Tribunal Hears of Subjectivity in Police Access to Everard Case Files

A lawyer representing a police officer, who stands accused of improperly accessing confidential details concerning Sarah Everard’s case, informed a tribunal that determining the appropriate circumstances for an officer to access information involves a “huge amount” of subjectivity. In 2021, Ms Everard, aged 33, was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by Met officer Wayne Couzens while she was returning home from a friend’s residence in Clapham, south London. It was determined that four active officers and three former officers had accessed the information, purportedly lacking a legitimate policing purpose. Consequently, all seven individuals have been charged with gross misconduct. The allegation states that each of the seven individuals improperly accessed files pertinent to Ms Everard’s case between March 5 and March 15, 2021, with some instances occurring repeatedly. Among these officers were four currently serving: PC Myles McHugh, PC Clare Tett, Det Con Tyrone Ward, and Sgt Mark Harper. The three individuals who resigned from their positions are identified as former Sgt Robert Butters, Hannah Rebbeck, who held the rank of trainee constable, and Akinwale Ajose-Adeogun, a former inspector. On Tuesday, Det Sgt Vicky Bailey, who had prepared a report on the matter, including an assessment of the appropriateness of officers accessing the information, presented her evidence to the tribunal. She was questioned regarding the circumstances under which an officer would possess a “policing purpose” to access case-related information. Her response indicated that such circumstances would arise when an officer required the information to perform their duties. Mr Ajose-Adeogun, a former inspector, holds the distinction of being the most senior officer facing accusations of gross misconduct. He accessed records pertaining to Couzens’s custody in Wandsworth between March 10 and March 12, 2021, during his tenure as a custody support inspector in Croydon, south London. Ms Bailey stated that it was “quite reasonable” for detainees from Wandsworth to be transferred to custody suites in outer London as facilities in inner London reached capacity. She further commented, “Wandsworth detainees will sometimes end up in Croydon.” Nevertheless, she questioned Mr Ajose-Adeogun’s specific focus on Wandsworth, rather than examining other proximate police custody facilities. Michael Rawlinson, representing Mr Ajose-Adeogun, asserted that there exists a “huge degree” of subjectivity in defining “policing purpose” and that officers are expected to exercise their “personal judgment.” He inquired of Ms Bailey whether a central document existed that delineated the meaning of policing purpose for custody officers. She responded, “Not that I am aware of.” Mr Rawlinson then stated that a “disconnect” existed between ideal best practices and the realities encountered in operational settings. He added, “In a busy custody environment, a custody officer has to make quick decisions about what information is going to help them most.” Ms Bailey concurred that a custody officer must employ their personal judgment to determine what constitutes a policing purpose. The tribunal proceedings are ongoing.