Ex-police chief awarded £46,000 compensation
A former Bath police chief was awarded nearly £50,000 by a tribunal which found he was unlawfully followed by British Transport Police. Gary Davies, who was a chief superintendent in Avon and Somerset police, was unanimously cleared last year of five counts of sexually assaulting women on trains. Now a tribunal has thrown doubt on whether Mr Davies should have ever been charged which resulted in him going through a gruelling six-week trial at Bristol Crown Court. In May 2016 he was followed and had pictures taken of him while commuting on a train from his home of Taunton to Bristol where he worked at the city council as a senior official. The tribunal heard this surveillance was done without authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa). In a witness statement Detective Superintendent Nick Sedgemore said he had “no doubt” he would have granted any application for authorisation. He pointed to the prevalence of offences of sexual assault on trains and the high importance of investigating them thoroughly and rigorously. But the Investigatory Powers Tribunal said Mr Sedgemore failed to note that: n no proper statement had been taken from the complainant n the investigating officer had only the sketchiest idea of the details of the alleged assaults n no other enquiries of any kind had been made or even considered n there was no need to investigate Mr Davies urgently n the officer noted that there was “uncertainty in relation to the dates of the incidents” and that “he doubted the credibility of [the complainant]” “Against this factual matrix, the tribunal is astonished that Superintendent Sedgemore would have been prepared to grant an authorisation for surveillance,” the tribunal said. “The legal requirements for an authorisation do not come close to being met and it is disturbing that the senior officer entrusted with decision-making in this area has so imperfect a grasp of the relevant law. “The tribunal’s conclusion that no authorisation could properly have been granted and, if one had been, it would have been unlawful.” Mr Davies, who left Avon and Somerset Constabulary in 2012, said he was “absolutely flabbergasted” when he was arrested after a 30-year-old woman reported being touched on three occasions on a train between Taunton and Bristol. “Without the dubious and contaminated evidence obtained from the unlawful surveillance, Mr Davies would not have been arrested in public in front of other passengers with whom he had been travelling for many years and we conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that he would not have faced any charges at all,” the tribunal said. “Instead, the original complaint would have been properly investigated; Mr Davies would have been interviewed and given the opportunity to answer the allegations (which, most surprisingly, he never was); and we doubt the file would even have been submitted to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) or, if it was, would not have led to charges. “Instead, the stimulated complaints arising from the surveillance activity were judged to lend support to the original or earlier complaint and a prosecution ensued.” The tribunal went on to say: “The claimant is a man with an exemplary record and of unimpeachable character. He had been a chief superintendent in another police force and holds a senior and responsible post with a local authority.” It added it cost Mr Davies loss of income and promotions and had required him to work from home for nine months. In conclusion the tribunal said the breach of surveillance guidelines was “founded on ignorance that led to extremely severe and damaging consequences”. Mr Davies, who made 14 complaints to the police, was awarded £25,000 in compensation for the breach of section 28 of Ripa. He represented himself in the tribunal and was awarded a further £21,694 to cover his defence costs. Mr Davies said: “If I had not had the experience of being a former senior detective I would not have been able to prove my innocence or take on an organisation like BTP. That is worrying for ordinary people.” The deputy chief constable of British Transport Police, Adrian Hanstock, accepted the findings. A BPT officer involved in the botched probe had been issued with a gross incompetency notice.
Without the dubious and contaminated evidence obtained from the unlawful surveillance, Mr Davies would not have been arrested ... and in all probability would not have faced charges