How the ‘Dirty D.I.’ got away with terrifying women PCs into having sex for 14 years
any misconduct. In police interviews he admitted to a degree of flirting, and apologised on one occasion if he had been ‘letchy’, but offhandedly dismissed most allegations.
When presented with text and emails as evidence, he claimed he had mental health problems, insisted he had been misunderstood or sought to elicit sympathy by saying he was unhappy at home.
His was, perhaps, the response of an arch manipulator, and in the face of such compelling evidence of — at the very least — infidelity, one would have expected his wife to have deserted him.
Yet although there was no sign of either at their house this week, locals insist they still live together.
‘I’m absolutely horrified,’ said one former neighbour, who lived on the same quiet street as Hurwood until 2016.
‘He was always friendly and seemed to be a lovely family man. They looked like a perfect happy family.’ Another said he was an ‘amicable’ and ‘friendly’ neighbour, signing a passport for her daughter.
So was Hurwood a genius at covering his tracks — or did colleagues turn a blind eye? Can all 1,250 officers at Cleveland Police really have been unaware of Hurwood’s dreadful behaviour for over a decade?
When we asked Cleveland Police if anyone knew about Hurwood’s activities, they said the Crime Corruption Unit was ‘currently looking into what was known and by whom about what was taking place’ and that ‘due to on-going investigations’ no further comment could be made.
As to why no criminal charges were brought against Hurwood, Xanthe Tait, Director of People’s Services for Cleveland Police, said the case had been discussed with the CPS but that the evidential threshold for a criminal prosecution had not been met.
That decision is now under review in light of the panel’s finding.
Barry Coppinger, Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner, said: ‘Arrangements are being made for an independent force to undertake the review. Should the review suggest criminal charges are appropriate or should new evidence come to light, the decision can be revisited.’
Yet, this is a force with a history of scandal. One former female officer, speaking to the Mail on condition of anonymity, says there has long been ‘a culture of complacency when it comes to the predatory behaviour of officers’ and that ‘there is horrendous sexual predatory behaviour being carried out by serving officers that I believe is being actively ignored. When will this stop? Why is no one ever held responsible?’
In 2013, former Cleveland police officer Wayne Scott was imprisoned for 19 years for a series of rapes.
A subsequent independent report found the force had ignored his ‘deviant’ activities for a decade and his behaviour, which included boasting he had sex with vulnerable women, was dismissed by colleagues as ‘Wayne being Wayne’.
In 2017 Cleveland Police were forced to apologise again after admitting unlawfully using powers to investigate terrorism to monitor the phones of two former officers to try to find whistleblowers in their ranks, with Mark Dias and Steve Matthews each paid £3,000 in compensation.
One might have forgiven them for keeping a low profile in the wake of such controversies. Instead, this January, they appointed Mike Veal as their chief constable — the same chief constable who led the disastrous £1.5 million inquiry into alleged child abuse by Sir Edward Heath.
THEY
appear determined to control the narrative around this hearing, held both to ensure Hurwood can’t reenter the force and to maintain public trust. This March, after Hurwood had been arrested over allegations of sexual assault and suspended, some of the alleged victims were asked to sign confidentiality notices ‘to preserve the integrity of the investigation’.
Cleveland Police told the Mail the notices were a legitimate part of the criminal justice system, put in place for a week to stop the women talking to each other and thus ‘polluting’ the evidence. They insisted it wasn’t a gagging order but a legitimate part of the investigative process, and was dropped once potential victims were spoken to.
Nonetheless, in order to be privy to a pre-hearing briefing last week, journalists had to sign an agreement confirming they would be subject to ‘sanction’ should they discuss any of its contents — even among colleagues — until the panel had made their determination.
Their Communications Department, meanwhile, refused to so much as pass on requests for interviews with witnesses, most of whom, presumably, still work for the police.
Of course, this might be to protect their privacy. Or it might be out of concern for what they might say. Hurwood, meanwhile, was unavailable for comment; his wife apparently by his side but his facade as a family man forever shattered, leaving countless young, vulnerable women in his wake.