At the heart of this scandal lies the ordeal of a complainant arrested in September 2024 on spurious grounds of rape, an allegation that SYP’s own logs later confirmed never existed. Yet, detained for over 35 hours, the individual endured profound trauma, including suicidal thoughts triggered by the stigma of being branded a rapist.
Officers PC Katie Gillatt and DI Dakin are accused of providing false statements to justify the arrest and subsequent cover-up, with the Professional Standards Department (PSD) allegedly complicit in a complaint coverup. Such actions, if proven, would amount to misconduct in public, hinting at the rot within the force.
Critics of the police will rightly question why it took the threat of a judicial review and pre-action letters to force SYP’s hand.
Initially, PSD dismissed the mandatory IOPC referral for the serious corruption before them, opting to keep the matter in-house despite clear conflicts of interest. Their August 2025 response cited narrow criteria for mandatory referrals, like deaths in custody, conveniently ignoring broader mandates for serious corruption.
Only after a September 2025 judicial review pre-action letter did SYP legal backtrack, referring the matter to the IOPC, but only voluntarily on 24 September citing potential public confidence impacts and PSD’s direct involvement ignoring the evidence of serious corruption.
The latest development, detailed in an email from SYP’s Data Protection Team, authorised by the SYP ‘Chief Officer’ for of the deletion of local records and photographs related to the non-existent rape offence, extending to the Police National Computer (PNC) via ACRO.
While welcome for the complainant albeit it over 12 months too late, this rectification exposes glaring breaches: SYP’s failure to issue a crime reference number for the alleged criminality by PC Katie Gillatt and DI Dakin, flouting Home Office Counting Rules and National Crime Recording Standards.
Why is there a delay in recording offences when suspects are police officers? It fuels growing suspicions of a two-tier system where police protect their own at all costs.
Broader implications cannot be ignored. Links to a vendetta from an inspector in another police force suggest possible cross-jurisdictional malice, demanding a robust investigation or private criminal prosecutions will commence.
This incident lays bare the serious flaws in police oversight. Mandatory referrals should not require the threat of judicial reviews through the Hight Courts. It highlights the vital role of legal action to pierce bureaucratic walls, but all comes at a cost to the victims’ mental health?
SYP’s Chief Constable Lauren Poultney must answer for this reluctance. The complainant vows to pursue accountability; the public should demand nothing less.
Be the first to comment