A major police corruption case involving allegations that a “rogue unit” used water-torture techniques on suspects has collapsed after a multimillion-pound investigation.
Disciplinary charges against three officers from the Metropolitan Police’s Enfield Crime Squad were dropped today and they were reinstated after lengthy suspensions from duty.
The decision is a blow to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which led the investigation and had wanted to hold the misconduct tribunal in public to showcase the workings of the secretive police disciplinary system.
The watchdog said that disciplinary proceedings had to be abandoned because the key witness in the case had withdrawn his co-operation.
He is believed to be David Nwankwo, who was one of a number of people arrested by the crime squad in drugs raids in Tottenham, North London, in November 2008. Mr Nwankwo alleged in newspaper interviews that he was assaulted and had his head held down a toilet that was repeatedly flushed, but his witness statement is thought to have offered a different account of events.
Advertisement
The Times broke news of the investigation in 2009, revealing that the allegations had halted one criminal trial and led to serious concerns at the top of Scotland Yard. The investigation was revealed to be examining claims that a suspect had been water-boarded.
The Met’s anti-corruption team had launched one of its biggest operations for years to investigate the activities of the unit in Enfield, which was credited with achieving major success against local criminals. Covert listening and video devices were installed at Edmonton police station where the team was based, and 16 officers, from the rank of constable to superintendent, were placed under investigation.
In addition to the ill-treatment allegations, the squad was under investigation for smashing up a suspect’s car with baseball bats, mishandling property seized from people who had been arrested and misusing a car seized from a suspect.
Files on 15 officers were passed to the Crown Prosecution Service but it decided, after studying the case for more than a year, that no charges could be brought.
The CPS said that some of the accounts of mistreatment by suspects were riddled with contradictions and that there was no reliable evidence to support the most serious allegations. Allegations concerning the misuse of seized property did not result in charges, the CPS said, partly because senior police officers knew what the squad was doing.
Advertisement
Simon Clements, a CPS lawyer, said that senior officers “had been generally aware of what was happening” and that the crime squad made no secret of its tactics and behaviour.
The case became a disciplinary issue for the Met to handle internally. Last November five officers were reprimanded and one demoted over the incident in which they had smashed the windows of car to stop and arrest a man suspected of handling stolen goods. The officers are appealing against the tribunal’s findings and two other cases are pending over the alleged misuse of property and a suspect’s car.
But the ill-treatment claims were considered the most serious case, leading to an independent inquiry by the IPCC and a consultation over whether it should order the hearing to become only the second police misconduct case to take place in public.
Mike Franklin, an IPCC commissioner, said: “Regrettably, in this particular case, the main witness has declined to provide their evidence to a hearing and it is therefore unfortunate that the Metropolitan Police will now not be able to hold misconduct proceedings as previously planned.”
A supporter of the officers said: “Around £12 million has been wasted on this investigation, which was based on exaggerated claims of corruption and is being gradually shown to be without substance. I dread to think how many years of police work have been lost because of all these officers being removed from front line duties.”
Advertisement
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “Three officers who were suspended from duty have been reinstated to restricted duties following information received from the IPCC.”