Three police officers have been issued with advice to improve their conduct, as well as their handling of property, after a mobile phone seized during a man’s arrest recorded degrading and inappropriate comments made about him and his partner while he was in police custody.
A fourth officer was subject to measures designed to improve his performance following a Police Ombudsman investigation of the incident, which happened after the man was arrested at his home in December 2022.
After listening to the recording, the man made a complaint to the Police Ombudsman’s Office and submitted a seven-hour excerpt in which officers referred to a suspected victim of domestic violence as “mental”, possibly suffering from “post-natal depression” and requiring hospitalisation.
The Police Ombudsman recommended that the PSNI should hold misconduct meetings with all four officers. This was not accepted by the PSNI’s Professional Standards Department, which decided instead to hold a misconduct meeting with one officer and offer advice to the others.
The officers had been unaware that the man’s phone had been recording audio from before his arrest and throughout his time in police custody.
The recording included several concerning comments and revealed issues with how officers had dealt with the phone after it was seized at the time of the man’s arrest.
The Chief Executive for the office of the Police Ombudsman, Hugh Hume, said: “While these comments were made by police officers outside of a public setting, they nonetheless reflect attitudes and behaviours that are entirely unacceptable.
“It is particularly concerning that such degrading remarks were directed towards a woman reporting to be a victim of domestic abuse. This serves as a reminder that police officers should always act with compassion, professionalism and integrity.”
Police Ombudsman investigators found that the mobile phone had not been packaged, labelled or stored in accordance with PSNI policy. It had also been taken out of the police station while the complainant was in custody, and there was no clear record of its movements while in police possession.
“This is another case in which we identified that police officers failed to deal appropriately with an electronic device,” said Mr Hume. “The protection of personal data and the preservation of potential digital evidence is of critical importance, yet we have a number of cases involving concerns that police procedures governing this area are not being followed.”
Police Ombudsman investigators also examined an allegation that an officer had encouraged a colleague to destroy the mobile phone out of fear it might be recording. Another officer was heard to respond, “what a way to get sacked.”
The officer who made the initial comment about damaging the phone was interviewed under criminal caution on suspicion of attempting, or encouraging someone else, to break the device. A file was submitted to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) which directed that the officer would not be prosecuted.
The Police Ombudsman identified no misconduct in relation to the complainant’s other allegations, which included that he had been unlawfully arrested, and that officers had falsified statements and incident logs and caused damage to a laptop while he had been in police custody.
