offence. Out there, in normal public life, if a member of the public was indecently assaulted, the man or the woman who committed the indecent assault would be arrested and that would be a criminal charge.

So you say the line manager, if it happened today, should be arrested?

Ms O: The person that committed the offence -- having gone through what I have done now, absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, yes.

Miss Weekes: One of the things that we have heard is often when officers do things, or they are bad performers, they just get moved.

Ms O: Everyone turns a blind eye. I think the common term within our service is upstairs collecting fares. That is a term that is quite often bandied around within our service.

Miss Weekes: We have not come across that. What does that mean, upstairs collecting fares?

Ms O: Basically they were there, but they choose to turn a blind eye.

Miss Weekes: So there is even a phrase for officers who get moved and sent up?

Ms O: Absolutely. I am surprised I am the first to say it, maybe I am the only idiot -- but that is a common terminology.

Miss Weekes: Well, we do not think you are an idiot, if you do not mind me saying, it is very helpful to know.

Obviously, it depends upon the seriousness of what the officer has done, and I know that you would agree with me about that, but if something serious has happened, as it clearly did in your case, should that officer ever remain in the workplace right next to the person who he has assaulted?

Ms O: Absolutely not, but it was not dealt with correctly, because the [Redacted] that witnessed it made reference to it before he walked off. There were several other officers there that, when it all came to discipline, decided they were actually upstairs collecting fares. It was two senior PCs that actually said, "No, this is what went on", and gave statements to that effect.

Miss Weekes: What should happen to the others who witnessed it, and the very [Redacted] who was in a position to do something about it? What should happen to them?

Ms O: Well, the [Redacted] that actually witnesses -- and when it all came out, said he did not know what I was talking about, but during the discipline hearing, it was evident that he was there, because the witnessing officers said he was definitely there, because he made reference to it.

Well, he remained on -- I had to work under him as an [Redacted] for several months, and then another incident occurred which was not connected with myself, but was connected with the [Redacted], and he was moved teams. But he now works on another team, for instance, the recent [Redacted] that we have had, we did not have an [Redacted], so that [Redacted] came in four hours early, so for four hours, I have got to work with a man that could have put a stop -- if he had dealt with it there and then, I would not have had to go through six months of hell with that man.

Miss Weekes: What should happen to him?

Ms O: At the very least, I think he should be disciplined, at the very, very least. He has never been -- as far as I am concerned, he has never even really been spoken to about it, and yet he lied, he said he did not know what I was talking about; he is an [Redacted], a serving [Redacted], and he said he did not know what I was talking about. But I knew he was there, and fortunately the two senior PCs that gave statements both said he was definitely there.

Miss Weekes: Who did you complain to about the fact that an [Redacted] condoned a very serious --

Ms O: I raised the issue with the DPS.

Miss Weekes: What did they do about it, O?

Ms O: As far as I know, nothing.

Miss Weekes: And who did you raise it with, please, at DPS?

Ms O: I am going to name one person, because she is the name that springs -- but it would have been her team. A [Redacted].

Miss Weekes: Did she come back to you and tell you that that was unacceptable, and that steps would be taken to deal with the [Redacted]?

Ms O: I think the general trend throughout the whole thing was, "We will deal with [Redacted]towards the end" -- well, the discipline came and went in December, and I have had no contact with them.

I mean, in the defence of the DS, it was [Redacted], she and her team were very, very supportive.

Miss Weekes: Nevertheless, nothing has happened to the [Redacted]?

Ms O: No, he is still there as a line manager.

Miss Weekes: Let us go to the sanction, 13 days' pay. I know from reading the regulations that that is actually written into the regulation as one of the regulation sanctions.

No doubt you have raised your dissatisfaction, which still remains, that that was an appropriate way of dealing with that sort of charge.

Ms O: There is nowhere I can go, there is no right of appeal on my side, there is no one I can actually speak up to and say, "How can this be right? He has been found guilty of two indecent assaults and he has been fined 13 days' pay". He has got the right to appeal. The whole discipline procedure is very one-sided. I could not sit in when it concluded, I was not even allowed to take my husband in when I gave evidence, and it was quite hard going.

My husband came into the building, and was escorted from the waiting room to the toilet, because they feared he may burst in, you know, and [Redacted] he certainly would not have done that.

And I felt very much like I was in the wrong being there; as I say, he has got a right of appeal, he was allowed to take references, you know, whatever; basically, that was the result, that is what has happened. Where can I go? I cannot go anywhere. I can only speak to my -- you know, my line managers on borough, and say how disgusting it is, but there is nowhere I can go.

I mean, if I was that way inclined, perhaps I could go to the media; that is not me, but I am sure the media would be quite interested to find out that a serving [Redacted] within the Metropolitan Police Service has been found guilty of these two offences and has been fined 13 days' pay.

Miss Weekes: Is there a rule that you were told about that excluded your husband from coming in and sitting with you for moral support?

Ms O: I took him up to the discipline trial and I was told he was not allowed to come in with me, and I had to fight, in fact, for Q, who is a Federation officer, because it was a really daunting environment. You know, I have got to sit there and go through some really personal things.

Miss Weekes: And you were not allowed your Federation rep either?

Ms O: I think we had to fight a little bit. They did accept it, did they not?

Ms Q: If it assists, the discipline hearings are held intrinsically in private, and there is written in that Federation reps can obviously accompany their member with them, but there was definitely -- we were told categorically that under no circumstances would her husband be allowed into the hearing, and I have to say, that is a regular occurrence, and sometimes it is a fight, when I am representing the victim -- we actually do have to ask the leave of the panel for the Federation representative to go in with the victim, and clearly, it is important that the victims are supported.

Miss Weekes: Absolutely, yes. But the rule does not specifically say it, it is just something that is done, you have to apply?

Ms Q: I have to say, I am not actually sure of the rule per se, but certainly, we have never, ever managed to do anything other than get a Fed rep in there, because we are frequently reminded that we are held in private.

Miss Weekes: That may be something I think you would like us to look at.

Ms Q: Yes.

Sir William Morris: Are you allowed to speak up on behalf of the person?

Ms Q: No, not at all. Literally, in O's case, O had gone through the whole of the discipline investigation, and the first she actually knew about the Federation and the help and support that we could give was when literally a friend of a friend contacted me, because they were concerned she was actually going to go and give evidence at this discipline hearing completely unsupported.

And really, I should have been involved a long time ago, and I could have done a lot of the checking and chasing up for her, because people in O's position just are not in a position to do it themselves.

So I came in very late in the day on this one, which was unfortunate.

Sir William Morris: I just want to be clear: you both were admitted into the room or the conference, but only O could speak?

Ms Q: That is right.

Sir William Morris: Are you saying that, as the person representing O, you could not speak on her behalf?

Ms Q: The term "representation" -- in actual fact, the DPS and the solicitor and counsel were representing O as the victim. I am really there as a support mechanism, and often, we just sit at the back in the corner, just so that the person knows we are there.

In cases like O's, it is the DPS that instigate the procedure.

Miss Weekes: That is right, they brief counsel.

Ms Q: Yes, they brief counsel; and that is where it goes, and O really becomes no more than a witness in that whole ball game.

Sir William Morris: Thank you.

Miss Weekes: But there is an obvious good point about why she would want somebody to sit with her throughout the process.

Ms Q: Oh, certainly.

Miss Weekes: I want to just deal, please, with actually what did happen to your line manager. You have told us that he was moved to a sister station, and he breached a direction given by the Department of Professional Standards, because they directed him not to get in touch with you?

Ms O: When it all came out and the DPS became involved, he was served with a 163, and they were unsure what to do with him, so they decided that he would go to [Redacted] police station, which is -- we call it a sister station. I work under the Borough of [Redacted], which contains [Redacted] and [Redacted] police station. We are quite separate, but we come under the same umbrella.

The issues I immediately had was that when we arrest people and take them into custody, if our custody is full, then our next port of call is [Redacted], and what they intended to do was to put him as [Redacted].

Initially, I raised my concerns in saying, "Well, hang on a minute, there are going to be situations where I have to go over to [Redacted], and if I walk through the door and I am confronted with him, I am not happy with that", but it never got that far, because he got served the 163, I think, on the Friday, and then on the Saturday, I was night duty in the control room at [Redacted], where there is only three of us in the whole building, and he would have known that.

Miss Weekes: And he came in?

Ms O: And he came in and stood at the back camera, face there, and the PC I was with sort of said, "Quick, hide in the interview room", and I said, "I cannot hide" -- I know it sounds pathetic, I said, "I cannot hide", but all along I clearly thought this man had mental health issues, he clearly was not right in the head, and I raised that throughout the whole of the discipline procedure.

So when he turned up and was staring in the camera, right at me, you know, all these stupid thoughts went through my head, what if he has come to get me? Because I had been locked at one point in an office by him where he barricaded the door, and that is the reaction, that is the gut feeling I had, I thought, "Oh my God, he is going to come and get me", so fortunately, what I did was called up on the radio to [Redacted] and said, "He is in the backyard", and he said, "No, do not be so silly, he is not", and I said, "You had better get yourself down here", and they stopped him outside the police station and took him away.

Miss Weekes: I want to just deal with two things that it raises. Is there a set procedure for when incidences of this seriousness occur, that there is an immediate urgent conference that involves the alleged victim in finding out from her what her fears and reservations are, what her timetable is, what her movements are, so that a proper sensible decision can be made about what should happen to the alleged perpetrator until discipline?

Does that happen?

Ms O: No, it does not, nothing like that at all.

Miss Weekes: And the same sort of question applies to the end result. At the end of a disciplinary, that person may or may not receive sanctions, but again, were you consulted about what should happen at the end of the disciplinary? Were you talked to about how you felt things had gone, wrong or right?

Ms O: No, I got a phone call with the result, and that was the end of the matter.

Miss Weekes: You know how you have a debriefing on a murder; you get a briefing at the beginning, you get a debriefing at the end, and the debriefing is for a very good reason, is it not?

Ms O: Absolutely, yes.

Miss Weekes: What is the reason?

Ms O: To raise issues and your thoughts; you know, maybe it could help people in the future, and say, "Well actually, throughout the whole of it, if you had done this, it would have made it better", or for me to sit and say, "Well, how can that be the right decision, 13 days' pay for two incidents of indecent assault, where can I go from here?", but there is nobody to speak to.

Miss Weekes: Has anybody tried to stop you leaving the force? Has anybody got you in and had a proper talk? Apart from, perhaps, the woman sitting next to you.

Ms Q: It is fair that there has been -- you were very lucky with your welfare officer as well, were you not? That was a senior officer at the station, and I think it is right that, at some stage, you did actually tender your resignation and they refused to accept it and said, "No, you need to think about this, it is a very big decision to make", and a knee-jerk reaction at the time that needed some time to think about it.

I think at the moment, O is quite pleased she did not make that decision at that time, but I do not think she has wholly decided about staying.

Miss Weekes: I have asked that, because one of the flagship things that we hear the Met say is they want to retain people who are of value, and they want to value women in the police force, and they do not want them to leave, so even when things go wrong, you still want to be valued, do you not?

Ms O: Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: Do you feel that has been going on here?

Ms O: The way I feel right now is I have been let down by the Metropolitan Police Service, hugely let down. I have given [Redacted] years of, you know, hard work towards the service, and the one and only time I have actually asked for help, or said, "This is what has gone on, sort it out, please", that was the outcome. In my opinion, it was disgusting.

Miss Weekes: Have you had a senior officer, and I mean a senior officer of rank, that has power and influence, talk to you about this appalling event?

Ms O: Yes, I have actually.

Miss Weekes: Has that helped?

Ms O: He is the one reason that I am still in the service, I have to be honest.

Miss Weekes: So there are some good eggs somewhere.

Ms O: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Just in terms of women generally and the way they are treated, if I may end up with this, if I can, this is obviously an appalling thing to have happened to anybody, let alone a police officer in her place of work. How common is this behaviour of the vulnerability of women and men that they work with?

Ms O: It is not uncommon. I think a lot goes on within the service.

Miss Weekes: Have you come across this before, in your experience of working with other women?

Ms O: What, personally?

Miss Weekes: Yes, have women complained about inappropriate language, inappropriate touching?

Ms O: Yes, absolutely. I have recently spoken to a probationer that has concerns with regards to a male line manager, and his inappropriate manner towards her, and I have tried the best I can to help her, but she is actually going to be leaving the service.

Miss Weekes: I want to ask you this: it is often rather important when there are minority groups, and women in the police force are still in the minority -- it is often important to have champions to champion their cause, and to take a front row approach to ensuring that that kind of behaviour is stamped out.

Do you know where the champions are for women in the police force?

Ms O: No.

Miss Weekes: Are there champions?

