The Police Ombudsman has reversed a previous decision not to provide a breakdown of figures relating to investigations into PSNI abuse of position for sexual purposes (APSP).
The information was provided just a day before the Police Ombudsman announced a serving officer has been arrested for suspected misconduct involving APSP.
Back in April, the Police Ombudsman published a report from analysis of alleged APSP by PSNI officers across a seven-year period (2018 – 2024).
It highlighted the often-significant vulnerabilities of victims identified and built a picture of the characteristics of the officers involved.
Every victim of alleged predatory police behaviour was female and all were vulnerable to some degree. A significant number had multiple vulnerabilities, the most common being vulnerabilities identified in the report, was being victims of crime, while others also included result of mental health issues, domestic abuse, suicidal ideation or addiction. Some victims were involved in crimes themselves, making them more vulnerable to exploitation by a police officer.
Commenting on the report, Police Ombudsman Chief Executive, Hugh Hume, said police predatory behaviour is one of the most serious forms of corruption in policing
“Such is the power imbalance that many women do not report the offending directly for fear of reprisal and others can be so vulnerable that they do not recognise that the officer is abusing them and instead see him as a ‘knight in shining armour’ figure. Others do not see themselves as victims at all.
Figures published at the time indicated 20 serving and two former police officers are currently under investigation involving a total of 39 victims, all of whom are women.
When asked for the most up-to-date figures in June by way of a Freedom of Information request, the Police Ombudsman confirmed the figure had climbed to 29 but refused to break this down into serving and former officers.
Instead, an exemption was applied withholding this detail as: “The number of cases falling within the scope of the request is very small. Disclosure of such low figures could lead to the identification of individuals, either directly or when combined with other information that may be available.”
This was challenged on two grounds; firstly, that the Police Ombudsman previously released figures that two former officers were under investigation and in so doing either did not consider the cited exemption applied or disregarded it. Either way it is a contrary position.
Secondly, regardless of the number, there are many former/retired PSNI officers and it was incredulous to contend provision of a low number in such circumstances would be wrong. If anything the low number under investigation against the high number retired/resigned would strongly be in favour of disclosure.
Following an internal review the Police Ombudsman determined that the response should be amended to include the requested information adding: “We apologise for any inconvenience caused by the omission in the original response.”
The released information shows the number of serving officers who are currently under investigation and/or notified of investigation for APSP is 26. The number of retired officers is 3.
That’s an over increase of seven investigations, of which six are serving officers. The number of former officers has increased by one to three.
The PSNI has previously confirmed of the serving officers, seven were suspended from duty, five have been repositioned but the PSNI was silent on the status of the remainder.
There is no indication as to when any proceedings relating to the APSP investigation will conclude or action taken.
