“Informant was sexually assaulted by a police officer about 9 years ago I was too young to know what was happening, he verbally sexually assaulted me in the Pol Stn. He was making it obvious that he was attracted to inft, he asked to drive me home. He asked me about personal life. Inf said the officer didn’t take no for an answer through emails, regarding taking photos of inft and taking her out on a date. No further details, awaits appointment call for further.”
“The IOPC has decided that this matter should be investigated and that it should be subject to a local investigation. [The Claimant] has alleged inappropriate comments made by an officer in 2011 which may amount to an abuse of position. It is necessary that this matter is investigated in order to consider the veracity of the allegations and consider whether there has been any breach of the standards of professional behaviour and code of ethics. Although I have considered the serious of the allegations which may amount to an abuse of position for a sexual purpose if proven, and may uncover a potential pattern of behaviour on the part of the officer, I have also taken into account the lack of evidence to support or refute the allegations and the lapse of time between the alleged incident and the alleged complaint which may cause some evidential difficulties. Due to this, I am of the view that this matter is suitable for a local investigation at this stage. If at any point following this decision the appropriate authority or person appointed to investigate identifies new evidence to suggest that Article 2 orArticle 3 ECHR may be engaged, or any other matter which might merit this decision being reconsidered, the matter should promptly be re-referred.”
“Discreditable Conduct Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty. Police officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any conditions imposed on them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice.”
“I am making this response based on the information provided to me as part of the F163 – including crime report 2333946/11 – and my own recollection of events from over 9 years ago. I do not have any original material to refer to, copies of emails or written notes. I can confirm that on the evening of23 October 2011 I was the on-duty Detective Sergeant in the robbery squad at Kentish Town Police Station. Following an incident of a phone being snatched, suspects were identified, and a number of enquiries were required. Due to the level of work involved and the pressure on the officers available, I took responsibility to take the statement from the victim of the crime. The victim was transported to Kentish Town Police Station and was brought to the open plan robbery squad office on the ground floor. I met the victim and began the process of taking a formal statement from her regarding the incident. This allowed other officers to continue with other tasks both outside of the station, in custody and in the office. … I proceeded to obtain all the relevant information, including [the Claimant’s] personal details, while trying to put her at ease and support her as a victim of crime. I asked [the Claimant] for her home address, contact details and living arrangements – checking if there was anyone she wished to contact, including a partner, friends and family – conscious that her phone had been taken from her. I also obtained the details of the occupation and level of injury as required to accurately complete the crime report and statement form. I produced a comprehensive written statement of events of the incident and competed all necessary elements for the victim’s details. The [Claimant] endorsed the statement and I arranged for her to be taken home by mobile officers while I continued to support and supervise the investigation. At no point during the interaction did I ask [the Claimant] if I could take her out for dinner. (I believe this can be inferred by the initial written invitation that is introduced as a fresh suggestion of a different type, rather than a continuation, repetition or alternative proposition). I have been provided with excerpts of a brief email exchange between myself and [the Claimant]. I accept the accuracy and veracity of the details provided and confirm that I was responsible for sending the messages from my police account… My message [sic] are wholly inappropriate and inexcusable. I can confirm that I did not ever email [the Claimant] again. My only other interaction with [the Claimant] since the final email was when she proactively contacted me and left a message several weeks later as she wished for my assistance following a burglary, or similar offence, at either her address in Camden or one connected to her (from memory). Following the message, I made suitable enquiries to ensure that the matter had been appropriate recorded and was being progressed. I believe I left [the Claimant] a message to that effect but had no further involvement. That is the last time there has been any interaction of any type between myself and [the Claimant] in the subsequent 9 years. DC Matt Isles continued to manage the original investigation under my supervision and dealt with any aspect of victim support or contact. The investigation was thorough and diligent. I fully accept that my email contact with [the Claimant] was entirely inappropriate, improper and unwarranted. I believe this behaviour is uncharacteristic and isolated incident – over the course of my 21-year service I have dealt with and supported many hundreds of victims professionally, compassionately and without issue. I have successfully held positions demanding the highest levels of professionalism integrity … I am embarrassed and ashamed by the content of the messages and offer a sincere unreserved apology to [the Claimant] for any discomfort and distress that I may have caused.”
“6.1.41 It is the [investigating officer’s] opinion that DCI Mason’s conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour. DCI Mason has a case to answer at the level of Gross Misconduct. In the College of Policing Guidance breaches of power imbalance are aggravated where the member of public is particularly vulnerable … There are no other reported misconduct allegations of this type in relation to DCI Mason.”
“There was nothing unusual about the DCI Mason taking the witness statement from [the Claimant]. A suspect had been arrested and there were other suspects at large, so T/DC Isles would have been very busy dealing with the prisoner in custody, a s. 18 search and other matters.”