Ms O: Not that I know of. What happened with me, with regards to the discipline, is I had to put a stop to it, because if this line manager was doing it to me, and I am quite a strong person, God knows what he was doing to other people.

I know there was another complaint from another female officer, albeit it was not indecent assault, it was inappropriate language, which was part of my complaint as well, and he was found not guilty on that, despite the fact there was two female officers coming up with the same story.

Miss Weekes: This is a suggestion for future change: would you like to see and would you expect that someone like, for example, the Police Federation, a major leading women's association group, would actively find out about these situations and actively take them up with the departments that can do something about it; would you expect that to be happening on a regular basis?

Ms O: I am sure the Federation, as Q -- the Federation was not even mentioned to me when the DPS got involved, and I have never had cause to contact the Federation, so it was not something that jumped into my mind instantly, but I do believe they put up quite a strong fight. But personally, it was something that never occurred to me, to approach them.

Miss Weekes: I have asked because we have not received any evidence from the Federation that they specifically deal with gender issues on a regular basis, and they deal with these sensitive issues where women do receive bad treatment, where they are not promoted, so that is why I am asking you the question.

Ms O: I think the Federation role is very general, is it not? [Redacted] that. Thank you very much indeed, O.

Sir William Morris: O, thank you very much. Sir Anthony has one or two questions.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: O, just one or two points, if I may: you were a victim of sexual assaults. Were you treated as such, as you would expect a member of the public coming forward as a victim of sexual assaults to be treated, in a modern police force?

Ms O: Not really. I suppose one of the issues that was raised, when it went through discipline, was why I did not speak up, and I let it carry on for six months; well, it really was not a case of that. I tried to put a stop to it many, many times, and it was only when it became really common knowledge, and a lot of people thought it was quite funny, as to his behaviour towards me, they said, "Oh, he has obviously got a thing towards you". I have lost the plot now, sorry.

Sir Anthony Burden: Having reported it --

Ms O: Right, okay, sorry.

Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, the treatment you got in those early days of statement recording, support being provided, did you have the same facilities you would expect a member of the public to have?

Ms O: I probably must say I had quite good support, because I had a very good welfare officer who was a senior manager, chief inspector on the borough, who, to this day, has been totally, totally supportive, but I think I was perhaps lucky that I got him; I do not think it is a general sort of rule of thumb. I think I was just lucky I got somebody who is generally quite a caring sort of person.

Sir Anthony Burden: What about the attitude of DPS staff who recorded your statement, et cetera? I mean, was that the sort of caring approach that you would expect?

Ms O: I think it was very much a case of when the initial statement was taken, there was no real sort of concerns, because you are a police officer, and you are just doing a quick statement.

Sir Anthony Burden: You are tough enough to take it.

Ms O: But I have to say that the DPS have been supportive.

Sir Anthony Burden: Okay, thank you.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Just one question from me, and indeed for your Federation representative: is the literature freely available among the Metropolitan Police Service officers giving guidance, but also making it clear that offences like sexual harassment are just totally unacceptable in the service?

Ms O: I have never ever seen any literature personally, not to my knowledge.

Sir William Morris: You are saying there is no guidance --

Ms O: I have not known any training, I have not known the line managers to have any training or input with regards to that. You know, that is personal, I personally do not know of any.

Sir William Morris: Can you shed any light?

Ms Q: We obviously have the equal opportunities policy statement, but I think it is fair to say that in cases around sex discrimination and female issues, over certainly the last five, six or seven years, that has really taken a back seat in the service, and they have really concentrated on race issues, but for very good reason.

But in respect of women's issues, I think it is really, really right on the backburner at the current time.

Sir William Morris: So there is no five or six simple steps, "This is what you do"?

Ms Q: No.

Sir William Morris: And there is no general information making it absolutely, abundantly clear that that sort of behaviour is totally unacceptable in any workplace?

Ms Q: The only content is within the equal opportunities policy statement, that is it.

Sir William Morris: But you have to search to find that, I suspect.

Ms Q: I think at one time it was displayed on just about every noticeboard in the police station, but it is true to say that you actually have to search for them anyway.

Ms O: I cannot say I have ever -- at my rank, anyway, I have never come into any contact with any literature.

Sir William Morris: Is there any sort of body, support group so that someone like yourself, outside of the Federation structure -- someone like yourself, obviously in that situation, might want to talk to a buddy, a friend; is there any sort of support group?

Ms O: Not to my knowledge.

Sir William Morris: Okay, well, thank you very much, I have no wish to burden you further with the experience that you have already had to put up with.

Ms Q: Could I just make one -- I did speak to O before we came in, and there is one thing that needs to be understood by the panel, and certainly for the transcript. [Redacted]

Ms Q: That is right, yes.

Sir William Morris: Obviously we are very sensitive about the point you have just made. But O, during my introduction, I said that before we conclude these proceedings, I would offer you the opportunity, if you wish, to make a brief closing comment; if it is your wish to do so, then this is your moment.

Ms O: I just wanted to say that I have come along today because it is my personal -- I want to try and get across what has happened to me personally, and the outcome; what I went through was six months of sheer hell from somebody who was supposed to be in a position of trust, you know, not only as a police officer, but he is a line manager. You know, I not only had a problem with him, my next step was my next line manager, who was quite accepting of the behaviour.

What my concerns are is that it has come to discipline and the result is that he has had 13 days' pay, he has been moved to another borough, where he remains as a [Redacted] and a line manager. I am not allowed to contact that borough and say to them, "Do you actually know what this man has done?", because I know people that work on the Borough of [Redacted], and he has gone around saying, "Oh, some [Redacted] got the hump because I stroked her hand in the backyard, that is why I got fined". Now I am not in a position to go anywhere and say, "Actually, this is what has gone on". I am not even sure if the senior management on that borough know what went on.

All I know is he is now a supervisor on a team, exactly the same as he was when I was there, and there are going to be females on there, and there is nothing that I can do to make sure that these people are aware of what has gone on. I cannot even do that.

I just wanted to come along today to say the discipline procedure -- the outcome of it, to me, is not acceptable, there are huge problems, and I cannot see how the Metropolitan Police Service can try and positively recruit females when they obviously are accepting of that disgusting behaviour from somebody in a position of trust.

Maybe it is inappropriate to bring it up here, but I just wanted to come across with that.

Sir William Morris: Can I first of all say thank you for your written submission, and thank you for coming along this morning, and your courageous contribution to the Inquiry's work. We obviously will fulfil the comments that we made about anonymity, rest assured about that. And all that is left for me to say on behalf of my colleagues is, once again, thank you for the contribution that you are making to the work of the Inquiry. Thanks very much.

