Ex-inspector gave bogus document to tribunal panel Officer ‘fabricated’ paperwork and ‘lied’
ALEADING police officer with a string of commendations has been accused of lying to an employment tribunal by providing bogus paperwork.
In a withering condemnation of former Inspector Jaswant Singh, tribunal judge Christopher Gaskell described the dossier as a “serious, deliberate and calculated falsehood”.
He and his panel also branded the 48-year-old a “highly unsatisfactory witness whose evidence was, at times, confused and inconsistent”.
Mr Singh, an inspector who served the police for almost 25 years, provided his own Major Incident Policy Document – a personal log of a missing person investigation that turned into a murder case.
The former officer did so as part of claims he suffered race discrimination at the hands of West Midlands Police and was subject to detrimental treatment for making whistleblowing allegations.
But in a judgment outlining his reasons for kicking out Mr Singh’s complaint, Mr Gaskell said the document was “false and a recent fabrication”.
The rebuke heaps more shame on a career that once shone brightly.
Mr Singh joined the force as a constable in 1991 and was promoted to inspector in 2004 after receiving five commander’s commendations. But in November 2015, a police misconduct panel sacked Mr Singh for failing in his duties during violence at a Stourbridge pizza parlour.
He told back-up to “take their time” while colleagues made urgent calls for help during the 2014 punch-up, then lied to cover his failings. He told colleagues to “calm down” despite a police sergeant warning over the radio that the scene was “going off like a bottle of pop”, the police panel heard.
Chairman, Assistant Chief Constable Carl Foulkes, said: “The panel is satisfied he deliberately lied to cover up his own failings on the night, and in doing so impugned the reputation of his colleagues. His actions fell well short of what could reasonably be expected of an officer of his rank and experience.”
The ex-officer’s employment case for racial discrimination, victimisation and detriment took place last summer and involved 14 police witnesses and 3,000 pages of evidence. The outcome has only recently been released to the press.
It focused on an investigation into the disappearance of an elderly woman and Mr Singh’s performance during the early stages of the probe.
Mr Singh produced a Major Incident Policy as part of his evidence purportedly backing his version of events.
But in his judgment, Mr Gaskell stated: “There was one aspect of the claimant’s evidence which we find was a serious, deliberate and calculated falsehood intended to mislead the tribunal. This relates to the claimant’s production on the eighth day of the hearing of a document – a Major Incident Policy document – not previously disclosed.”
When Mr Singh was originally cross-examined about his actions, there had been no mention of the existence of any Major Incident Policy Document and it had not been disclosed.
“However, during the hearing the claimant produced the document,” said Mr Gaskell. “It purported to corroborate his account of the events on June 28, 2014, and the missing person investigation.
“We find that the document is false and is a recent fabrication.”
Mr Singh claimed he had ruffled feathers by accusing the force of being seriously under-resourced during the 2011 riots. He also accused the force of being “institutionally racist”.
But the panel found police witnesses “clearly consistent and compelling”, while Mr Singh’s evidence was “confused and inconsistent”.