Outrage as Met Police officer who was caught performing a sex act on a train is STILL on the force six years later - and the disciplinary chair who let him off with a warning rose to Deputy Commissioner
Met Police officer, Terry Malka, who was caught carrying out a drunken sex act in a First Class train carriage, is still serving in the force.
This shows, in my view, major problems within the Met disciplinary procedure. But not necessarily for the reasons that article says.
The most important problem is that 15 months elapsed between the act (Dec 2017) and the disciplinary hearing (March 2019). Cases warranting Summary Dismissal necessarily involve major breaches of a contract of employment. And need to be dealt with swiftly. Once all that time has elapsed, it is too late to safely summarily dismiss. A Final Written Warning is as much as he could safely be given at that time. Because of that delay.
The next problem is bringing this all up again more than 5 years later than the act. Employees are entitled to trust and confidence from their employer. For whatever reason, he was effectively given one last chance by his employer. And he has clearly taken that chance-he has done nothing subsequently that led to dismissal. Throwing him under the bus more than 5 years later is a terrible thing to do.
The Met could do with reviewing their internal procedures. Not attacking 1 of their employees in public.
Met police officer accused of ‘sucking on woman’s breast’ cleared of sexual assault on duty
A Metropolitan Police officer has been cleared of sexually assaulting a woman while on duty after claiming his DNA may have ended up on her breast because she shook his hand.
Because the great strength of the legal systems in the UK is that, for all serious offences, the Defendant has the right for a jury to determine whether or not he is Guilty. And it was the Jury, having heard all the evidence and weighed up how believable all the witnesses were, and decided the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It is undoubtedly the case that Juries are more willing to believe that reasonable doubt exists. Unlike, say, Magistrates, who have heard it all before.
The thing is, that does mean that Defendants are more likely to be found Not Guilty by a Jury. That would be some of the Guilty ones. And some of the Innocent ones.
I don't think that is a bad thing. I would rather fresh faces looked at cases, rather than world-weary cynics.
Yes I suppose I do mean me, I didn't come down with the last shower of rain.
My recent experience of the legal system (as a witness rather than a defendant, I hasten to add) has not instilled me with much confidence in the system.
Because the great strength of the legal systems in the UK is that, for all serious offences, the Defendant has the right for a jury to determine whether or not he is Guilty. And it was the Jury, having heard all the evidence and weighed up how believable all the witnesses were, and decided the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It is undoubtedly the case that Juries are more willing to believe that reasonable doubt exists. Unlike, say, Magistrates, who have heard it all before.
The thing is, that does mean that Defendants are more likely to be found Not Guilty by a Jury. That would be some of the Guilty ones. And some of the Innocent ones.
I don't think that is a bad thing. I would rather fresh faces looked at cases, rather than world-weary cynics.
The below sounds very plausible.
Mr Aguilar-Delgado, who was suspended by the Met, was acquitted by a jury at Southwark Crown Court on Wednesday.
The woman told the jury that the officer French-kissed her, put his hands down her top and sucked her breast after offering to search her house for her abusive ex-partner while his colleague was in the car outside.
The court heard that Mr Aguilar-Delgado’s DNA was later found on swabs on the woman’s right nipple and breast.
Officer: Shocked my DNA on complainant’s breast Giving evidence last week, he said he was “shocked” and thought it was “impossible” when he was first told about the discovery.
Asked how he thought his DNA got onto the woman’s breast, the Pc said he had been close to her “talking loudly” and “maybe spitting or coughing”, as well as “touching handles” in her house in Croydon, south London.
He also suggested the transfer may have been as a result of her shaking his hand.
“The way she grabbed and shook my hand to say thank you, it wasn’t like a normal handshake,” he said.
“She just put the full arm in and grabbed it.”
The officer said that his hands were “sweaty” because it was a hot day and he had been biting his fingernails.
A video of a reconstruction of the alleged handshake was played in court and Mr Aguilar-Delgado showed his chewed-down nails to the jury.
“I remember that she went back and I don’t know if she touched herself to pull her top up,” he said.
Yes I suppose I do mean me, I didn't come down with the last shower of rain.
My recent experience of the legal system (as a witness rather than a defendant, I hasten to add) has not instilled me with much confidence in the system.
The system is only as good as the people in it-by which I only mean the Lawyers/Judges, not anyone else.