Ms O: Thank you.

1.12 pm

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > OO (26 Apr 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: OO	Previous Next	Views Print Accessible Actions Send
	Archive note 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. Page summary This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the private session with OO, on 26 April 2004. Sections available here: Transcript of private session: Ms OO and Ms QQ Questions by Miss Weekes Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Questions by Sir William Morris Alternative versions This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering. Content Transcript of private session: Ms OO and Ms QQ The names of these witnesses have been changed, and their submissions redacted, to avoid the identification of the individuals and any third parties. Monday, 26 April 2004 12.15 pm Sir William Morris: Good morning, and welcome to you both. Can I first of all say please make yourselves as comfortable as you possibly can, there is some water around, and when you are ready, we shall begin, as they say. Fine. Can I first of all just ask how you like to be addressed; O? Ms O: O is fine. Sir William Morris: Okay, thank you very much indeed. Can I first of all thank you very much for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this morning, and thank you also for letting us have your written submission which we have found extremely helpful; brief, but succinct, it is very clear. I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, any process of this nature may seem somewhat daunting, so I thought it might be helpful if I just set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning. But first of all, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. My name is Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, but, as you can see, there are two other members of the panel: on my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as a former Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and distinguished career in the police service. On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC; Anesta is an eminent barrister, she sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She is also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. O, 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. Our focus is in fact 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 the policies, the practices, the procedures, the conventions, even, which govern the Met -- how all those factors operate and impact on individuals. Although we are a public inquiry, we have decided to conduct this hearing, and some others, where we hear from individuals in private. The reason for this is that we are very keen to hear from individuals, like yourself, who have had problems with the way that the Met operates, but we also understand that some people might feel a little reluctant to answer questions if they believe that the MPS is in some way listening, the fly on the proverbial wall. I hope that you will find the arrangements that we have made satisfactory, and I hope that you will feel confident enough with the arrangements to speak freely to us this morning. Let me say that, although we are meeting in private today, we are a public inquiry, and that means it might be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about what you have said in writing or indeed what you tell us. However, if we decide to seek further clarification, then we will do so without in any way identifying your good self. Also, let me assure you that we will try, if we find it necessary to seek further clarification, to minimise any inconvenience which such a course of action would cause you, and we would not seek further clarification without first seeking your permission. The inquiry that we are conducting is inquisitorial, it is not adversarial in character or indeed in any other way. We are very keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice within the Met, rather than concentrating on criticisms of individuals or indeed the organisation. We have no wish to go back over the details of your circumstances, because we have had your written submission, we have read it carefully, and we are very clear about the events. What we want to do, nevertheless, is to ask you one or two questions which would enable us to draw on your experience in order to inform our work. At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues will lead on our questions to you; the remainder of the panel may, and I emphasise "may", wish to ask one or two supplementary questions for clarification. When we have finished our questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make brief closing comments, if you so wish. It is fair, nevertheless, that I should draw to your attention that a transcript is being taken, so that we have a proper record of the evidence given to us 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 all references to your name and any other personal details, in order that we can be sure that it contains no information which identifies you or any other individuals. But before I ask Miss Weekes to lead our questions, for the benefit of the transcript, could I ask you, please, to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry? Ms O: Certainly, I am O O, I am a PC, and I am based at [Redacted] police station. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, O. I will invite Miss Weekes to lead on our questions. Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Thank you, O. Thank you once again for your very helpful submission, which quite succinctly set out the nature of the very regrettable, very serious incident that you went through. I would like to summarise, if I may, that incident, because I do not intend to go back over the detail of it, but it will highlight the questions I would like to ask you, and these questions are to get your recommendations, your views of how you could have been better dealt with, so that another woman does not have to go through what you went through. You joined the Met in [Redacted], and you went through, from [Redacted], a period of some six months, I think, unwanted sexual advancement and inappropriate behaviour by your line manager. Ms O: Yes, that is right. Miss Weekes: And it got so bad, on two occasions you were in fact indecently assaulted by him. Ms O: Yes, that is correct. Miss Weekes: Two of those incidents were witnessed by other officers, and a senior officer who was in a position to do something about it. Ms O: That is correct. Miss Weekes: I want to come back to that fact. He was investigated, and eventually disciplined, but the investigation took some two years to complete, and you waited all that time. Ms O: That is correct, yes. Miss Weekes: The sanction at the end for the findings of two counts of indecent assault was 13 days' pay. None of the other officers, or indeed the [Redacted] who clearly must have known and did witness what went on, were ever disciplined. Ms O: That is correct. Miss Weekes: And they have not been to date? Ms O: No, they have not, and I still have to work with that senior officer. Miss Weekes: I want to ask you this, because I think it is important for the transcript that I ask you this: you say in your submission that you were currently looking at work opportunities outside the service. Are you still doing that? Ms O: Very much so. Miss Weekes: Because that is, I think, an indication of how you have felt about what has happened to you. Ms O: Yes, very much so. Miss Weekes: I gather, and I do not want to guess, but you joined the police force because you wanted to. Ms O: That is correct, it was a career I saw myself taking through until retirement. Miss Weekes: Right, something you wanted to do. Ms O: Absolutely. Miss Weekes: And because of this, and only because of this, you are now looking for other work? Ms O: Because of the way I feel I have been treated, I think it is absolutely disgusting. Miss Weekes: There is no other reason why you are suddenly going to leave the force that you actively wanted and did join. Well, you have the panel's regret for that, that is all we can say, but I think we should say it publicly; I am sorry you have gone through that. Can I now turn to the questions I would like to ask, and the first is about delay? Two years was an unreasonable length of time to wait. Ms O: I believe so. Miss Weekes: Why do you think that was? Ms O: Because it is stressful, and a lot of people were involved, ie witnesses, the senior officer who chose to turn a blind eye -- but throughout