Corrupt British police order coverup

A detective who wrote a damning report on the way colleagues investigated a child's death was ordered to re-write it and remove the criticism, a tribunal heard today. Whistleblower Robert Krykant was told by his boss that he didn't want the force's dirty washing aired in public, it was claimed.

Assistant Chief Constable Andy Taylor - who was last week awarded the Queen's Police Medal - told his detective sergeant there was 'no need to self-flagellate' by publishing criticism of Thames Valley Police in his report.

Details of the alleged 'dumbing down' order were revealed at an employment tribunal where former sergeant Krykant is suing the force for unfair dismissal under Public Interest Disclosure rules.

The 57-year-old said that after writing the damning review lifting the lid on the Major Crime Team's inadequate handling of an investigation into the death of a four-month-old baby boy, he was victimised and harassed by managers.

The former detective sergeant said that as a result of his actions he was pressured to change reports, asked to leave his department and subsequently told to find a new job. Mr Krykant is now suing the force for constructive dismissal as a result of protected disclosures he made.

He said in his witness statement: 'I was restricted in my duties from carrying out my role, without any proper justification, given a Performance Action Plan and had my professional status and judgement seriously undermined with my staff and with colleagues. 'Ultimately, I was left with no option but to resign from a job to which I had successfully devoted 35 years of my life.'

Mr Krykant joined Thames Valley Police in May 1975 and in 2001 became a detective sergeant on the Oxfordshire Child Protection and Sexual Crimes Unit, which is now known as the Child Abuse Investigation Unit. He said in his statement that he gained extensive experience of investigation into matters involving child abuse, neglect and welfare.

In October 2009 he was tasked with reviewing a case involving the death of a four-month-old boy who died after being admitted into hospital with life-threatening head injuries sustained while being shaken by his uncle. At the time a significant concern was raised for the welfare of the child's 15-month-old cousin, who was believed to have been present when the baby was injured.

The tribunal, in Reading, Berkshire, heard it was a statutory requirement to produce an Individual Management Review as part of a multi-agency response after cases involving the death or serious harm to a child to see what lessons could be learned for the future. These reports were expected to be of a high standard of detail and contain critical analysis.

In his report Mr Krykant raised a number of concerns about the police's handling of the baby case. He claimed that his colleagues had failed to check the welfare of the dead boy's 15 month old cousin when they had visited the address to arrest the suspect.

He raised concerns that officers had not responded to phone calls from social workers the following day, trying to establish the whereabouts of the little girl.

Mr Krykant said that there was a lack of information being shared between police and social workers and this resulted in the little girl being left with a possible suspect in the investigation.

The child was left with the suspect's partner who had been alone with the dead boy just 40 minutes before he collapsed.

He also claimed that false information about the suspect's mobile phone was given on oath by an officer to obtain search and arrest warrants. As a result Mr Krykant concluded that the police safeguarding response to the dead boy's cousin was 'inadequate'.

'Although the failure to carry out the welfare check did not show Thames Valley Police in a good light, I saw it as an ideal opportunity for organisational learning, particularly as I had found evidence of widespread attitude by officers who were not just unaware of their responsibilities of child protection but were also in denial of them,' said the statement.

A draft of the report was sent to Acting Assistant Chief Constable Taylor who responded in an email that it included 'a fair amount of public airing of our dirty washing' and that there was no 'need to self-flagellate'. Mr Krykant was later told that the senior officer was furious because the review accused the force of being inadequate and showed it in a bad light.

The report was then changed to suggest that the necessary welfare checks were carried out but just not recorded. The amended version also criticised social workers which Mr Krykant felt was unfair and unjust.

In May 2010 the former detective sergeant completed a 'wrong-doing report' raising concerns about the health and safety of the surviving child and breaches of various legal obligations by Detective Superintendent Karen Trego and the Major Crime Team.

He later received a shock response asking: 'What on earth is all this about, you may have caused a critical incident?'

When Mr Krykant returned from a family holiday in June 2010 he found a professional standards officer at his desk. His work was examined to see if he had performance or misconduct issues and was informed that he had made his own current position untenable.

The continual questioning and undermining of Mr Krykant's judgement left his confidence extremely low, he said in his statement. 'The amount of stress and bullying I received after I submitted the 'wrong doing' report was very shocking to me and my family.

'I have been at the forefront of policing for my whole career and "policed" countless very difficult and disturbing crimes, disasters and accidents but nothing has been shocking and difficult as this experience.

'I received no support from anyone in the organisation and was treated contrary to Thames Valley Police's own policies, leaving my confidence very low and me feeling isolated.'

He resigned from his position at Thames Valley Police on January 31, 2011, and is suing the force for being constructively dismissed as a result of protected disclosures he made.

The hearing, before employment judge Jessica Hill, is expected to last for 10 days at the Employment Tribunal Centre in Reading, Berkshire.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here