Seven former and serving police officers are accused at a tribunal of accessing confidential information relating to Sarah Everard without a proper policing purpose.
Marketing executive Ms Everard, 33, was kidnapped, raped and murdered by then-serving Met officer Wayne Couzens over the course of 3 and 4 March 2021.
A lawyer defending one officer claimed at the tribunal there is a “huge amount” of subjectivity about when it is appropriate for a police officer to access information.
The officers include four serving officers, PC Myles McHugh, PC Clare Tett, detective constable Tyrone Ward, and sergeant Mark Harper, as well as three who have resigned since the investigation, sergeant Robert Butters, trainee detective constable Hannah Rebbeck, and Inspector Akinwale Ajose-Adeogun.
It is alleged that each of the seven individuals accessed files relating to Ms Everard’s case between 5 and 15 March 2021, some on multiple occasions.
As a result, each of the seven has been charged with gross misconduct.
On Tuesday, the tribunal heard evidence from detective sergeant Vicky Bailey, who compiled a report on the case, including on whether it was appropriate for officers to access the information.
She was asked when an officer would have a “policing purpose” to access information relating to a case.
She said it would be appropriate in circumstances where the officer needed to access the information to fulfil their role, and they intended to take action as a result.
Former inspector Mr Ajose-Adeogun is the most senior officer accused of gross misconduct.
He accessed files relating to Couzens’s custody in Wandsworth between March 10 to March 12 of 2021, while he was working as a custody support inspector in Croydon, south London.
Ms Bailey said it was “quite reasonable” that detainees from Wandsworth would start to be sent to custody suites in outer London once inner London began to fill up.
“Wandsworth detainees will sometimes end up in Croydon,” she said.
However, she queried why Mr Ajose-Adeogun would look at Wandsworth in particular, and not other nearby police custody suites.
Michael Rawlinson, defending Mr Ajose-Adeogun, said there was a “huge degree” of subjectivity as to what constitutes “policing purpose” and that it is up to officers to use their “personal judgment”.
He asked Ms Bailey if there was a central document that outlined what policing purpose meant for custody officers.
“Not that I am aware of,” she said.
Mr Rawlinson said that there was a “disconnect” between best practice and what happens on the ground.
“In a busy custody environment, a custody officer has to make quick decisions about what information is going to help them most.”
Ms Bailey agreed that a custody officer has to use their personal judgment as to what constitutes a policing purpose.
The tribunal continues.
