A Metropolitan Police officer who accessed details about the murder of Sarah Everard has been cleared of misconduct, following a High Court ruling that upheld an earlier panel's decision. The judicial review, brought by the police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), challenged the original finding that the officer had no case to answer for misconduct.
The officer, whose name has not been released, accessed information pertaining to the high-profile murder investigation of Sarah Everard, who was abducted and killed by serving Met Police officer Wayne Couzens in March 2021. The incident sparked widespread public outrage and a national debate about women's safety and police conduct. The initial internal misconduct panel concluded that the officer's actions did not amount to misconduct, a decision that the IOPC subsequently sought to overturn in the High Court.
The High Court's judgement means that the officer will not face disciplinary action for accessing the files. The case centred on whether the officer's rationale for viewing the documents was legitimate and in line with police protocols. The original panel's decision indicated that the officer's conduct, while accessing sensitive material, did not meet the threshold for misconduct, a stance now supported by the High Court.
This ruling has implications for how police forces manage access to sensitive case information and the parameters within which officers can view details of ongoing or historical investigations. It also highlights the differing interpretations of what constitutes appropriate conduct when officers access data not directly related to their immediate duties, particularly in cases of significant public interest.
The IOPC had argued that accessing such sensitive information without a clear policing purpose could undermine public trust and potentially breach data protection protocols. However, the High Court has sided with the initial panel's assessment, affirming that the officer's actions, in this specific instance, did not warrant a misconduct finding.