WIREDGOV

A former detective constable from a Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) specialist sexual offences unit has been found guilty of five counts of misconduct in public office for failing to properly investigate a series of rape and serious sexual offences and falsifying documents.

Carl Ryan, a former officer of the then specialist Sapphire Command in Islington, repeatedly failed to submit evidence for forensic examination, and falsified crime reports to cover up his inaction.  He also falsified witness statements and caused a victim to be told, and told a suspect’s solicitor that the Crown Prosecution Service had authorised charges to be brought in a case which, at that time, was untrue. The convictions follow an investigation by the Independent Police Complains Commission (IPCC).

IPCC Associate Commissioner Tom Milsom said: “Throughout his time leading investigations into allegations of serious sexual offences, Carl Ryan broke the trust of the vulnerable victims he was supposed to protect and seek justice for. He deliberately ignored the advice of experienced officers, and failed to submit valuable evidence for forensic testing, instead lying about the results. In order to cover his tracks he falsified crime records to manipulate his supervisors. His actions can be summed up as a significant breach of the faith the public should have in the police.”  

Mr Ryan, who was dismissed from MPS in January 2013 following a fast-track gross misconduct hearing, was found guilty of five counts of misconduct in public office following a two week trial at Southwark Crown Court.

Details of misconduct in public office offences:

CARL RYAN, between 1st January 2010 and 1st July 2012, while acting as a public officer, namely as a Detective Constable employed by the Metropolitan Police, without reasonable excuse or justification wilfully misconducted himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in that office, in that:

Count 1: During a police investigation into a sexual offence Carl Ryan failed to send exhibits for forensic analysis and then wrote on the central record for the investigation that the exhibits had been examined with a negative result, knowing this was not true.

Count 2: During a police investigation into an offence of rape Carl Ryan failed to send exhibits for toxicological analysis and then wrote on the central record for the investigation that the exhibits had been examined with a negative result, knowing this was not true.

Count 3: During a police investigation into offences of rape Carl Ryan failed to send an exhibit for forensic analysis and then wrote on the central record for the investigation that the exhibit had been examined with a negative result, knowing this was not true.

Count 4: During a police investigation into a sexual offence Carl Ryan signed the statements of witnesses instead of asking each witness to consider their statement and sign it, knowing this was not true.

Count 5: During a police investigation into a sexual offence Carl Ryan caused the victim and the suspect’s solicitor to be informed that the Crown Prosecution Service had made the decision to charge, knowing this was not true.

Carl Ryan was acquitted on a sixth count of misconduct in public office.