Watchdog investigating Met Police’s dealing with of serial rapist David Carrick
A
watchdog has launched a number of investigations into the Metropolitan Police’s dealing with of serial rapist and former officer David Carrick.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating whether or not Met Police officers repeatedly did not take acceptable motion when legal allegations had been made in opposition to Carrick, who was handed 36 life sentences, with a minimal time period of 32 years – minus his time spent on remand – in February after changing into one of many nation’s worst ever intercourse offenders.
On Thursday the IOPC mentioned it was launching 4 separate investigations into the conduct of eight Met Police officers and one employees member over obvious failures to progress misconduct investigations in opposition to Carrick after legal investigations into his behaviour had been dropped.
The watchdog mentioned it has taken the “unusual step” after the Met Police didn’t determine any conduct issues throughout a overview the IOPC requested the drive to undertake final 12 months into any experiences which might have led to motion being taken in opposition to Carrick sooner.
IOPC regional director Mel Palmer mentioned: “David Carrick’s horrendous offending, which occurred over almost two decades while he remained a police officer, shocked the public and cast a dark shadow on policing, and we want to acknowledge the courage of his victims in reporting this offending.
Our review has identified repeated failures to progress conduct investigations when the Met’s DPS officers were advised that no further action was being taken by the forces carrying out the criminal investigations into Carrick
“The nature and extent of his offending also raised serious questions about whether disciplinary action should have been taken against him when serious allegations were made about his behaviour.
“The police forces did not record any conduct matters arising from their handling of allegations against Carrick, however we identified indications some officers may have behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings.
“Our review has identified repeated failures to progress conduct investigations when the Met’s Department of Professional Standards (DPS) officers were advised that no further action was being taken by the forces carrying out the criminal investigations into Carrick.”
Carrick, who joined the Met in 2001 earlier than changing into an armed officer with the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command in 2009, used his place to achieve his victims’ belief and scare them into silence.
He pleaded responsible to 49 fees, together with 24 counts of rape, however some had been multiple-incident counts – that means they relate to a minimum of 85 separate offences, together with a minimum of 71 sexual offences and 48 rapes.
One of the IOPC’s investigations will have a look at a 2002 allegation of harassment made in opposition to Carrick when he was a probationary constable by a former accomplice.
This allegation was investigated by the Met Police however no referral was made to its DPS – which investigates the conduct of MPS officers and employees – and Carrick was solely spoken to by his line supervisor.
The IOPC may even be wanting right into a 2016 report of harassment and stalking made by a former accomplice, which was investigated by Hampshire Constabulary, however no additional motion was taken in respect of the alleged crimes, however Hampshire made the Met’s DPS conscious of the allegations made in opposition to Carrick.
The watchdog will probe the dealing with of a 2019 report of a girl being attacked and dragged out of Carrick’s home by him, which was investigated by Hertfordshire Constabulary. No additional motion was taken in respect of the alleged crime however Hertfordshire made the Met’s DPS conscious of the allegations made in opposition to Carrick.
And the IOPC is ready to analyze the dealing with of a February 2021 report of a girl being raped by Carrick, which was initially recorded by Sussex Police and when Carrick was recognized because the suspect, because of the location of the alleged offence, it was handed on to Hertfordshire Constabulary.
In the newest three instances, misconduct investigations had been began by the Met’s DPS however weren’t progressed after forces investigating the allegations in opposition to Carrick suggested that no additional motion was being taken.
As a consequence, Carrick by no means confronted disciplinary motion for any of the allegations made and remained a police officer till his arrest in October 2021.
Ms Palmer mentioned the IOPC was “deeply concerned” to search out that in two of the instances, Carrick’s title was faraway from the Met Police’s system data after the legal investigations had been dropped, which meant that some earlier allegations made in opposition to him didn’t present up within the system and officers had been unable to construct a “complete picture of his pattern of offending”.
She added: “These were potentially missed opportunities to pursue gross misconduct investigations against Carrick, which may have led to his dismissal years before he was eventually arrested.
“We will now be investigating the conduct of the officers involved in these cases, and at the end of our investigations we will determine whether they should face disciplinary proceedings.
“The issue of forces not progressing conduct investigations against officers when no further action is being taken against them criminally is an ongoing area of concern that we highlighted nationally last year as a result of the joint investigation into the super-complaint regarding police perpetrated domestic abuse (PPDA).
“Where there is not enough evidence to pursue a criminal case, misconduct should still be considered. This is because there are different standards, procedures and evidential requirements for disciplinary proceedings compared to criminal investigations.”
The IOPC probes had been welcomed by the Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ).
Debaleena Dasgupta, the solicitor at CWJ performing for six of Carrick’s victims, mentioned it was “disappointing” that the Met Police didn’t determine that there may be misconduct issues arising.
She added: “It raises questions about the quality and depth of their internal investigation and their purported commitment to ensuring it does not happen again.”
The officers concerned, a few of whom have since retired and one who now works for one more drive, vary in rank from police constable to chief inspector.
Six of the folks being investigated had been, on the time, from the Met’s DPS.
The watchdog has additionally just lately begun an investigation into issues that Wiltshire Police officers did not correctly examine a report made in opposition to Carrick in 2016.
The Met Police mentioned it wrote to the IOPC in January urging them to overview the drive’s dealing with of issues referring to Carrick and welcomed the overview.
A spokesman for the Met Police mentioned: “The IOPC had previously determined that they would not review forces’ overall handling of cases unless evidence of misconduct on the part of individuals had already been identified.
“However, given the seriousness of Carrick’s offending and the understandable degree of public concern it caused, we were anxious that this position was reconsidered.
“We welcome the IOPC’s subsequent decision to carry out that review. In addition to organisational failings we had already acknowledged, it has now identified conduct matters for eight officers and a member of police staff in relation to their handling of investigations in 2002, 2016, 2019 and 2021.
“We are absolutely committed to identifying and rooting out those who corrupt our integrity and have no place in policing.
“We welcome the important role that independent scrutiny has to play in improving our practices in this area as we work determinedly to rebuild trust and confidence in the Met.
“In addition to the IOPC investigation, we are also continuing to support the work of the independent inquiry chaired by Lady Elish Angiolini which, as part of its wider terms of reference, is examining the extent to which Carrick’s conduct and crimes were known and investigated at the time.”