Top cop awarded £870,000 for being victimised... by his woman boss
A SENIOR policeman has won a secret £870,000 payout after claiming sexism by his female boss at Scotland Yard.
Chief Inspector Adrian Denby, 49, was removed from his post running the riot squad amid a politically influenced campaign to challenge its macho culture.
He was singled out by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Maxine de Brunner after she saw one of his male officers in a corridor with only a towel around his waist as he went to a shower room. She labelled the practice a ‘pet hate’.
She also started a corruption inquiry after finding beer in a fridge with a price list on it, raising questions over whether the unit was operating an off-licence.
Mr Denby was put under investigation for alleged malpractice, a move which effectively ended his career. He is currently on extended sick leave.
He took the case to an employment tribunal, which found he had been unfairly discriminated against. The Metropolitan Police then announced it would appeal.
Despite this public statement, however, the force then quietly agreed an out- of- court settlement, including a gagging clause, it emerged yesterday.
Incredibly, police lawyers agreed to pay Mr Denby almost £900,000 to compensate him for the salary and pension he would have received in the final seven years of his career.
It is understood the total sum also includes an unknown amount to fund a fresh business venture so the officer can forge a new career.
The total cost to the public, including legal costs for both sides and the bill for the tribunal, is believed to be around £2million.
One colleague said Mr Denby, who also served with police in Iraq and Afghanistan, was ‘ extremely bitter’ over his treatment. ‘He would pay back every penny to turn the clock back to a time when this had not happened,’ the colleague said. ‘ He has lost his career in uniform and he is very angry.
‘He has been to face the music but you have to ask what consequences there have been for the senior officers whose decisions got us to this stage.’
Mr Denby joined the Metropolitan Police in January 1993 and had been a chief inspector for eight years, after serving in Iraq in 2004 and the Afghan capital Kabul in 2008. He was awarded nine commendations, worked with counter-terrorism units and planned security arrangements for the Royal Family, including the Queen.
In September 2014 he was responsible for the Territorial Support Group, known as the riot squad, based in Paddington, West London.
The tribunal heard that when Mrs de Brunner visited as part of a ‘mission to drive out the macho culture’, she saw an unnamed male colleague in the corridor wearing only a towel around his waist on his way to the locker room.
Mrs de Brunner was so incensed that Mr Denby feared he was going to be removed from his position.
He was placed under investigation over alleged malpractice by officers in his unit, including fiddling overtime hours and operating an off-licence.
But a woman colleague of similar rank in another unit, who also came under investigation, was not subjected to similar measures.
The tribunal ruled that Mr Denby had been discriminated against over his gender when he was removed from his
‘Case was striking for its unfairness’
post in October 2014. He was also barred from applying to promotion to superintendent as suspension notices were served on four colleagues.
In her ruling, employment judge Tamara Lewis said his case was ‘striking for its unfairness’ and concluded that his treatment was down to his sex. She also highlighted how the case was marked by a ‘lack of transparency’.
The judge said that as a man, the claimant was viewed by senior colleagues ‘as part of the problem in a way in which they would not have viewed him had he been a woman’.
Mrs de Brunner retired in 2016 despite being under investigation over claims she arranged for more than 20 officers to take handcuffs, riot gear and truncheons to her son’s school fun day.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: ‘We have reached a settlement in this case. As there is a confidentiality clause in place we are not in a position to discuss further.’