the two years, I had to continue working with these people. Miss Weekes: And how difficult was that? Ms O: I am quite a strong character, I sort of knew I was in the right, and I am quite headstrong, and I continued to work, but there were people that I was aware of working for the other side -- when I say that, the line manager that was guilty of the indecent assault, initially, when it all came out, he was to be transferred to a sister station, which I was unhappy with at the time, but he was told to have no contact with me; he was served with a 163, I do not know if you know what that means. Miss Weekes: Yes. Ms O: And the condition on that was that he had no contact with me, and then 2.00, early hours of the morning, when I was in the control room, he came to the station, knowing there was only three people at the whole station, and let himself in the back door, and absolutely, completely frightened the life out of me, completely and utterly. As a result, [Redacted], so he was not in the same building, but what he was doing was getting people that he knew to try and get statements from probationers on the team that I worked to say what a good person he was, good character, et cetera. So I am having to work with people that are being approached to basically, for want of a better word, go with the other side, so there was always the element of I did not quite know who was going to be giving evidence on his side, but the unfortunate thing is I believe that people gave evidence not knowing the exact facts of what had gone on. People believed they were giving a character reference because he had held my hand, and I did not see the funny side of it, and that is the story that still goes on. Because I have never stood up to people that do not know what went on and said, "This is what has gone on, blah blah blah", because I am a private person, and I believed I would have the support of the Metropolitan Police Service, so people actually gave character references not knowing the true facts of what had actually gone on. And I find that quite difficult, because I think, if they had known the true facts, would they have gone along quite willingly and given that character reference? But I was told I was not in a position to go round telling people what has gone on. Miss Weekes: Well, this is a public inquiry, and there is a certain degree of good common sense about having your full say, if you wish. One of the things that I think is quite important is your position and why you say docking somebody of 13 days' pay was totally inappropriate for what you went through. Now was it just a matter of holding your hand? If you do not want to go into the detail, you do not have to -- Ms O: No, I do not mind, it has all come out through the discipline trial anyway. There were several cases; one case was holding my hand, and that was after the first indecent assault, so you can imagine, I now have a huge problem with this man coming anywhere near me. The two counts of indecent assault, there was a comment made by the back door -- this is a line manager that I have recently met, never had any dealings with him, I do not really know him, he was recently transferred on to our team, and post comment, he has basically shoved his hand between my legs and made a further comment. Miss Weekes: This is in the workplace? Ms O: In the workplace, in full uniform, in front of several people, including an [Redacted] of the Metropolitan Police Service. Miss Weekes: I think it was important just to have that said, because it would be quite regrettable if the impression given was that it was a matter of holding your hand. I do not want to dwell on that, but I think it was very important that it was made clear, because I want to come back to the sanction in due course. Now let us look towards the future. If a line manager behaved in that way to a woman today, what would you say is the right approach to be taken? What would you have expected was a proper course to be taken? Ms O: Well, from the line manager, I would expect instant action with regards to the person that had done it. Miss Weekes: What do you mean by "instant action"? It may be possible for us -- Ms O: Well, actually even arrest him. I mean, it is an indecent assault. But personally speaking, and this really -- the reason I have come today is to give you my personal opinion of what I have been through; I would actually tell that female officer just to walk away and leave it. I went through two years to get to discipline, and went through a week of absolute hell of giving evidence, in a discipline hearing where it is very, very one-sided, and I will go into that if you do want me to go into that, the outcome being 13 days' pay for two indecent assaults, six months of hell, from a man that locked me in an office. That was another incident. Miss Weekes: That was another incident? Ms O: Yes, that he was not found guilty on. He was found guilty only on the things that were witnessed, found not guilty on anything else. Miss Weekes: So you feel that badly about the whole thing you would actually advise the woman -- Ms O: Hand on heart, I have got [Redacted] years in the police service, and I know how difficult it is for females within the service, if there was an officer that was young in the service, there is no way they would cope with the two years of the discipline procedure. They would just go under completely. Miss Weekes: One of the things that we are exploring as a panel is the unacceptable delay for both sides, that is, the potential victim and the person against whom an allegation is made. It is unacceptable that matters like this are left, especially sensitive matters of indecent assault, for two years and three years. One of the things that we are exploring is some form of statutory process that brings the parties to a table to give an account for why something is taking that long. I am just giving that to you in a general format. Do you say that that is overdue? Ms O: Absolutely. Miss Weekes: Now the detail of it obviously has to be talked about and who would do it, but you know in your experience that a case that came to a criminal court would not be left sitting on a desk for two years without somebody asking questions; am I right? Ms O: Absolutely, yes. Miss Weekes: So no doubt you would be rather surprised that nothing happened in the two years to make any demands of anybody as to why it had to take two years. Did anybody ever tell you? Ms O: No, but I think it is generally accepted within the police service that discipline procedures take a number of years. I think you would probably be more shocked if it took a couple of months. Miss Weekes: But you do not know of any good reason as to why they do have to take two years. Ms O: Certainly not. I fully understand that people may make allegations, and they fully have to be investigated obviously, I totally accept that, but I cannot personally see why it took two years. It was bad enough for me, so for him, on that side of it -- I mean, I should not have any thoughts about him, but for him, for two years of his life, it must have been very, very stressful. Miss Weekes: That is a very fair comment, because it might be you. Ms O: Absolutely. Miss Weekes: So this process, without going into the detail of it, will include a statutory provision that the Department of Professional Standards, who prepare cases, must give an account periodically for the process, how they are getting on, whether they need more time to prepare it, the reasons why they need more time, and that you, as the complainant, would have a right to be present when they make those applications, and you have a right to know exactly what stage they have got to in preparing the case, so you would want to know that, would you not? Ms O: I would, yes. Miss Weekes: You would have felt much better. Ms O: I was not updated; throughout the whole of the two years, I had the odd phone call. Miss Weekes: And there would also be improvement about communication to you, you would be entitled to know at what stage they are at, you would be entitled to know whether they are asking for more time, and you certainly would be entitled to know, at the first available opportunity, when they intend to fix the disciplinary. So all these things we have in mind as being a vital, necessary area for reform; would you be happy, in relation to what you went through, that we take that on board? Ms O: Absolutely. Miss Weekes: Do you have anything to add to the question of timing? Ms O: I just think it is very long overdue. How can a professional service like