Metropolitan police officers, staff and bosses who allowed PC David Carrick to stay in the force despite warnings he could be a danger to women look likely to escape any formal discipline inquiry that could result in them being punished.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct said it was not planning an investigation into the failings that could lead to disciplinary action being taken, and in the most serious cases dismissal or criminal investigation and trial.
The watchdog also said there were no plans to use its powers to demand one.
Anger has been growing that the Met ignored eight warnings about Carrick’s abusive behaviour to women from 2000 to 2021. It also failed to suspend him in July 2021 when he was arrested for rape, instead placing him on restricted duties.
In the Commons, MPs including the former Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman and Conservatives Lee Anderson and James Daly called on the officers who protected Carrick to be sacked. The home secretary, Suella Braverman, announced an internal review of the police’s dismissal processes.
Met insiders say such a case, where an officer was accused of rape, would have been referred to senior officers, or they would have been made aware.
Carrick pleaded guilty on Monday to 49 charges detailing 85 serious crimes against 12 women spanning from 2003 to 2020, making him one of the worst sexual attackers in recent times. They included 48 rapes as well as locking victims in a tiny cupboard. He used his status as a Met officer to facilitate his crimes.
They were all committed while he was a serving Met officer and in 2009 he was promoted from being a local officer to the elite parliamentary and diplomatic protection command and given a gun.
Discipline action starts with a notice issued to individuals under investigation.
A Met spokesperson said: “No notices have been issued against any individual and there are no investigations into any officers or staff.”
The process usually starts with the police force concerned referring issues to the police watchdog. The IOPC said: “No referrals have been received to date.”
A spokesperson said the watchdog had no plans to use powers given to it by parliament to demand the Met send it the case to investigate.
Former senior Met officer Brian Paddick, now a Liberal Democrat peer, said: “In this case, the IOPC appears to be incapable of carrying out its primary function of holding the police to account.
“Whether or not any police officer or staff could be subjected to misconduct proceedings, (even if they are no longer serving) the IOPC have a duty to investigate what happened, including questioning all those involved, because the public deserve an explanation, and to ensure this never happens again.”
No action was taken after the complaints against Carrickthat the Met were told about, with the women either refusing to formally complain or withdrawing their cooperation from the police investigation.
One incident took place before Carrick joined the Met in 2001, with the force accepting he should have never joined. The Guardian understands another, in 2002, included an allegation that he had bitten a woman’s shoulder after their relationship ended, and came during his probation period, when it would have been easier to dismiss him.
The Met accepts the incidents showed an escalating pattern of behaviour and says Carrick should have been spotted and removed but the force failed to “join the dots”.
The IOPC said it had looked at the 2002 incident but because they would regard it as a low-level misconduct matter there was nothing they could do as those involved had retired.
“We have, however, written to the MPS regarding its assessment of a 2002 incident – allegations of assault and harassment – which was brought to the force’s attention at the time PC Carrick was a probationer and dealt with by words of advice.
“The conduct of the officers whose decision it was to deal with those allegations in this manner may have amounted to misconduct. The matter has not been referred but, given the two officers have retired and so cannot now face a sanction at misconduct level, we have decided it is not in the public interest to take any further action.”