I'm safely retired, and no longer a Practising Solicitor. Which means I am able to speak more freely than some. So I will try and shed some light on why witnesses are sometimes dissatisfied with the system (although I should also mention I did not specialise in Criminal Law).
1. Lawyers are not supposed to "prep" witnesses. Always a fine line to tread there. In my experience, there are times a Solicitor/Barrister may provide some pertinent guidance without falling foul of that rule. Because the truth may look different according to the way it is told. And witnesses need to be aware that their evidence is likely to be challenged
2. A Witness is invariably there to assist either the Prosecution or the Defence. Which does tend to mean that the other side will try and cast doubt on either your evidence, or the weight that should be attached to it. That's their job. But if you feel let down, that would normally be at least partly due to the lack of skill on Lawyers on your side (although sometimes Judges leave a lot to be desired).
The system is most certainly not perfect. But, by and large, many of its deficiencies are there because there is no better alternative. Because it is designed to try and provide both sides to a story-unlike News articles, that tend to only provide 1.
Yes I suppose I do mean me, I didn't come down with the last shower of rain.
My recent experience of the legal system (as a witness rather than a defendant, I hasten to add) has not instilled me with much confidence in the system.
The system is only as good as the people in it-by which I only mean the Lawyers/Judges, not anyone else.
I'm safely retired, and no longer a Practising Solicitor. Which means I am able to speak more freely than some. So I will try and shed some light on why witnesses are sometimes dissatisfied with the system (although I should also mention I did not specialise in Criminal Law).
1. Lawyers are not supposed to "prep" witnesses. Always a fine line to tread there. In my experience, there are times a Solicitor/Barrister may provide some pertinent guidance without falling foul of that rule. Because the truth may look different according to the way it is told. And witnesses need to be aware that their evidence is likely to be challenged
2. A Witness is invariably there to assist either the Prosecution or the Defence. Which does tend to mean that the other side will try and cast doubt on either your evidence, or the weight that should be attached to it. That's their job. But if you feel let down, that would normally be at least partly due to the lack of skill on Lawyers on your side (although sometimes Judges leave a lot to be desired).
The system is most certainly not perfect. But, by and large, many of its deficiencies are there because there is no better alternative. Because it is designed to try and provide both sides to a story-unlike News articles, that tend to only provide 1.
Not perfect is an understatement. I think that his account was ridiculous, and am amazed that a jury would fall for it.
Surely there is a chemical difference between saliva and sweat? But then the prosecution probably didn't know they were going to use these stories as a defence and therefore were not in a position to bring further expert witnesses to refute them.
Of course one would think the prosecution would have asked him whether the woman's breasts were on display when he was 'talking loudly' to her and maybe 'spitting or coughing', as I'm sure, being a police officer he should have noticed if they were.
"No CV" "Correct background" What could possibly go wrong?
Let's take those 2 objections. Because they show both why some thinking is outdated, and why some solutions are plain wrong.
I disagree with you on the CV one. Lots of employers are moving away from CVs towards streamlined applications. It helps to foster a level playing field. I want to a Public School. I have various advantages, including better education, access to help with CVs, and English is my first language. Precisely none of which is of any relevance as to whether or not I would be a good police officer. We need to ensure the playing field is level.
Where I agree with you is on the "correct background" bit. For exactly the same reason as above. The aim is to ensure a level playing field. That is just as true for people in posh areas/ones with relatives in the force, as ones from Minority or White English backgrounds. The point is, there should be no "correct background".
The UK desperately needs more BAME officers. Both to destigmatise being a PC in certain cultures, and to utilise their skills in fighting particular crimes. It needs to take account of backgrounds. But only to ensure we get what are truly the best people for the job.
On that subject, considerable strides are being made to get a more diverse police force. But that seems only to apply to PCs. Senior ranks have very, very few BAME officers.
Comments
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/former-met-police-officer-shoots-195021824.html
A Metropolitan Police officer has been cleared of sexually assaulting a woman while on duty after claiming his DNA may have ended up on her breast because she shook his hand.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/met-police-officer-accused-sucking-213712228.html
Because the great strength of the legal systems in the UK is that, for all serious offences, the Defendant has the right for a jury to determine whether or not he is Guilty. And it was the Jury, having heard all the evidence and weighed up how believable all the witnesses were, and decided the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It is undoubtedly the case that Juries are more willing to believe that reasonable doubt exists. Unlike, say, Magistrates, who have heard it all before.
The thing is, that does mean that Defendants are more likely to be found Not Guilty by a Jury. That would be some of the Guilty ones. And some of the Innocent ones.
I don't think that is a bad thing. I would rather fresh faces looked at cases, rather than world-weary cynics.
My recent experience of the legal system (as a witness rather than a defendant, I hasten to add) has not instilled me with much confidence in the system.
Mr Aguilar-Delgado, who was suspended by the Met, was acquitted by a jury at Southwark Crown Court on Wednesday.
The woman told the jury that the officer French-kissed her, put his hands down her top and sucked her breast after offering to search her house for her abusive ex-partner while his colleague was in the car outside.
The court heard that Mr Aguilar-Delgado’s DNA was later found on swabs on the woman’s right nipple and breast.
Officer: Shocked my DNA on complainant’s breast
Giving evidence last week, he said he was “shocked” and thought it was “impossible” when he was first told about the discovery.
Asked how he thought his DNA got onto the woman’s breast, the Pc said he had been close to her “talking loudly” and “maybe spitting or coughing”, as well as “touching handles” in her house in Croydon, south London.
He also suggested the transfer may have been as a result of her shaking his hand.
“The way she grabbed and shook my hand to say thank you, it wasn’t like a normal handshake,” he said.
“She just put the full arm in and grabbed it.”
The officer said that his hands were “sweaty” because it was a hot day and he had been biting his fingernails.
A video of a reconstruction of the alleged handshake was played in court and Mr Aguilar-Delgado showed his chewed-down nails to the jury.
“I remember that she went back and I don’t know if she touched herself to pull her top up,” he said.
I'm safely retired, and no longer a Practising Solicitor. Which means I am able to speak more freely than some. So I will try and shed some light on why witnesses are sometimes dissatisfied with the system (although I should also mention I did not specialise in Criminal Law).
1. Lawyers are not supposed to "prep" witnesses. Always a fine line to tread there. In my experience, there are times a Solicitor/Barrister may provide some pertinent guidance without falling foul of that rule. Because the truth may look different according to the way it is told. And witnesses need to be aware that their evidence is likely to be challenged
2. A Witness is invariably there to assist either the Prosecution or the Defence. Which does tend to mean that the other side will try and cast doubt on either your evidence, or the weight that should be attached to it. That's their job. But if you feel let down, that would normally be at least partly due to the lack of skill on Lawyers on your side (although sometimes Judges leave a lot to be desired).
The system is most certainly not perfect. But, by and large, many of its deficiencies are there because there is no better alternative. Because it is designed to try and provide both sides to a story-unlike News articles, that tend to only provide 1.
I think that his account was ridiculous, and am amazed that a jury would fall for it.
Of course one would think the prosecution would have asked him whether the woman's breasts were on display when he was 'talking loudly' to her and maybe 'spitting or coughing', as I'm sure, being a police officer he should have noticed if they were.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/revealed-one-100-uk-police-185057018.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/former-acting-met-commissioner-allegedly-called-bulk-of-rape-complaints-regretful-sex/ar-AA186EGj?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fab0c6b35f804705a1452d0c627022f4&ei=79
"Correct background"
What could possibly go wrong?
I disagree with you on the CV one. Lots of employers are moving away from CVs towards streamlined applications. It helps to foster a level playing field. I want to a Public School. I have various advantages, including better education, access to help with CVs, and English is my first language. Precisely none of which is of any relevance as to whether or not I would be a good police officer. We need to ensure the playing field is level.
Where I agree with you is on the "correct background" bit. For exactly the same reason as above. The aim is to ensure a level playing field. That is just as true for people in posh areas/ones with relatives in the force, as ones from Minority or White English backgrounds. The point is, there should be no "correct background".
The UK desperately needs more BAME officers. Both to destigmatise being a PC in certain cultures, and to utilise their skills in fighting particular crimes. It needs to take account of backgrounds. But only to ensure we get what are truly the best people for the job.
On that subject, considerable strides are being made to get a more diverse police force. But that seems only to apply to PCs. Senior ranks have very, very few BAME officers.
@Essexphil
100% agree, our Police Force desperately needs to be more diverse, the more the better.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/dozens-uk-police-officers-disciplined-130024906.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/met-officers-arrested-hundreds-call-101403410.html