It has emerged a senior PSNI officer authorised civilian staff to provide an incorrect report to the Information Commissioner (ICO) who initially supported the refusal to respond to enquiries over failures around Jonathan Creswell and how he managed to evade detection for a serious sexual incident in 2016, despite the victim warning he was dangerous.
This matter occurred after he was imprisoned for the horrendous abuse of his previous partner Abi Lyle in 2010 and before the murder of Katie Simpson in 2020.
Creswell was living in Caledon at the time, travelling daily to an Antrim stable yard where he exposed himself to a female co-worker and threatened her partner.
The couple – who we are calling Sarah and Ian – came to work in the yard from their native Scotland but quickly learned Creswell was “worshipped” and his toxic behaviour was never addressed, allowing it to fester.
Sarah described him boasting of being in jail over Abi and saying his only mistake was “not finishing the bitch off”.
She set out Creswell’s behaviour in graphic detail which culminated in the grotesque incident of exposure and highly sexualised conduct.
The yard owners had no interest in addressing this which only served to embolden Creswell further.
Ian confronted Creswell who responded with threats to kill and other vile abuse.
He threatened to “snap” Ian’s neck – something he had a propensity for with his previous victim, Abi, who was repeatedly strangled and latterly, Katie.
Disgusted by Creswell’s vulgarity and lack of action to address it, the couple returned to Scotland, reporting the matter to police in January 2016.
But Creswell was never traced.
Somehow, he discovered police were investigating Sarah and Ian’s report and quickly absconded over the border to his father’s home in Donegal.
“I warned the police he was dangerous, but I wasn’t believed,” said Sarah.
She maintains if police had acted on her complaint Katie may well still be alive.
“At the very least Creswell would have had some level of monitoring and the exposure charge would have brought sexual offending registration with restrictions and controls.”
After learning of Katie’s murder Sarah complained to the Police Ombudsman but this was rejected as PSNI maintained efforts to locate Creswell were unsuccessful as he was believed to be in the Republic of Ireland.
But evidence countering this was presented to the Ombudsman and Sarah’s complaint was reopened last year.
Multiple FOI enquiries to PSNI were deemed too expensive to answer and with upfront payment declined, it was clear efforts were underway to shield potentially uncomfortable truths.
Critically, it was rejected enquiries about Gardai contact demonstrated the efforts PSNI were prepared to go to stop disclosure.
By now, unknown to PSNI, the requested information had been obtained through other means tragically confirming no attempt was made to alert Gardai to either detain Creswell or activate safeguarding given the new allegations were sexual and threatening in nature,
But rather than admit this, PSNI contended it would take more than the permitted 18 hours to retrieve the data. which the ICO accepted.
In fact, it took slightly over five minutes.
Further enquires revealed the erroneous response to the ICO was provided by a civilian staff, however given the organisational structure, it required sign-off by a serving officer.
Surprisingly, the PSNI confirmed a Detective Superintendent authorised the response adding the request was handled by two executive civilian staff and police officers ranging in rank from constable to superintendent.
Therefore multiple civilian and serving staff knew on some level that the reason to refuse information was incorrect.
In line with procedures, complaints have been submitted to the Deputy Chief Constable Bobby Singleton around civilian staff while the Detective Superintendent has been referred to the Ombudsman.
The Policing Board have also been informed, and the Chair Mukesh Sharma has written to Chief Constable Jon Boucher who has yet to respond.
The PSNI were asked if an internal investigation is/will be underway are the actions of the Detective Superintendent and the civilian staff considered to be misconduct.
A spokesperson replied: “PSNI will continue to cooperate fully with the ICO, and as is usual procedure, due process will be followed in relation to any complaint received. It would not be appropriate to comment further while proceedings regarding a complaint are ongoing.”
