The Metropolitan Police has pledged to keep a number of officers, who are facing serious allegations including rape and sexual misconduct, away from public contact following a high court decision that annulled its policy of terminating the employment of officers who fail the vetting process.
An exasperated Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, remarked that the department has been placed in an “impossible situation” due to a case initiated by an officer facing unsubstantiated claims, including rape.
Rowley indicated his willingness to allocate funds to maintain the exclusion of officers he deems unfit for duty, proposing to keep them on special leave. Reports suggest that the Met anticipates this could cost around £7 million annually.
Claire Waxman, London’s victims’ commissioner, expressed her concerns that the ruling compromises women’s safety. In response, the government stated that it would contemplate enacting new legislation if the Met’s appeal is unsuccessful.
The ruling raises the possibility that as many as 96 police officers and staff, who failed the new vetting standards and subsequently either resigned or were dismissed, could be reinstated if they secure a favorable ruling from an appeal. Additionally, there are over 100 others undergoing vetting reviews, while 29 have lost their vetting status and are facing a dismissal process.
This vetting scheme was established after the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard by an officer on duty, and amid failures to identify the risk posed by Met officer David Carrick, who was involved in multiple assaults despite numerous unproven allegations against him.
Rowley criticized the Met Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, for bringing forth this case. He accused the federation of a serious misjudgment by attempting to “act outside the law.”
The high court ruled that dismissals without a proper hearing for those who failed the vetting process are unjust. Among those who had their vetting revoked and left the force were:
An officer accused of raping an ex-partner and implicated in two reports concerning the sexual misconduct of colleagues.
An officer who traveled to the US to meet a 13-year-old girl he connected with online.
An officer involved in an indecent act on a train.
Officers may be dismissed if a disciplinary panel finds against them. The Met had been pioneering the use of vetting revocation as a means to expel officers of concern when allegations did not provide sufficient grounds for termination.
A visibly frustrated Rowley stated, “Those we have removed from vetting displayed a pattern of behavior which indicates that if they were to apply to serve in policing today, we would never accept them.”
“However, today’s legal ruling has left us in a dire predicament. We currently lack a way to eliminate officers from the Met who do not meet the vetting standards – those who cannot be trusted to work with women or enter the homes of vulnerable individuals.
“It’s absurd that we cannot legally dismiss them.”
Several elements are fueling the discontent among the Met leadership, according to sources.
There was astonishment that the force lost the case so decisively, having believed the high court judges would support them. Additionally, there is frustration directed at the federation for selecting a case involving an officer alleged to pose a sexual risk to women.
Sgt Lino Di Maria is a Met officer facing allegations of rape and inappropriate conduct towards women. The Met stated that “due to the significant pattern of adverse information associated with him, his vetting was revoked.” He denies the allegations and is currently on special vetting leave.
Rowley condemned the federation for their decision to take this case forward on behalf of an officer contending with rape allegations as “perverse.”
He confirmed that the officers affected will remain on vetting special leave, characterizing this scenario as a “ridiculous waste of resources” but currently the “least bad solution.”
Waxman remarked, “The Metropolitan Police Federation has failed its responsibility to represent all its members. Police officers and staff – particularly women – have rightfully expressed outrage at their fees being utilized to reinstate an individual accused of rape, domestic abuse, and indecent exposure. It is frankly disgraceful that the federation chose to support him.”
“I am worried that this outcome will jeopardize the safety of female officers, as well as that of their colleagues and the public.”
In the ruling, Mrs. Justice Lang stated that the Met was violating article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which ensures a fair hearing, as it did not have the authority to dismiss officers.
“Dismissal should be covered by regulations established by the secretary of state, leading to a contradictory situation where officers lacking basic vetting clearance cannot be terminated by the defendant,” Lang commented.
“This anomaly could and should be rectified through regulations.
“The process prevents the officer from having a substantial chance to contest a determination of gross incompetence. The panel merely validates a decision that has already been reached by an internal vetting system that does not adhere to article 6. When basic vetting clearance has been revoked, the only option available to the panel is dismissal.”
Matt Cane, the general secretary of the Met Police Federation, criticized the commissioner and his legal team for ignoring the evident flaws in the scheme: “I remain puzzled as to why those in Scotland Yard believed they could operate outside the law regarding police officers.
“As early as 2023, I contacted the Metropolitan Police, voicing our concerns about its legality … I made it clear from the beginning that any unlawful dismissal would not go unchallenged.”
A spokesperson for the Home Office stated that the government was “moving swiftly” to implement new regulations that would enable police forces to dismiss officers who are unfit to hold vetting, a system used to evaluate an individual’s suitability for police work.
