Met won’t reveal how many officers have criminal convictions
And its chief admits there could be another Couzens in his ranks
SCOTLAND Yard faced fury last night after refusing to say how many officers have criminal convictions for fear it could ‘cause them harm’.
A day after Britain’s biggest police force was shamed by a bombshell report revealing hundreds of officers were getting away with misconduct, it can now be revealed the force tried to hide the number of serving officers and staff with a criminal record.
When the Daily Mail submitted an enquiry under the Freedom of Information Act asking how many officers and staff have been convicted and for which crimes, officials refused and said it was ‘personal information’. The force was the only one of 43 forces in the country to hide behind data protection rules.
It said: ‘It would be possible to use the specifics of this data to narrow down individuals. To disclose information which could cause harm to individuals cannot be allowed.’
The decision raises further questions about criminality within the beleaguered force. Yesterday its new commissioner Sir Mark Rowley admitted he could not rule out the possibility that another Wayne Couzens was in his ranks, after being asked about the Met officer who raped and murdered Sarah Everard.
He acknowledged the force is riddled with hundreds of officers ‘ behaving disgracefully [and] undermining our integrity’ who need booting out.
When asked whether another Couzens could be serving, Sir Mark told LBC radio: ‘I can’t look you in the eye and say that we haven’t got officers who are treating women appallingly. Absolutely not. The evidence says that we do and I’m going to sort it.’
He wants powers to allow police chiefs to reopen misconduct cases against officers and staff whose fate is decided by independent legally qualified chairs.
He said: ‘It’s a bizarre, overregulated system. You can sack people in certain circumstances, and then they can be reimposed on the organisation.
‘We’ve got people who have committed serious criminal offences who we’ve sacked and have been reimposed on the organisation. They wouldn’t even pass vetting.’
He spoke out after a report
by Baroness Casey revealed how an ‘anything goes’ attitude in the force allowed scores of officers to remain in the ranks despite being accused of appalling crimes.
In a hard-hitting letter to staff last night in the wake of the report, Sir Mark wrote ‘the shame of being an organisation that is weak in protecting
its own integrity is hard to take in’ and warned officers would be sacked if they committed misconduct after a warning.
Referring to recent cases of officers being jailed for sharing grossly offensive messages, he wrote: ‘To avoid any doubt, you are not fit to be in the Met if you do any of the following: legitimise sexual violence in “banter”, suggest that colleagues are criminal because of their race or religion, display negative attitudes towards people because of their gender/race/religion/sexuality/disability and use discriminatory and prejudicial language as a form of abuse e.g. “gay” or “disabled”.’
Yesterday the Centre for Women’s Justice, a legal charity, condemned the force’s secrecy around criminal behaviour.
Harriet Wistrich, its director, said: ‘This should all be out in the open – if there are a significant number of officers and staff with dodgy convictions.’
The charity revealed it had been contacted by more than 165 alleged victims of police-perpetrated abuse, some of whom claim to have suffered at the hands of Met officers.
One woman in a long-term relationship with a Met firearms officer said she knew of ten crime reports made against him over a seven-year period.
She claimed the officer put a gun to her head in their home and abused her and her child, but no further police action was taken and she had to seek protection via the civil courts.