Three years after the murder of Sarah Everard, the long-awaited Home Office-commissioned Angiolini Inquiry into Wayne Couzens has been published – and it is damning of the Metropolitan Police. Those who turned a blind eye, ignoring the attitudes and actions of the officer, should hang their heads in shame. Former Met Commissioner Cressida Dick’s description of him as a ‘bad apple’ is inappropriate; it would appear that the whole barrel is rotten.
The country was shocked to the core when it was revealed that a serving police officer had abducted, raped and murdered 33-year-old Everard, before disposing of her body. To get her into his vehicle, Couzens used his warrant card to deceive her, saying he was arresting her for breaking lockdown rules.
A uniform is not necessarily an indication of a safe and decent man: it can mean a wolf in sheep’s clothing
It has since been revealed that prior to the murder, he had exposed his genitals three times, including twice at a drive-through restaurant. Couzens was in a WhatsApp group with other serving police officers sharing horrendous sexist, racist and anti-gay remarks. Despite his reputation, he was an armed officer with the Met Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection unit.
Couzens joined the police force in 2002. How did he get through vetting when there had already been allegations of rape made against him and an attempted kidnapping at knifepoint? We will never know the full extent of his crimes against citizens and other police officers. Why, also, was he not prosecuted for the indecent exposure offences he committed in 2015 and 2021?
This report feels like the final nail in the Met’s coffin. Made public today, it is unequivocal in its condemnation of those who turned a blind eye to the character and actions of Couzens. The key finding is that Couzens should never have been a police officer. He regularly accessed violent and extreme pornography and his sexual offending dated back 20 years prior to the Everard murder. He had sexually assaulted a child described as ‘barely into her teens’ when he was in his early 20s. Even more damming is the conclusion that ‘without a significant overhaul, there is nothing to stop another Couzens operating in plain sight’.
Home Secretary James Cleverly has tried to reassure the public that the actions of Couzens are not a reflection of the majority of police officers. It is true that Couzens’ actions were extreme, but this does not mean that other crimes causing significant harm are not being committed on a regular basis by serving Metropolitan (and other) police officers. The report focuses on the crimes of Couzens and the culture that allowed him to operate within the Metropolitan Police – but this is a problem in every force in England and Wales. Across the 43 police areas, 1,100 officers are currently under investigation for sexual or domestic abuse, with 657 involving Met officers.
Up until recently, vetting for new officers has been woefully inadequate, allowing these attitudes to become institutionalised. Last year, a spokesperson for the Met announced itself as the first force in the UK to adopt a new process in which dismissal could be considered for officers who would no longer pass vetting and have lost the confidence of the Commissioner. But who is doing the vetting? Who is protecting the whistle-blowers naming these officers as problematic? Are women being routinely overlooked (or even frozen out) by colleagues and bosses when they name officers who are watching pornography whilst on duty, and actively sexually harassing female colleagues?
The report includes 16 recommendations for change, and those changes cannot come soon enough. It opens with a quote from Susan Everard (Sarah’s mother), who says: ‘I yearn for her. I remember all the lovely things about her: she was caring, she was funny. She was clever, but she was good at practical things too. She was a beautiful dancer. She was a wonderful daughter. She was always there to listen, to advise, or simply to share the minutiae of the day.’
Sarah Everard would still be alive today had Couzens been reported, and action taken for his previous crimes. We know that indecent exposure – particularly where the perpetrator is masturbating – is a red flag. Revelations about the history of Couzens’ offending mean that flashing is – at last – being taken seriously as a sex crime by media and politicians.
But why has it taken the kidnap, rape and murder of a woman by a serving police officer for flashing to be seen as a proble, rather than a joke? Double child killer Colin Pitchfork, who raped and strangled to death two 15-year-old girls in the 1980s, confessed to police that he had exposed his penis to more than a thousand girls and women over the years.
Yet despite its prevalence and the obvious harm experienced by its victims, flashing remains underreported and rarely prosecuted. When Couzens’ victims reported his offending over the years, they were – like all the other warning signs that should have triggered action – dismissed and ignored by Police.
Couzens was on a trajectory of sexually motivated behaviour and offending. So many red flags were ignored. Three investigations into his offending (in 2015, 2020, and 2021) were inadequately investigated, with no further action. He attempted to sexually assault a man (who was dressed in drag) in a Kent bar in 2019 – then used his status as a police officer to prevent his victim from complaining. The fact that he was cleared to carry a firearm is in itself alarming.
The workplace culture (formerly referred to as ‘canteen culture’ and widely assumed to be a thing of the past) provided the perfect environment for Couzens to hide in plain sight. On duty, he targeted women. He had a history of abusive and predatory behaviour, including intimidation, sexual touching, sharing unsolicited photographs of his genitals, and showing extreme, pornography to female and male colleagues.
The Angiolini Inquiry has brought out into the public domain what many feminists campaigning against male violence have known for decades. A uniform is not necessarily an indication of a safe and decent man: it can mean a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Comments