this take two years to investigate an offence? As you say, if it was a criminal offence, it would be in court, you know, done and dusted -- Miss Weekes: I expect most judges would have said, "Case dismissed". Ms O: Two years is a very long time, a very long time. Miss Weekes: Obviously there may be sanctions that have to be built into that system. Can I move then to the question of what should happen to officers? You have, and I am grateful for it, given me your personal, immediate reaction, that that man should be arrested, because, of course, you have in mind, as a police officer, that it is a criminal offence. Out there, in normal public life, if a member of the public was indecently assaulted, the man or the woman who committed the indecent assault would be arrested and that would be a criminal charge. So you say the line manager, if it happened today, should be arrested? Ms O: The person that committed the offence -- having gone through what I have done now, absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, yes. Miss Weekes: One of the things that we have heard is often when officers do things, or they are bad performers, they just get moved. Ms O: Everyone turns a blind eye. I think the common term within our service is upstairs collecting fares. That is a term that is quite often bandied around within our service. Miss Weekes: We have not come across that. What does that mean, upstairs collecting fares? Ms O: Basically they were there, but they choose to turn a blind eye. Miss Weekes: So there is even a phrase for officers who get moved and sent up? Ms O: Absolutely. I am surprised I am the first to say it, maybe I am the only idiot -- but that is a common terminology. Miss Weekes: Well, we do not think you are an idiot, if you do not mind me saying, it is very helpful to know. Obviously, it depends upon the seriousness of what the officer has done, and I know that you would agree with me about that, but if something serious has happened, as it clearly did in your case, should that officer ever remain in the workplace right next to the person who he has assaulted? Ms O: Absolutely not, but it was not dealt with correctly, because the [Redacted] that witnessed it made reference to it before he walked off. There were several other officers there that, when it all came to discipline, decided they were actually upstairs collecting fares. It was two senior PCs that actually said, "No, this is what went on", and gave statements to that effect. Miss Weekes: What should happen to the others who witnessed it, and the very [Redacted] who was in a position to do something about it? What should happen to them? Ms O: Well, the [Redacted] that actually witnesses -- and when it all came out, said he did not know what I was talking about, but during the discipline hearing, it was evident that he was there, because the witnessing officers said he was definitely there, because he made reference to it. Well, he remained on -- I had to work under him as an [Redacted] for several months, and then another incident occurred which was not connected with myself, but was connected with the [Redacted], and he was moved teams. But he now works on another team, for instance, the recent [Redacted] that we have had, we did not have an [Redacted], so that [Redacted] came in four hours early, so for four hours, I have got to work with a man that could have put a stop -- if he had dealt with it there and then, I would not have had to go through six months of hell with that man. Miss Weekes: What should happen to him? Ms O: At the very least, I think he should be disciplined, at the very, very least. He has never been -- as far as I am concerned, he has never even really been spoken to about it, and yet he lied, he said he did not know what I was talking about; he is an [Redacted], a serving [Redacted], and he said he did not know what I was talking about. But I knew he was there, and fortunately the two senior PCs that gave statements both said he was definitely there. Miss Weekes: Who did you complain to about the fact that an [Redacted] condoned a very serious -- Ms O: I raised the issue with the DPS. Miss Weekes: What did they do about it, O? Ms O: As far as I know, nothing. Miss Weekes: And who did you raise it with, please, at DPS? Ms O: I am going to name one person, because she is the name that springs -- but it would have been her team. A [Redacted]. Miss Weekes: Did she come back to you and tell you that that was unacceptable, and that steps would be taken to deal with the [Redacted]? Ms O: I think the general trend throughout the whole thing was, "We will deal with [Redacted]towards the end" -- well, the discipline came and went in December, and I have had no contact with them. I mean, in the defence of the DS, it was [Redacted], she and her team were very, very supportive. Miss Weekes: Nevertheless, nothing has happened to the [Redacted]? Ms O: No, he is still there as a line manager. Miss Weekes: Let us go to the sanction, 13 days' pay. I know from reading the regulations that that is actually written into the regulation as one of the regulation sanctions. No doubt you have raised your dissatisfaction, which still remains, that that was an appropriate way of dealing with that sort of charge. Ms O: There is nowhere I can go, there is no right of appeal on my side, there is no one I can actually speak up to and say, "How can this be right? He has been found guilty of two indecent assaults and he has been fined 13 days' pay". He has got the right to appeal. The whole discipline procedure is very one-sided. I could not sit in when it concluded, I was not even allowed to take my husband in when I gave evidence, and it was quite hard going. My husband came into the building, and was escorted from the waiting room to the toilet, because they feared he may burst in, you know, and [Redacted] he certainly would not have done that. And I felt very much like I was in the wrong being there; as I say, he has got a right of appeal, he was allowed to take references, you know, whatever; basically, that was the result, that is what has happened. Where can I go? I cannot go anywhere. I can only speak to my -- you know, my line managers on borough, and say how disgusting it is, but there is nowhere I can go. I mean, if I was that way inclined, perhaps I could go to the media; that is not me, but I am sure the media would be quite interested to find out that a serving [Redacted] within the Metropolitan Police Service has been found guilty of these two offences and has been fined 13 days' pay. Miss Weekes: Is there a rule that you were told about that excluded your husband from coming in and sitting with you for moral support? Ms O: I took him up to the discipline trial and I was told he was not allowed to come in with me, and I had to fight, in fact, for Q, who is a Federation officer, because it was a really daunting environment. You know, I have got to sit there and go through some really personal things. Miss Weekes: And you were not allowed your Federation rep either? Ms O: I think we had to fight a little bit. They did accept it, did they not? Ms Q: If it assists, the discipline hearings are held intrinsically in private, and there is written in that Federation reps can obviously accompany their member with them, but there was definitely -- we were told categorically that under no circumstances would her husband be allowed into the hearing, and I have to say, that is a regular occurrence, and sometimes it is a fight, when I am representing the victim -- we actually do have to ask the leave of the panel for the Federation representative to go in with the victim, and clearly, it is important that the victims are supported. Miss Weekes: Absolutely, yes. But the rule does not specifically say it, it is just something that is done, you have to apply? Ms Q: I have to say, I am not actually sure of the rule per se, but certainly, we have never, ever managed to do anything other than get a Fed rep in there, because we are frequently reminded that we are held in private. Miss Weekes: That may be something I think you would like us to look at. Ms Q: Yes. Sir William Morris: Are you allowed to speak up on behalf of the person? Ms Q: No, not at all. Literally, in O's case, O had gone through the whole of the discipline investigation, and the first she actually knew about the Federation and the help and support that we could give was when literally a friend of a friend contacted me, because they were concerned she was actually going to go and give evidence at this discipline hearing completely unsupported. And