“When taking a witness statement, officers will ordinarily ask any witness what their occupation is as this should be included in the statement. DCI Mason believed that [the Claimant] explained that she was employed at the Playboy Club which led to a discussion about her role there. The Playboy Club had re-opened in London a few months earlier, in June 2011. DCI Mason accepts that he may well have asked whether she wore the Playboy bunny outfit which is quite iconic. DCI Mason is now aware [the Claimant] found that question invasive and apologises for having asked about her outfit. … DCI Mason would have asked if [the Claimant] had a boyfriend, or who she lived with because, as a victim, of crime, he would have been concerned about welfare issues and whether someone was available to look after her at home. DCI Mason did not ask [the Claimant] out for dinner that evening and he would not have been available to go out for dinner that evening as he was working a late shift from 2pm to 10pm. However, it is accepted that in emails the next day he invited her for a drink, which it is accepted was inappropriate.”
“It is accepted that this occurred. DCI Mason did not ever see this Facebook post and was unaware of its existence until 9 years later when he was served with a Regulation Notice on14 December 2020 .”
“There was only one comment which could be viewed as inappropriately personal, namely in relation to whether [the Claimant] wore the Playboy bunny girl outfit. As [the Claimant] found this invasive it is accepted that this is a breach of Authority Respect and Courtesy.”
“This document is intended as guidance of recording of complaints on professional standards department data bases only, not as guidance for the handling of police complaints generally. The IOPC Statutory Guidance provides a framework for the handling of police complaints and is available on the IOPC website. …”
“… allegations of sexual conduct not amounting to sexual assault and including sexual harassment.”
“This includes any allegation that involves an element of any discrimination or is perceived to do so at any stage. Discrimination should be thought of in terms of treating people differently without justification through prejudice or unfair treatment of one person or group. Discrimination may be committed on the grounds of race, disability, gender, religion and belief, sexual orientation, or age. The specific grounds of discrimination should be identified and recorded for each allegation. When recording an allegation in this category, it is expected that a sub-category will be selected. If there are associated allegations (e.g. incivility or assault) these should be recorded separately. In addition, discriminatory behaviour may be identified by anyone receiving, recording, or investigating a complaint.”
“Conducting the Investigation”
“1.3 The guidance does not override the discretion of the person(s) conducting the meeting or hearing. Their function is to determine the appropriate outcome and each case will depend on its particular facts and circumstances. Guidance cannot and should not prescribe the outcome suitable for every case. 1.4 Instead, this guidance outlines a general framework for assessing the seriousness of conduct, including factors that may be taken into account. These factors are non-exhaustive and do exclude any other factor(s) that the person(s) conducting the proceedings may consider relevant.”
“4.5 When considering outcome, first assess the seriousness of the misconduct, taking account of any aggregating or mitigating factors and the officer’s record of service. The most important purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions is to maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the policing profession as a whole. This dual objective must take precedence over the specific impact that the sanction has on the individual whose misconduct is being sanctioned. 4.6 Consider personal mitigation such as testimonials and references after assessing the seriousness of the conduct by the four categories above. 4.7 There may be overlap between these four categories and/or imbalances between them. Low level culpability on behalf of the police officer such as a failure to respond in good time to an incident, can result in significant harm. Equally an officer may commit serious misconduct which causes minimal harm to individuals or the wider public but may still damage the reputation of the police service. 4.8 Carefully assess the officer’s decisions and actions in the context in which they were taken. Where the misconduct has taken place on duty, consider the policing context and whether the officer followed the Colleague of Policing’s National Decision Model. Many police officers are required to take decisions rapidly and/or in highly charged or dangerous situations, for example, in a public order or other critical incidents, such decisions may carry significant consequences. Take care not to confuse these consequences with what the officer knew or could reasonably have known. 4.9 Way all relevant factors and determine the appropriate outcome based on evidence, independently of any views expressed by the media.”
“16. In my judgment this panel fell into error in the way it approached the sanction. The only way a court or anyone else reading the decision can be satisfied that the correct structured approach had been adopted is if either the panel identifies the structured approach that it is required to adopt expressly in the body of its decision and then explains how it has arrived at the relevant decision applying that approach. If that ideal approach is not adopted but it is apparent from the language used by the tribunal that in substance such an approach in fact has been adopted, then the court will not intervene. Obviously however the court will not guess or assume that a correct approach has been adopted if that is not apparent on the face of the decision. … 18. Although the panel states in the second and third line of its sanction decision that it has applied the principles in the guidance that falls far short of what is required in my judgment. It does not set out expressly or even refer expressly to the correct structured approach identified in Fugler summarised in the guidance even though the parties formerly cited Fugler to the panel. Even if the language used by the panel could be regarded as sufficient in the circumstances that of itself is not enough unless the reasoning that follows shows that effect has been given to the structured approach by reference to the purpose of sanctions identified in the guidance. The panel has identified certain aggravating factors and certain mitigating factors before then concluding that a final written warning was appropriate. By adopting that approach the panel fell into error because it did not attempt to assess how serious it concluded the misconduct to be. Seriousness is not a binary question. The focus of Chapter 4 of the guidance is on assessing how serious the misconduct is, not whether or not it was serious. Hence the reference for example in paragraph 4.15 to conduct that should be considered ‘especially serious’. The panel should have but has failed to assess the level of seriousness by reference to culpability, harm, aggravating factors and mitigating factors in the structured manner required by the guidance. Having reached a conclusion as to the level of seriousness displayed in circumstances of this case exhibited by the misconduct found to have occurred, the panel ought then to have considered sanction specifically by reference to the need to maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service, to uphold high standards, to deter misconduct and to protect the public. There is not a hint within the language used by the panel that this has been its approach.”
