A volunteer British Transport Police (BTP) officer, Sgt Oliver Wilson, was sacked last month after admitting to punching a 17-year-old girl during an arrest at Reading station on 20 April 2024.
The incident, reviewed by a BTP misconduct panel, involved Wilson handcuffing the girl, escorting her to a police vehicle, and striking her in the back after she became tangled in a seatbelt.
The panel ruled his actions were neither necessary, proportionate, nor reasonable, constituting gross misconduct. Wilson was dismissed without notice. Yet, despite this clear admission of assault, there is no mention of a criminal investigation or charges.
For a civilian, punching a restrained 17-year-old would almost certainly lead to a criminal investigation.
Under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, such an act would qualify as common assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm, carrying up to seven years’ imprisonment.
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidelines prioritise prosecuting assaults, especially against minors. In 2024, police forces recorded thousands of assault offences, with civilians routinely facing charges or cautions. Why, then, was Oliver Wilson’s case handled solely as a disciplinary matter?
The Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) and National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) mandate that crimes, including assaults, be recorded within 24 hours if evidence suggests an offence occurred.
An officer’s admission to punching a restrained teenager, corroborated by the victim’s account, clearly meets this threshold.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which oversees serious police misconduct, can refer cases to the CPS for criminal consideration. Yet, no such referral is noted, and the case concluded with dismissal, leaving Wilson without a criminal record.
Concerns of two-tier policing
A 2023 Policing and Society study found that officers accused of assault often face internal sanctions rather than criminal charges, unlike civilians who encounter the full legal process.
The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 allow parallel criminal and disciplinary proceedings, yet only the latter occurred here.
Det Supt Brett Walker, head of BTP’s professional standards, stated that Wilson’s actions “significantly undermined public trust.” If so, why was this breach not tested in a criminal court, as it would be for the public?
BTP must clarify:
- was a crime recorded per HOCR and NCRS?
- Was the CPS consulted?
Without answers, this case risks reinforcing perceptions of a system where officers face lesser consequences than members of the public.
Assault is assault, regardless of the perpetrator’s role. Public trust demands equal accountability, not selective leniency.
UKCP.uk advocates for fairness in policing. Join the conversation below.
Be the first to comment