A police investigation into a teenage girl reportedly being harassed by a man fell apart after an officer failed to properly carry out an investigation.
Simon Wilson was a constable in Humberside Police and was in charge of an investigation in the summer of 2022 when the mother of a 14-year-old girl complained her daughter was being harassed by an adult male.
The man had been arrested and was on strict bail conditions. However, PC Wilson failed to act and those conditions lapsed. The mother later told a sergeant the man had called her daughter 137 times.
In another case relating to an unspecified offence, PC Wilson again failed to act. By the time the case was reassigned, crucial CCTV evidence had been lost which meant the case had to be dropped.
A misconduct hearing was held at the Magistrates’ building in Goole on October 16 which Wilson chose not to attend. He is no longer a serving officer within Humberside Police.
Complaint received
The hearing heard how a complaint had been made against PC Wilson, with his senior officer Sergeant Milner being contacted by PC Julie Edeson from the professional standards department (PSD) in September last year. She informed him that PC Wilson had failed to contact a complainant on two of the investigations he was in charge of.
In relation to the investigation into the unspecified offences, it transpired PC Wilson had not contacted the complainant in over a month and a complaint had been made. Sergeant Milner emailed PC Wilson, stating that he was disappointed PC Wilson had failed to contact the complainant despite multiple reminders.
A meeting between Sgt Milner and PC Wilson took place on September 17, 2022, during which a total of 35 investigations were discussed where PC Wilson stated he had tried to finalise them but had done it wrong. When asked why he hadn’t asked for some help he replied, “I don’t know”.
PC Wilson failed to get a follow-up statement from the complainant regarding the unspecified offences and explained he was diverted to a high priority matter. He told his bosses he had contacted the complainant but this was untrue and he had never kept her updated.
Vital CCTV evidence lost
Sergeant Milner contacted the complainant’s mother who was angry as she had not heard from PC Wilson after he arranged an appointment for September 12, 2022. She and her daughter had waited for three hours and PC Wilson didn’t show up or phone her.
The investigations were re-allocated but, due to the lack of investigation, the CCTV footage of the suspect had been lost which would have been key evidence in obtaining a prosecution. Sgt Milner felt the investigation was severely hampered by PC Wilson’s inaction.
In relation to the investigation regarding harassment of the 14-year-old girl, the suspect was on bail to PC Wilson and was answering his bail in seven days. But PC Wilson did nothing with the investigation. The suspect answered his bail but PC Wilson did not attend. The bail conditions lapsed and the suspect was then free to contact the girl again.
PC Wilson sent the investigation for finalisation, indicating there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. But one of his bosses, Sgt Deverson, rejected this and felt there was clearly harassment.
Alleged harassment victim called 137 times by suspect
PC Wilson had put an entry on the investigation that he had contacted the complainant’s mother on the phone on October 12, 2022 saying: “I have informed caller and the victim that there will be no further action due to the conversation being amicable”.
But the complainant told Sgt Deverson the conversation with PC Wilson had never happened. She then revealed the suspect had rung her daughter 137 times and that PC Wilson didn’t think that was harassment.
Sergeant Milner then discussed the investigation with PC Wilson and asked why he hadn’t done anything with the investigation to which PC Wilson replied “I didn’t know what to do”.
The panel at the misconduct hearing found the actions of PC Wilson amounted to gross misconduct.
The panel said: “Having regard to the above and all of the matters we have heard and considered we do find that this is a matter that falls within the definition of gross misconduct, due to the fact that the conduct was intentional, the impact on the complainants and victims of potential crime, the risks involved, particularly around safeguarding children and the impact and potential impact on public confidence and on the reputation of policing.
“We find that the course of conduct was intentional, deliberate and planned. This is evidenced by the admissions and the facts that we have found proven. The officer’s actions have also compromised an investigation due to the deletion of CCTV footage that would have been available had the officer acted correctly.”
The panel went on to say: “This matter concerns multiple breaches of the standard of honesty and integrity and clearly could have an impact on public confidence in policing. The most appropriate outcome is therefore a finding that the officer would have been dismissed had he still been a member of the police force and that this sanction does fulfil the purpose of the misconduct regime.
“Members of the public who report potential crimes, deserve to be treated with respect and for their matters to be assessed and dealt with correctly. We hope the outcome of this case will go some way to reassuring the public that matters of misconduct are dealt with appropriately.”
source: