Police ‘Officers failed robbery victim and tried to cover it up’

TWO police constables failed to investigate the robbery and strangling of a vulnerable woman in a Bristol alleyway and then tried to cover up their mistakes, a misconduct hearing was told.

PC James Stone and PC Daniel Sweet neglected their policing duties and acted more like “minicab drivers” by returning the victim from the scene of the attack in St Pauls to the BRI where she was being treated as an in-patient, but without asking her any questions about it or logging a crime, it was alleged.

They then took months to submit statements about what happened despite repeated requests from senior officers because they were embarrassed at how poorly they had handled the incident, the panel heard.

The pair deny breaching standards of professional behaviour amounting to gross misconduct.

Giving evidence on day one of the Avon and Somerset Police misconduct hearing at force headquarters in Portishead, PC Sweet admitted that on reflection he made errors but that he believed at the time he acted correctly because his priority was the victim’s welfare over and above investigating the robbery.

The officers were called to Drummond Road at 4.30am on November 11, 2022, after a 999 call about a woman screaming.

Barrister Alan Jenkins, representing the constabulary, told the panel that the female, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was a heroin and cocaine user staying in a medical high-care ward at the Bristol Royal infirmary and had gone out for a cigarette.

He said she got into a car with a man she knew who had a reputation for violence and that he drove her to an alleyway and attacked her, stealing £280 and her mobile phone.

PCs Stone and Sweet arrived to find her under the influence of drugs wearing only pyjamas and a dressing gown on a cold night, Mr Jenkins said.

He said they took the woman back to the BRI and that she said in the police car she had been strangled by a man who tried to kill her.

Mr Jenkins said: “Both officers completely failed to protect this lady.

“She was vulnerable but the officers failed to ask any questions or follow up any lines of inquiry.

“Both officers knew this was a violent man but failed to take any steps to apprehend him.

“They failed to protect the public. They made no effort to start or keep a record. They are acting like minicab drivers, taking her back to hospital, they’re not acting like police officers. What investigation had been undertaken by these officers? It would seem none.”

He said PC Sweet did not mark his bodyworn video as containing evidence and as a result it was automatically deleted weeks later.

PC Stone said in his statement that he was unaware of a crime because he had not heard the woman in the car as he was focused on driving, but Mr Jenkins said this was untrue.

PC Sweet, 31, a qualified hostage negotiator, told the hearing: “Welfare sat very much at the forefront of my decision making.

“She was slurring her words and mumbling. I was worried for her welfare. The protection she needed there and then was to go back to hospital. She was out in the cold. I had my thick jacket on and I was cold. She must have been freezing.

“On reflection I was so focused on welfare I almost viewed the crime allegations as secondary.”

He admitted he should have taken notes of her account but that her wellbeing took precedence.

PC Sweet said it would not have been appropriate to question her because she could not give a coherent account and that this should happen later.

He said he put the mechanism in place for the case to be investigated by asking the woman’s assigned nurse to include the assault in the medical notes so police could interview her when she was well.

“Given all my concerns put together, that felt absolutely appropriate,” PC Sweet said.

PC Sweet said he did not mark his bodyworn video as evidential because a crime report had not been made and he did not realise how quickly the footage would be wiped.

“I thought I had more time – I didn’t know it was going to expire,” the officer said.

PC Sweet admitted the threemonth delay in giving a statement was unacceptable.

Mr Jenkins told him: “You delayed making a statement because you didn’t have any notes, so to write this statement was going to be an embarrassment.”

The constable replied: “No, there was absolutely no intention with the delay. There was no embarrassment.”

The hearing continues.