“The Panel has found that DCI Mason sought to exploit his chance encounter with [the Claimant] when he interviewed her at Kentish Town Police Station after she had been the subject of an attempted robbery. He clearly found her attractive and took a number of steps during the interview and the next day in the email messages to establish a relationship with her. His description of her looking amazingly hot and his admission in the email messages of being determined in his pursuit of beautiful women makes it clear that he was attempting to pursue a sexual relationship with her. This was such a fundamentally inappropriate way for him to have acted that the Panel are in no doubt that his behaviour constituted Gross Misconduct.”
“AGGRAVATING FACTORS 1. There was a sexual motive for the actions of DCI Mason. 2. He was guilty of a breach of trust in the way he dealt with Maria. 3. He continued his behaviour after Maria had suggested he was acting inappropriately. 4. He knew that his actions were inappropriate at the time but continued in his attempt to create a personal relationship with Maria. 5. His behaviour had an adverse impact on Maria in that it caused her to have much less trust in the police and not to seek their assistance subsequently. 6. Maria was the recent victim of a robbery and as a result was vulnerable. 7. There is a very significant level of public concern at the present time about the way in which police officers behave towards female members of the public. 8. DCI Mason has been found to have breached 3 separate Standards of Professional Behaviour. MITIGATING FACTORS 1. The misconduct was confined to a limited period of time over 2 successive days. 2. DCI Mason made admissions to most of the factual allegations he faced and admitted that his behaviour amounted to Misconduct. 3. DCI Mason had a further opportunity to attempt to create a personal relationship with Maria when she contacted him a few months later to report a burglary but he passed the investigation on to other officers. 4. DCI Mason has shown significant remorse for his inappropriate behaviour. 5. The AA has provided evidence of the excellent service record of DCI Mason since 2011 6. There are no reports of any inappropriate behaviour or misconduct by DCI Mason since the events which are the subject of this case. 7. DCI Mason has provided 7 character references, all of which speak highly of this abilities a police officer. 8. DCI Mason has achieved a number of promotions since 2011, rising from Detective Sergeant to Detective Inspector in 2015 and to Temporary Detective Chief Inspector in 2017. He is now Detective Chief Inspector on the Flying Squad and was recently successful in a Superintendent promotion assessment centre. 9. In 2013, 2015 and 2018 he received commendations for his service in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The award in 2018 was from the Assistant Commissioner for extraordinary leadership, professionalism, resilience and dedication while providing counter-terrorism support to the investigation in response to the Westminster Bridge terrorist attack. 10. The events with which the Panel concerned today occurred almost 10 years ago when public concern about the type of behaviour exhibited by DCI Mason was less pronounced. 11. The Code of Ethics which assists police officers in understanding their duties and obligations was formalised and published in 2014. Prior to this he guidance to police officers was less comprehensive. OUTCOME In considering outcome the Panel bore in mind that the purpose of the police misconduct regime is threefold: 1. To maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service. 2. To uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct. 3. To protect the public. The Panel considered the 3 possible outcomes in ascending order of seriousness. The Panel had in mind that it should choose the least severe outcome which deals adequately with the issues identified. The Panel first considered a final written warning. This would remain in place for at least 2 years and no more than 5 years. The Panel has determined that the appropriate and proportionate outcome is that DCI Mason is given a final written warning. In considering the appropriate length of time that the final written warning should remain on the officer’s record the Panel took into account: (a) The seriousness of the conduct (b) The circumstances that gave rise to the misconduct. (c) The public interest (d) The mitigation offered by the officer including previous record of conduct. The seriousness of the conduct appears from the list of aggravating factors mentioned above. The Panel do not minimise the seriousness of DCI Mason’s behaviour. However, this was misconduct over 2 days in an otherwise blameless career which has spanned 22 years and includes several promotions and 3 commendations. The lapse of time since the events occurred is significant. It is now 10 years since DCI Mason attempted to pursue a relationship with [the Claimant]. The delay in this matter coming before this Panel is mainly due to the delay in [the Claimant] making a complaint to the MPS. The issues arising in this case are currently topical but were much less so in 2011. The matters referred to in the list of mitigating factors above provide strong reasons to support the imposition of a Final Written Warning of less than the maximum duration. However, the public interest in discouraging this type of behaviour is high. This type of behaviour and more serious examples of police officers abusing their position of trust when dealing with female members of the public have been prominent in the media in recent months. The Panel is mindful of this. In the final analysis the Panel must impose an outcome that is proportionate to the harm caused by the actions of DCI Mason. The outcome must deter misconduct in the future by members of the MPS. The outcome must aim to maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service. The Panel has concluded that a Final Written Warning for 3 years is the appropriate outcome. The more serious outcomes of Reduction in Rank or Dismissal without Notice would be disproportionately harsh in the Panel’s judgement in all the circumstances.”