really, I should have been involved a long time ago, and I could have done a lot of the checking and chasing up for her, because people in O's position just are not in a position to do it themselves. So I came in very late in the day on this one, which was unfortunate. Sir William Morris: I just want to be clear: you both were admitted into the room or the conference, but only O could speak? Ms Q: That is right. Sir William Morris: Are you saying that, as the person representing O, you could not speak on her behalf? Ms Q: The term "representation" -- in actual fact, the DPS and the solicitor and counsel were representing O as the victim. I am really there as a support mechanism, and often, we just sit at the back in the corner, just so that the person knows we are there. In cases like O's, it is the DPS that instigate the procedure. Miss Weekes: That is right, they brief counsel. Ms Q: Yes, they brief counsel; and that is where it goes, and O really becomes no more than a witness in that whole ball game. Sir William Morris: Thank you. Miss Weekes: But there is an obvious good point about why she would want somebody to sit with her throughout the process. Ms Q: Oh, certainly. Miss Weekes: I want to just deal, please, with actually what did happen to your line manager. You have told us that he was moved to a sister station, and he breached a direction given by the Department of Professional Standards, because they directed him not to get in touch with you? Ms O: When it all came out and the DPS became involved, he was served with a 163, and they were unsure what to do with him, so they decided that he would go to [Redacted] police station, which is -- we call it a sister station. I work under the Borough of [Redacted], which contains [Redacted] and [Redacted] police station. We are quite separate, but we come under the same umbrella. The issues I immediately had was that when we arrest people and take them into custody, if our custody is full, then our next port of call is [Redacted], and what they intended to do was to put him as [Redacted]. Initially, I raised my concerns in saying, "Well, hang on a minute, there are going to be situations where I have to go over to [Redacted], and if I walk through the door and I am confronted with him, I am not happy with that", but it never got that far, because he got served the 163, I think, on the Friday, and then on the Saturday, I was night duty in the control room at [Redacted], where there is only three of us in the whole building, and he would have known that. Miss Weekes: And he came in? Ms O: And he came in and stood at the back camera, face there, and the PC I was with sort of said, "Quick, hide in the interview room", and I said, "I cannot hide" -- I know it sounds pathetic, I said, "I cannot hide", but all along I clearly thought this man had mental health issues, he clearly was not right in the head, and I raised that throughout the whole of the discipline procedure. So when he turned up and was staring in the camera, right at me, you know, all these stupid thoughts went through my head, what if he has come to get me? Because I had been locked at one point in an office by him where he barricaded the door, and that is the reaction, that is the gut feeling I had, I thought, "Oh my God, he is going to come and get me", so fortunately, what I did was called up on the radio to [Redacted] and said, "He is in the backyard", and he said, "No, do not be so silly, he is not", and I said, "You had better get yourself down here", and they stopped him outside the police station and took him away. Miss Weekes: I want to just deal with two things that it raises. Is there a set procedure for when incidences of this seriousness occur, that there is an immediate urgent conference that involves the alleged victim in finding out from her what her fears and reservations are, what her timetable is, what her movements are, so that a proper sensible decision can be made about what should happen to the alleged perpetrator until discipline? Does that happen? Ms O: No, it does not, nothing like that at all. Miss Weekes: And the same sort of question applies to the end result. At the end of a disciplinary, that person may or may not receive sanctions, but again, were you consulted about what should happen at the end of the disciplinary? Were you talked to about how you felt things had gone, wrong or right? Ms O: No, I got a phone call with the result, and that was the end of the matter. Miss Weekes: You know how you have a debriefing on a murder; you get a briefing at the beginning, you get a debriefing at the end, and the debriefing is for a very good reason, is it not? Ms O: Absolutely, yes. Miss Weekes: What is the reason? Ms O: To raise issues and your thoughts; you know, maybe it could help people in the future, and say, "Well actually, throughout the whole of it, if you had done this, it would have made it better", or for me to sit and say, "Well, how can that be the right decision, 13 days' pay for two incidents of indecent assault, where can I go from here?", but there is nobody to speak to. Miss Weekes: Has anybody tried to stop you leaving the force? Has anybody got you in and had a proper talk? Apart from, perhaps, the woman sitting next to you. Ms Q: It is fair that there has been -- you were very lucky with your welfare officer as well, were you not? That was a senior officer at the station, and I think it is right that, at some stage, you did actually tender your resignation and they refused to accept it and said, "No, you need to think about this, it is a very big decision to make", and a knee-jerk reaction at the time that needed some time to think about it. I think at the moment, O is quite pleased she did not make that decision at that time, but I do not think she has wholly decided about staying. Miss Weekes: I have asked that, because one of the flagship things that we hear the Met say is they want to retain people who are of value, and they want to value women in the police force, and they do not want them to leave, so even when things go wrong, you still want to be valued, do you not? Ms O: Absolutely. Miss Weekes: Do you feel that has been going on here? Ms O: The way I feel right now is I have been let down by the Metropolitan Police Service, hugely let down. I have given [Redacted] years of, you know, hard work towards the service, and the one and only time I have actually asked for help, or said, "This is what has gone on, sort it out, please", that was the outcome. In my opinion, it was disgusting. Miss Weekes: Have you had a senior officer, and I mean a senior officer of rank, that has power and influence, talk to you about this appalling event? Ms O: Yes, I have actually. Miss Weekes: Has that helped? Ms O: He is the one reason that I am still in the service, I have to be honest. Miss Weekes: So there are some good eggs somewhere. Ms O: Yes. Miss Weekes: Just in terms of women generally and the way they are treated, if I may end up with this, if I can, this is obviously an appalling thing to have happened to anybody, let alone a police officer in her place of work. How common is this behaviour of the vulnerability of women and men that they work with? Ms O: It is not uncommon. I think a lot goes on within the service. Miss Weekes: Have you come across this before, in your experience of working with other women? Ms O: What, personally? Miss Weekes: Yes, have women complained about inappropriate language, inappropriate touching? Ms O: Yes, absolutely. I have recently spoken to a probationer that has concerns with regards to a male line manager, and his inappropriate manner towards her, and I have tried the best I can to help her, but she is actually going to be leaving the service. Miss Weekes: I want to ask you this: it is often rather important when there are minority groups, and women in the police force are still in the minority -- it is often important to have champions to champion their cause, and to take a front row approach to ensuring that that kind of behaviour is stamped out. Do you know where the champions are for women in the police force? Ms O: No. Miss Weekes: Are there champions? Ms O: Not that I know of. What happened with me, with regards to the discipline, is I had to put a stop to it, because if this line manager was doing it to me, and I am quite a strong person, God knows what he was doing to other people. I know there was another complaint from another female officer, albeit it was not indecent assault, it was inappropriate language, which was part of my complaint as well, and he was found not guilty