Subscribe to trusted local news
In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.
- Subscription costs less than £1 a week with an annual plan.
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
12
Mar
North Yorkshire Police officer who failed to investigate rape allegation given written warning
A North Yorkshire Police officer has been given a written warning after failing to investigate a rape allegation.
PC 131 Adam Bray faced a five-day misconduct hearing last week following a string of claims.
The hearing was held at the force's headquarters in Northallerton and an outcome was published today (March 12).
The panel found constable Bray breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, specifically standards of: authority, respect and courtesy, duties and responsibilities, and discreditable conduct.
According to a misconduct hearing report, Bray and an unnamed officer were deployed to a domestic incident on August 7, 2022.
The incident was between male A and his ex-partner, female B, who have a five-year-old daughter together.
The report says male A was known to the force for incidents of domestic abuse and violence towards partners, including female B.
It adds:
Whilst travelling to the incident, the Force Control Room (FCR) informed the officer that both parties could be heard arguing and Female B had reported receiving a fat lip from Male A.
Prior to attending the incident, the officer was made aware of the reported assault by male A upon Female B.
Female B was visibly distressed at the scene and asked the officers to retrieve her daughter.
She told the unnamed officer male A had allegedly been violent towards her in the past, including holding a knife to her throat and hitting her.
Female A also told the unnamed officer male A and his mother, who was at the scene, were drunk and that she had been awarded full custody of her daughter.
The report alleges Bray spoke to male A and his mother, and “disregarded the information received that female B had been a victim of assault”.
Bray told the FCR male A and his mother were sober, and that he was “more than happy” for the child to remain with male A.
The report claims Bray asked the FCR if the male had any convictions that prevented the child from remaining with him, but did not make any further checks on police systems.
When female B asked Bray why male A was not being arrested for assault, he allegedly told her:
This is what’s happening. You’re very drunk – you need to go home.
Rape allegation
At 1.53am, female B told Bray she was “reporting him [male A] for rape. I’m reporting him for assault and rape”.
According to the report, Bray did not make a record of the reported rape or assault, and did not take initiative to launch a criminal investigation.
Bray did not listen to female B or take the report of violence and sexual abuse forward, it says, adding he also did not make any attempt to speak to or arrest male A.
At 2.17am, female B contacted the police to report the rape and that she was unhappy about her daughter being left with male A.
When the force control room queried whether female B had previously reported the rape, Bray said:
She did mention [sic] once we told her that if she doesn’t leave, she’d be arrested. However, mum was there all of the time, and they were both in the kitchen so it…. did not happen. She’s just doing it out of spite more than anything.
When Bray and the unnamed officer revisited female B to respond to the rape allegation, she did not want to speak to the officers.
Second incident
On the same day, the force received a welfare concern after a man – referred to as male C – was seen attempting to climb the railings of a bridge in Scarborough.
At 3.25am, Bray said he had spoken to male C and told the control room the man refused to provide his name and further details.
Bray later claimed male C said he did not intend to jump off the bridge and that he was going to walk home.
The FCR told Bray male C should be detained to get his details due to the nature of the incident. The report claims Bray told the control room:
Ultimately, he’s told us he’s not got any thoughts of harming himself, he’s walked away from the bridge now and he’s sat on a bench on his way home.
Bray later told the FCR he had obtained the man’s name, but he did not undertake any checks on police systems in respect of male C.
The report says Bray then told the FCR he “did not consider that he had any power to detain male C”.
A named officer radioed Bray and recommended he detain male C under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which he then did.
Outcome
The panel found some of the allegations made against Bray could not be proven.
The report said Bray and an unnamed officer, who were both deployed to the Scarborough bridge incident, excercised thier powers under the Mental Health Act when advised to do so.
It adds the unnamed officer built more of a rapport with male C and, although Bray could have obtained more information about male C to carry out thorough checks, the panel was satisfied neither Bray nor the unnamed officer were going to leave male C and would continue to monitor him.
The unnamed officer found male C was "of sound mind" and the officers assessed there was not an immediate threat to life.
However, referring to the incident between male A and female B, the report said:
[Bray] failed to listen to female B, failed to make enquiries and failed to act on her many reports of rape, and failed to treat her with respect (by failing to listen to her) notwithstanding that female B was heavily intoxicated and that the situation was a very difficult one.
They found Bray was “trying to do the right thing” on the night, but he made mistakes.
The report said Bray was not present when female B made several claims of violence about male A to the unnamed officer present, and that officer did not make Bray aware of such allegations.
It adds both officers failed to make any record of the reported rape and assault, they did not initiate a cirminal investigation and did not request further assistance from the FCR.
The panel also found:
[Bray] returns at 1.53am and is completely unaware of the rape reports made by female B to [unnamed officer] ... at this point female B says to the officer [Bray] that she is reporting male A for rape, and that is the first time he hears of the rape allegation.
...[Bray] had been told by the FCR that there are no conditions to stop male A looking after his own daughter, and [unnamed officer] had not disclosed the repeated statements made to her by female B regarding male A's violence and the risk he poses to his other four children, or that she has reported the rape to [unnamed officer].
We find it likely that this is why the officer doubts the veracity of the claim of rape made by female B, as he believes it was only disclosed after she has been told that the child is not returning with her.
Bray made early admissions of misconduct and acknowledged his failures, the report says, adding he has taken responsibility and maintained a consistent account.
The panel concluded Bray “acted in good faith” and his behaviour was “significantly impacted” by the lack of information provided to him by the unnamed officer.
Bray has stayed in employment since the allegations were made against him, which has included investigating claims of domestic violence, and he has done so to "a high standard".
However, the panel found Bray’s actions amounted to gross misconduct and issued him with a two-year final written warning.
0