“Public confidence demands nothing less than full transparency that every safeguard available has been triggered.”
A retired PSNI officer has slammed the content of the Police Ombudsman report around police officers dealing with vulnerable people and the Public Prosecution Service for failing to authorise misconduct charges
Nuala Lappin spent years as a Specialist Domestic Violence Officer which gave her first-hand experience of being vulnerable in every sense of the word.
She said: “When individuals are at their most susceptible, whatever the circumstances of how that came about, society has a duty of care and protection. When those tasked not only with carrying that out but ensuring others do too are found at fault, it is particularly egregious
“When any PSNI officer is dismissed from the service for abuse of position or the exploitation of vulnerable persons within our community, hat measures are put in place to prevent these ex- officers from simply handing back their uniforms and gaining new employment in a school, the care system including hospitals or any other area where they may have unfettered access to the most vulnerable people in our society, particular without any criminal penalty for this reprehensible conduct? This is not a hypothetical concern.
“Following the latest Police Ombudsman investigation, out of several serving officers, who seriously crossed the threshold of professional misconduct, with exploitative predatory behaviours, whilst these same officers are so entrusted with the most extraordinary authority over vulnerable persons within their daily role as a police officer.
“If such misconduct remains locked inside an internal police HR file rather than passed to the barring authorities, the safeguarding net expected fails when needed most. Yet in this case there is no public confirmation whether the PSNI has made a referral to the Disclosure Barring Service (DBS).
“Under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (NI) 2007 employers are empowered and in many cases legally required to refer dismissed staff to the DBS. When their conduct shows they pose a risk to vulnerable people. Crucially a criminal conviction is not necessary. But absent a PSNI referral standard checks such as AccessNI will show nothing. Now think about that – the mechanism to hold data for the protection of the public is void in these instances.
“Because these former officers’ identities are unknown, and this is not a matter of naming individuals. It is about systemic accountability. The public interest test is overwhelmingly met here. Families, schools, health trusts and voluntary sector organisations rely on vetting systems to keep predatory behaviour away from those who need protection most.
“Dismissal from the PSNI is only half the job. Confirmation that a DBS referral has been made does not constitute a breach of data protection or compromise anyone’s anonymity. What it does is simply reassures the community that the barriers between policing misconduct and future employment in any caring role by known predators is secure.”
Nuala concluded: “Public confidence demands nothing less than full transparency that every safeguard available has been triggered.”
