Judicial review overturns Sarah Everard vetting scheme.

[Imnobody4]

Can't believe this.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/c2d87c58-6a5d-4214-8c53-1f3c23422a1a?shareToken=d6eba3ffb1f7384c02c9324e33f5e15f

Hundreds of Metropolitan Police officers who failed a new vetting scheme implemented after the murder of Sarah Everard could be able to remain in their jobs after the force lost a landmark court case.

Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Met, said it was “absurd” that officers who had not passed vetting could not be lawfully sacked following a High Court ruling.Sergeant Lino Di Maria brought a judicial review against the force after being stripped of his warrant card under the new process after allegations he raped a woman.

Sergeant Lino Di Maria brought a judicial review against the force after being stripped of his warrant card under the new process after allegations he raped a woman.

That is just appalling. People living in London have little to no confidence in the Met Police as it is.

WTF

I am a bit confused.

Were these allegations made while he was serving as officer?

And no criminal charges were laid?

Is it because they would lose too many officers? Shouldn't that be a bit of a wake up call?

I understand that you will get the odd false accusation but reading that list? He has been accused of everything except the death of Christ? How can so many unconnected people be saying similar things?

So I think it was overturned because the Met were abusing it to ‘sack by the back door’.

The police like any other job have a process for sacking people. If you are accused of an incident you will be redeployed/suspended as necessary while the investigation is on going and then a finding of misconduct/gross misconduct will be made.

The Met were abusing this piece of policy to simply remove peoples vetting and therefor sack individuals without investigating the allegations.

This abuse did not make the general public safer from ‘criminal cops’ as it doesn’t result in better investigations, in fact it could result in worse investigations as once the individual is removed they are out of sight out of mind.

From my reading he won the case because there were only allegations, and none had been proved in court.

So in terms of due process that is probably right, but ...

I thought that after the murder of Sarah Everard one issue that came up time and again was that there were / are male police officers who "everyone knows" has been accused or is even know to have behaved inappropriately violently.

And that because men with this known behaviour were tolerated it created a culture of sexism.

But all this shows is that the Met Police and politicians knew the problem. They must have sought legal advice. Why on earth didn't they find a legal route that they could get rid of known suspects.

I wonder if they made all police re-apply for their jobs but with the new guideline that anyone who has allegations against them is not able to be accepted.

Is there any legal basis that people can be "discriminated" against on the basis of unproven allegations?

From the article about the letter from the Met Police Network of Women group it says the process is.

Under Operation Assure, officers subject to adverse allegations are referred to have their vetting reviewed. If it is decided that vetting should be revoked the officer has the right to appeal. If that fails they will be referred to a gross incompetence hearing, which could result in dismissal. The original allegations do not have to be proven for vetting to be revoked.

So presumably this means they need to to create a more legally watertight process.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-union-accused-of-failing-women-over-officer-accused-of-rape-6sgzfdffp

Also at https://archive.is/JHWCs

My ex has had a lot of allegations that never made it to court he is guilty though and CPS will have blood on their hands if he kills someone the amount of unconnected women and girls that said he grabbed them by the throat and still they refuse to prosecute "insufficient evidence" he picks people with issues and abuses them of course they are not believed

My ex has had a lot of allegations that never made it to court he is guilty though and CPS will have blood on their hands if he kills someone the amount of unconnected women and girls that said he grabbed them by the throat and still they refuse to prosecute "insufficient evidence" he picks people with issues and abuses them of course they are not believed

Its got to the point where it seems there need to be group that is outside of the CPS who takes the decision whether a case goes to court.

If the CPS are prioritising improving their stats with level of "wins" then they are only too ready to drop cases.

Not forgetting that all too often Juries are also the problem as they are more concerned about the impact on the man getting a record that a woman getting justice.