on that, despite the fact there was two female officers coming up with the same story. Miss Weekes: This is a suggestion for future change: would you like to see and would you expect that someone like, for example, the Police Federation, a major leading women's association group, would actively find out about these situations and actively take them up with the departments that can do something about it; would you expect that to be happening on a regular basis? Ms O: I am sure the Federation, as Q -- the Federation was not even mentioned to me when the DPS got involved, and I have never had cause to contact the Federation, so it was not something that jumped into my mind instantly, but I do believe they put up quite a strong fight. But personally, it was something that never occurred to me, to approach them. Miss Weekes: I have asked because we have not received any evidence from the Federation that they specifically deal with gender issues on a regular basis, and they deal with these sensitive issues where women do receive bad treatment, where they are not promoted, so that is why I am asking you the question. Ms O: I think the Federation role is very general, is it not? [Redacted] that. Thank you very much indeed, O. Sir William Morris: O, thank you very much. Sir Anthony has one or two questions. Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Sir Anthony Burden: O, just one or two points, if I may: you were a victim of sexual assaults. Were you treated as such, as you would expect a member of the public coming forward as a victim of sexual assaults to be treated, in a modern police force? Ms O: Not really. I suppose one of the issues that was raised, when it went through discipline, was why I did not speak up, and I let it carry on for six months; well, it really was not a case of that. I tried to put a stop to it many, many times, and it was only when it became really common knowledge, and a lot of people thought it was quite funny, as to his behaviour towards me, they said, "Oh, he has obviously got a thing towards you". I have lost the plot now, sorry. Sir Anthony Burden: Having reported it -- Ms O: Right, okay, sorry. Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, the treatment you got in those early days of statement recording, support being provided, did you have the same facilities you would expect a member of the public to have? Ms O: I probably must say I had quite good support, because I had a very good welfare officer who was a senior manager, chief inspector on the borough, who, to this day, has been totally, totally supportive, but I think I was perhaps lucky that I got him; I do not think it is a general sort of rule of thumb. I think I was just lucky I got somebody who is generally quite a caring sort of person. Sir Anthony Burden: What about the attitude of DPS staff who recorded your statement, et cetera? I mean, was that the sort of caring approach that you would expect? Ms O: I think it was very much a case of when the initial statement was taken, there was no real sort of concerns, because you are a police officer, and you are just doing a quick statement. Sir Anthony Burden: You are tough enough to take it. Ms O: But I have to say that the DPS have been supportive. Sir Anthony Burden: Okay, thank you. Questions by Sir William Morris Sir William Morris: Just one question from me, and indeed for your Federation representative: is the literature freely available among the Metropolitan Police Service officers giving guidance, but also making it clear that offences like sexual harassment are just totally unacceptable in the service? Ms O: I have never ever seen any literature personally, not to my knowledge. Sir William Morris: You are saying there is no guidance -- Ms O: I have not known any training, I have not known the line managers to have any training or input with regards to that. You know, that is personal, I personally do not know of any. Sir William Morris: Can you shed any light? Ms Q: We obviously have the equal opportunities policy statement, but I think it is fair to say that in cases around sex discrimination and female issues, over certainly the last five, six or seven years, that has really taken a back seat in the service, and they have really concentrated on race issues, but for very good reason. But in respect of women's issues, I think it is really, really right on the backburner at the current time. Sir William Morris: So there is no five or six simple steps, "This is what you do"? Ms Q: No. Sir William Morris: And there is no general information making it absolutely, abundantly clear that that sort of behaviour is totally unacceptable in any workplace? Ms Q: The only content is within the equal opportunities policy statement, that is it. Sir William Morris: But you have to search to find that, I suspect. Ms Q: I think at one time it was displayed on just about every noticeboard in the police station, but it is true to say that you actually have to search for them anyway. Ms O: I cannot say I have ever -- at my rank, anyway, I have never come into any contact with any literature. Sir William Morris: Is there any sort of body, support group so that someone like yourself, outside of the Federation structure -- someone like yourself, obviously in that situation, might want to talk to a buddy, a friend; is there any sort of support group? Ms O: Not to my knowledge. Sir William Morris: Okay, well, thank you very much, I have no wish to burden you further with the experience that you have already had to put up with. Ms Q: Could I just make one -- I did speak to O before we came in, and there is one thing that needs to be understood by the panel, and certainly for the transcript. [Redacted] Ms Q: That is right, yes. Sir William Morris: Obviously we are very sensitive about the point you have just made. But O, during my introduction, I said that before we conclude these proceedings, I would offer you the opportunity, if you wish, to make a brief closing comment; if it is your wish to do so, then this is your moment. Ms O: I just wanted to say that I have come along today because it is my personal -- I want to try and get across what has happened to me personally, and the outcome; what I went through was six months of sheer hell from somebody who was supposed to be in a position of trust, you know, not only as a police officer, but he is a line manager. You know, I not only had a problem with him, my next step was my next line manager, who was quite accepting of the behaviour. What my concerns are is that it has come to discipline and the result is that he has had 13 days' pay, he has been moved to another borough, where he remains as a [Redacted] and a line manager. I am not allowed to contact that borough and say to them, "Do you actually know what this man has done?", because I know people that work on the Borough of [Redacted], and he has gone around saying, "Oh, some [Redacted] got the hump because I stroked her hand in the backyard, that is why I got fined". Now I am not in a position to go anywhere and say, "Actually, this is what has gone on". I am not even sure if the senior management on that borough know what went on. All I know is he is now a supervisor on a team, exactly the same as he was when I was there, and there are going to be females on there, and there is nothing that I can do to make sure that these people are aware of what has gone on. I cannot even do that. I just wanted to come along today to say the discipline procedure -- the outcome of it, to me, is not acceptable, there are huge problems, and I cannot see how the Metropolitan Police Service can try and positively recruit females when they obviously are accepting of that disgusting behaviour from somebody in a position of trust. Maybe it is inappropriate to bring it up here, but I just wanted to come across with that. Sir William Morris: Can I first of all say thank you for your written submission, and thank you for coming along this morning, and your courageous contribution to the Inquiry's work. We obviously will fulfil the comments that we made about anonymity, rest assured about that. And all that is left for me to say on behalf of my colleagues is, once again, thank you for the contribution that you are making to the work of the Inquiry. Thanks very much. Ms O: Thank you. 1.12 pm Internal links On this website: Evidence: OO Evidence provided by and documents referred to by OO, in her appearance at the Inquiry.
	Previous Next
Transcripts > OO (26 Apr 04)
© Copyright 2004, The Morris Inquiry. Standards compliant HTML. Designed and maintained by Netfundi