Robyn Williams, Black police superintendent, has won her employment tribunal

[dianebrewster]

Very pleased to hear this - there's so much about this case that is worrying. A senior, decorated, black woman in the Met received a child abuse video in a WhatsApp group. She says she never opened it (I have WhatsApp groups like that, where I don't open random videos). The trial jury didn't believe her (I do) and she was convicted. The Met fired her.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/16/black-met-police-chief-wins-her-job-back-after-tribunal-says-sacking-was-unfair

Given how many slaps on the wrist we see given out to white males who actively seek out child abuse online this case just screams misogyny and racism to me.

@KimikosNightmare I totally agree. Whilst I think she may have been unfairly targeted boy did she make it easy.

I'm not defending the sister, for what's it's worth. I think her actions were reckless and stupid, that sending this image to 17 people would compound the trauma of the child at the heart of this case and she put her sister in an invidious position to boot. Total idiot.

Thank goodness for that, it was a travesty of justice.

• I'm not defending her sister, btw, that was definitely reckless and stupid. But totally unfair on Robyn Williams.

@ArabellaScott

- I'm not defending her sister, btw, that was definitely reckless and stupid. But totally unfair on Robyn Williams.

It really was not a travesty of justice. She is a very senior police person. She must know the law on this. She chose to protect her sister who had committed a serious crime.

Does anyone seriously believe that after sending the video the 2 sisters did not discuss it?

I think the written warning she now has is fair but she still made an appalling err today judgement not reporting it.

Also she text her sister afterwards asking her to call her.

error of

My best friend who is a police officer, not a senior one, won't even go to a party where there might be pot because she knows she would have to report it or be compromised.
Covid with her has not been fun! We're probably the only people in the country who have stuck to the rules, even the batshit ones.
It is a part of their job and she really did cock up there.
And I am doubtful she's responsible for purposefully keeping child abuse, actual predators use the 'it is not mine, I was sent it, I was writing a book' all the time. It's why the police have to be strict about it because otherwise they'd never convict anyone.

Perhaps if the Met had spent less time pursuing this, they might have had more time to spend investigating the large number of rapists and sex offenders in their ranks:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/20/revealed-the-grim-list-of-sex-abuse-claims-against-metropolitan-police

I also found this a hard case going on the facts. BUT when you look at how the police act in terms of protecting its own in other circumstances (listen to File on Four about what happens when police officers are accused of domestic violence - including rape, even by female officers) and it seems highly likely she was held accountable in a way a white make officer would be less likely to be.

Now she's got her job back, but she still has a criminal conviction which means she can't effectively hold many operational roles. So it's not exactly a good outcome either for her.

[quote RoyalCorgi]Perhaps if the Met had spent less time pursuing this, they might have had more time to spend investigating the large number of rapists and sex offenders in their ranks:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/20/revealed-the-grim-list-of-sex-abuse-claims-against-metropolitan-police[/quote]
That is a amazing bit of whatabouttery. This needed an investigation she broke professional standards relating to a serious crime. It is absolutely right she was investigated she cannot be let off and indeed is now on the sex offenders register.

I think her being on the sex offenders register is completely fair - her first action should have been to protect that child being abused, not to protect her sister.

I think either of them being convicted of distribution of images is a bit harsh. But the police officer should have reported it. In not doing so she's allowed the child in the video to remain at risk. If she'd reported it it could have been investigated and potentially that child have been found. It's a safeguarding issue and shows a major lack of judgement. I think she should have been fired.

And I don't believe she didn't open the video and see it. If that was the case why the "call me" message to her sister straight after? I'm sure she'd say it was about another matter but on the balance of probability she was lying.

** It really was not a travesty of justice. She is a very senior police person. She must know the law on this. She chose to protect her sister who had committed a serious crime.

Does anyone seriously believe that after sending the video the 2 sisters did not discuss it?**

^This. She did this all to protect her sister. I have no sympathy for her.

I think either of them being convicted of distribution of images is a bit harsh

Are you serious? Imagine that it was your child in that video and Imagine how you would feel if the sister of a high ranking Met officer distributed (because there is no other word for what she did) to 17 of her pals on WhatsApp.

And clearly some of the other recipients felt very strongly that this was out of line and even though they were not police officers they felt obliged to report it - that is, after all, how it came to be discovered.

If a serving police officer refuses to take that action (where obliged to), it's everybody's problem. Child abuse isn't going away and the public needs to rely on law enforcement to do what they are supposed to do, including taking action if it is uncomfortable and compromises their family members.

Okay, thanks for thoughtful input. I should probably have waited to hear more on the subject before calling it a travesty of justice.

I had thought that her sister had sent the images/files because she wanted Robyn Williams to do something about it, in a police capacity, and I presumed Williams had actioned it and that is how it came to light. Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick completely.

To be clear, I do have sympathy for her. The situation was not of her making and was thrust upon her. It's not something you can prepare for or premeditate.

However, it takes a lot of training to be a police officer. And there's constantly new information and knowledge available to make sure their skills are up to date. And all of that training on the law, codes of conduct and ethics, conflicts of interest and procedures- they are supposed to take the place of your own personal judgment. That training is to protect the officer (from being compromised in a difficult situation) as much as it is the public.

She made the wrong call. She would have known on some level what the cost would be if the other people reported it, and if she had given it any thought she would realise that she herself would probably give a colleague a similar level of suspicion if they were protecting a family member instead of relying on their training.

'The sister was outraged and wanted the culprit hunted down by police.' - I had thought Robyn did report it. She absolutely should have.

I presumed Williams had actioned it and that is how it came to light.

That would have been great and would have been unlikely to cause adverse circumstances for Williams. What I understand did happen is another recipient went to the Police, the sister was identified, then the other recipients including Williams, and that's when the law went after Williams because of her position.

By the way, the sister, up until she was sacked, was a social worker

It was an unfortunate set of circumstances that happened in the context of strict laws, but the shocking thing was the lack of judgement in a number of respects by the sister and by Williams. That's what led to the convictions.

@ArabellaScott

Okay, thanks for thoughtful input. I should probably have waited to hear more on the subject before calling it a travesty of justice.

I had thought that her sister had sent the images/files because she wanted Robyn Williams to do something about it, in a police capacity, and I presumed Williams had actioned it and that is how it came to light. Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick completely.

The stick you have got the wrong end of is so far away from you it's still a tree growing in the forest.

As I understand it

She was a recipient of a whatsapp message sent to a group which one of the other recipients reported to the Police

Police on investigating found that she had received it along with others

It was found that the clip had been forwarded to the group by William's sister, who had recieved it from her partner. Williams was one of the recipients.

WhatApp, by default, downloads a copy of any sent media to the recipients phone.

A recipient is therefore 'in possession' of any media sent to them.

WhatsApp records showed Williams had the app open and the thumbnail of the video visible on her screen (and therefore 'available to look at') for 12 seconds.

Williams, her sister and her sister's partner were arrested at different times, but were all on trial together. The actions of Williams following that clip being received, following her sisters arrest, and the claimed reason Williams was sent the clip, were all explored at trial. Evidence included call records and records of meetings between defendants before arrest.

There are three statutory defences to the offence:
a) Legitimate reason for having the photograph in their possession
(b) Not seen the photograph and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent
(c)that the photograph was sent to them without any prior request made by them or on their behalf and that they did not keep it for an unreasonable time.

She went with defence B at her trial I believe, the defence fell apart when evidence of the text messages and meetings between her and her sister were presented to the court

Both of the others she appeared with accepted they had possession of the indecent image and she couldn’t rely on their support

she still remains convicted of possessing indecent images of a child