Sacked officers 'effectively concealed' strangling

The force's head of professional standards said there was "no place for them in policing"

Two police officers have been sacked without notice after they "effectively concealed" the strangling of a vulnerable woman.

James Stone and Daniel Sweet committed gross misconduct while attending a drugs-related robbery in an alley in Bristol, a tribunal panel ruled.

The former PCs failed to investigate the case and acted like “minicab drivers”, taking the victim back to hospital where she was an inpatient, the Avon & Somerset Police misconduct hearing was told.

The hearing's chair said although both men were of good character their lack of action had “effectively concealed the wrongdoing” of the perpetrator.

According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, the officers were called to the scene of an attack in Drummond Road, St Pauls, at 04:30 GMT on 11 November 2022.

Despite the victim telling them she had been strangled and robbed of £280 and a mobile phone by a violent man known to police, they failed to pursue any inquiries.

It was only when she later reported the assault that an investigation was started and it emerged the constables had neither recorded the crime, nor taken any notes, nor marked their bodyworn camera video as containing evidence.

Barrister Alan Jenkins, representing the police force, said this would have been “a gift for the defence” had the case gone to court, which it did not as the victim withdrew her complaint.

He said Mr Stone took 76 days to submit a statement about what had happened, despite half a dozen reminders from the officer in charge of the case. Mr Sweet took 96 days to submit his statement.

Both denied breaching standards of professional behaviour for police officers in terms of honesty and integrity, duties and responsibilities, and discreditable conduct, but the panel found these proven.

The panel’s chair Peter Cadman said the officers were responsible for operational dishonesty.

He said they had “effectively concealed the wrongdoing” of the perpetrator in terms of drug dealing and violence against women, in this case a “highly vulnerable victim”.

During the hearing at force headquarters in Portishead, Mr Sweet admitted making mistakes in handling the case but said the victim's welfare was his priority. He also said it would not have been appropriate to take a statement at the time because she was under the influence of drugs.

Mr Stone claimed he had not heard the woman mention the attack because he was focused on driving the police car and was wearing a radio earpiece.

Mr Cadman said while there was “no positive action of a cover-up”, there had been a delay and “positive inaction”. The chair acknowledged both officers had both provided impressive character references and were of good character.

Lawyers for the men had argued they should be given final written warnings instead of dismissal.

Afterwards, the head of professional standards Det Supt Mark Edgington said there was "no place for them in policing", adding: "Honesty, integrity and diligence in the exercise of their duties are fundamental requirements for any police officer.

“The failure of these officers to fulfil what many people would see as the basics of policing – recording and investigating a crime – are exacerbated by their failure to support their colleague’s investigation."