police vs HR investigation

[soontobemummy]

Someone at his work has alleged that my dh has sexually harassed her (!) He's still not entirely sure of the details of the allegation, but we have talked about this at length and I totally believe that she is making this up. She reported this to the police who have questioned him (btw they insuated the allegation is at the level fo a bum slap). However, as they said they had a witness statement but were not willing to give him any information about this, under legal advice he answered "no comment" to every question. Now HR want to question him about the alleged incident. Does anyone know whether it is usual for HR to start their investigation whilst a police investigation is still ongoing (they released him on police bail to return in a couple of months)? Also, as dh has refused to answer police questions, can he also refuse to answer hr questions until the information which is being witheld is given to him? Can he ask for the HR interview to be postponed until the police have concluded their investigation?

[beeny]

He must get legal advice from an employment solcitor.I dont think HR should have investigation before cps decide thay are proceeding.

[DoubleBluff]

I would suggest tht HR cannot investigate until the Police have finished their investigation and made ad ecision to prosecute. But i would get legal advice first,

[grumpalina]

I don't think HR can until Police have completed their investigation as it could predudice the criminal investigation. If HR start disclosing information the Police have choosen not they could land themselves in hot water. However it may be that they have been in consultation with the Police and have been told what they can and can't do or say.

Your DP can refuse to answer any questions put to him by anyone he just needs to be aware what the consequences of refusing to answer are.

[flowerytaleofNewYork]

If the allegation has not been made clear then I would say he is not in a position to defend himself against it. Leaving aside the police investigation for a minute, if he is under disciplinary investigation he has a right to understand exactly what it is he has done wrong, the details, so that he can consider his response and properly defend himself. Without details of the allegation or witness statements, he is not in a position to do that.

So on that basis he should probably say to HR when questioned that unfortunately he is unable to comment or consider his response to the allegations because as yet he does not have the necessary details or information to do so.

If they aren't prepared to tell him about what he's supposed to have done, how could they question him anyway?

All the above comments are based on no knowledge of police procedures. I also have no experience personally of a disciplinary procedure in tandem with a police investigation, and I would be taking detailed advice from the company solicitors. I would hope his HR team are doing that.

Has he actually been formally notified in writing of the allegations?

[ruddynorah]

just asked dh (investigative officer in police) and he says the way you describe it doesn't add up. your dh should be crystal clear as to what has been alleged.

as far as the HR bit goes. i've never dealt with a harrassment situation with police proceedings, however in the situation of theft i have proceeded with a work disciplinary whilst police deal with matters their end.

is he still at work or has he been suspended?

[RibenaBerry]

Soontobe - Like RuddyNorah, I am a bit confused by this. If police question you about an incident, you should know what is alleged to have happened.

In terms of the HR investigation, police investigations take so long that it is common for the HR investigation to continue at the same time. The HR investigation is not looking to anything like the high standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the police would need to prove if they brought criminal charges. They are looking (roughly speaking) to the civil standard, which is to decide, on balance, whose version of events is most likely. Likewise, something could be sufficiently serious to merit disciplinary action at work, but not warrant criminal action (e.g making a suggestive comment) That means that, even if nothing goes ahead with the police, disciplinary action could at work. As a result, work don't necessarily need to wait for the outcome of the police investigation. They can do their own. It's just that, if there was a criminal conviction, that would be strong evidence if work then did a later disciplinary.

However, everything Flowery has said is correct (as usual ). If your DH is being questioned, I would expect him to know the allegations and have enough detail to respond - i.e. what is alleged to have happened, when and where (the last two might be approximate - e.g. a couple of weeks ago in the office). If HR try to question him without this basic information then, as Flowery says, he should explain that he cannot answer.

However, I have to admit that something isn't adding up for me. As Ruddy says, the police will explain the allegations to your DH when they question him. Likewise, a decent HR department will explain the allegations. I am not trying to say that your DH has something to hide, but are you sure he isn't trying to protect you from the nasty details of what has been alleged?

[DoubleBluff]

i am a police officer and for womwone to be interviewed there has to enough 'disclosure' for them to beable to answer the queationsput to them.
If there isn't enough, then the solicitor will advise teh suspect to go ' no comment'.
It might be that the Police haven't disclosed everythinng or may still have further enquiries to make, whichis why your Dh has been bailed.
They may question him whne he returns and put more of the allegation to him.

[soontobemummy]

ruddynorah - when the police questioned him he said they had her statemtent in front fo them but did not provide him with a copy, and they referred to bits of it when askign questions. They also told him they had a statement from a witness but they were not willing to discuss/ disclose this at this time. So he knows bits of what she is alleging, but not the whole story or the witness information. I don't suppose you could as your dh if he knows of any reason why the wouldn't be forthcoming with info from the witness statement, we're presuming it's because it is weak and doesn't prove anything in particular?

FlowerytaleofNewYork - would you advise that dh asks HR for copies of the statement from the woman who has made the allegation and the witness statement before they interview him as part of their investigation At this point they have not concluded their investigation to decide whether or not it will go to disciplinary. He has only received a letter from HR saying he is to be investigated for assault (not even sexual assault!) so far.

[soontobemummy]

gosh, sorry about the terrible spelling!!

[Judy1234]

How awful for him. He must try not to worry about it but must see an employment lawyer ASAP. If he is in a union they might pay. If not even check your house contents and other insurance policies as they often provide cover.

As said above the HR investigation may well continue immediately and plenty of people are not prosecuted but still sacked. Look at that gay man in the City who did nothing in a gym but had a colleague suggested he'd touched him - he lost his job and they found it was a fair dismissal!

Is there any reason why this woman would make up a slap on the bottom? Often in cases like this a lot of other women come out of the word work and it's the thin end of the wedge but if it's invented then no one else would have the same story from his past.

Has he ever brushed against her by accident in a way that someone might view as sexually suggestive when it had an innoncent explanation? Does she have any good reason to have a grudge against him sufficient to make it up?

[DoubleBluff]

Thye might not be revealing the witness statement because they may need to verify it first?
Normally if have a witness statemnt that SUPPORTS the llegation I would say.
Now I am confused.

[DoubleBluff]

was it uniform or CID who are dealing?

[soontobemummy]

somehow I missed some of the posts when I answered above, although I think I answered some of the questions anyway - dp does know exactly when and where this incident was supposed to have taken place, but he has not been shown the full statement made to the police, and says they read out bits of the statement but not all of it, so he knows most of the allegation but not the full picture. It was just him and her in the office at the time, the witness statement is abit of a mystery, that's why we think it's very weak evidence and the police witheld it.

ruddynorah - he's been suspended.

doublebluff - it does sound like there wasn't enough disclosure for him to answer the questions as he was advised to answer no comment by his solicitor. I'm not sure if uniform or CID as I don't know much about the different but if it helps, there was no warrant for his arrest, they invited him to the station and arrested him on arrival, and they waited about 2 weeks until after the allegation had been made.

[DoubleBluff]

Doesn't sound like thye are eushing to get it sorted.
If it is one word againnst the other very much doubt it wil go any where

[DoubleBluff]

Doesn't sound like thye are eushing to get it sorted.
If it is one word againnst the other very much doubt it wil go any where