The woman who led the campaign for justice over Sarah Everard’s murder has criticised the Met Police Commissioner for his comments about the vetting of his officers.
Yesterday, Sir Mark Rowley criticised a High Court ruling that had said the force’s dismissal process was unlawful.
Sgt Lino Di Maria had filed a legal challenge after failing his background checks over previous sexual assault allegations. He has denied the claims and has never been charged.
‘Once again, women’s safety is used to score political points’
Jamie Klingler, who has been campaigning after Sarah was killed by a serving officer, has accused Sir Mark and the Metropolitan Police of “turning women’s safety into a PR battleground.”
In a statement, she said: “Maybe don’t announce that you will sack accused officers without the due process in place to do so?
“Once again, women’s safety is used to score political points rather than actually a non-partisan priority.”
“Women’s lives and safety are not a PR battleground. The force only makes a concerted effort to have these issues off of the front pages rather than actually implementing reform.”
Last year, the Met were forced to pay £10,000 to a woman arrested at a vigil in Clapham in Sarah’s memory.
Met chief ‘putting violence against women and girls first’
The Met Police Commissioner claimed his force is currently spending £7 million a year in salaries to officers who have been placed on gardening leave after failing background checks.
In a statement after Tuesday’s court ruling, Sir Mark said that “being able to sack officers who fail vetting is critical.”
He told the London Assembly’s police and crime committee on Wednesday: “I don’t apologise putting violence against women and girls first.
“Officers […] who’ve got multiple rape allegations and other sexually violent behaviour allegations, shouldn’t be in the police service any more than they should be teachers or nurses or or in any other profession.”
This comes after the force was removed from special measures in January.
Background checks to get rid of unfit officers
Vetting is the process of identifying individuals deemed to be unsuitable for serving in the police, and most of the active cases of failed vetting relate to “sexually bad attitudes.”
In the court hearing, Mrs Justice Liang deemed the dismissal process used in Sgt Di Maria’s case as unlawful, because people who failed the vetting process were denied the opportunity to defend themselves.
Sir Mark said that her ruling had left policing in a “hopeless position.”
Police blame Home Office over vetting flaws
Sir Mark also accused Home Office officials of “dragging their feet” over changing the rules, claiming that civil servants have know about the issues in the force for over 20 years.
He said: “Throughout this whole process I’ve seen complete commitment and support from Suella Braverman, James Cleverly and Yvette Cooper to get this fixed.
“I’m disappointed that officials have dragged their feet.”
How many officers have already been sacked?
29 officers are currently on special vetting leave, after failing checks, with a further 96 having been sacked or resigned due to vetting removal.
Sir Mark argues that current regulations, which means he faces a £7 million cost of paying the salaries of these officers, amount to “a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money.”
Sir Mark is concerned that this figure will increase over time as more officers are put on vetting leave.
The College of Policing has backed the Commissioner, with Assistant Chief Constable Tom Harding saying they would support the Metropolitan Police in appealing the ruling.
Court ruling about ‘ensuring a fair and legal process’
The Metropolitan Police Federation supported Sgt Di Maria in bringing his case to the High Court and believe that the force should be held to high legal standards.
General Secretary Matt Cane said: “This Judicial Review was about ensuring a fair, but more importantly, legal process was in place.
“The Metropolitan Police must recognise the law and – it goes without saying – operate within it.
“The statutory misconduct procedures provide important procedural safeguards for officers… those safeguards should not be circumvented, directly or indirectly, by the use of more informal internal vetting procedures.”
He criticised Sir Mark’s comments about the Federation pushing for the judicial review, saying they “were frankly astonished to hear the absurd comments”.
“Surely the country’s most senior police officer should recognise the law and operate within it. And not be labelling as “crazy” an organisation that wants its police service to operate within our country’s laws rather than breaking them”. Our response to Sir Mark Rowley on @LBC pic.twitter.com/WaqqlAAviz
— Metropolitan Police Federation (@MPFed) January 24, 2025
The Home Office were contacted by City London News, but they declined to comment.
