Police officers who dealt with a domestic dispute between a woman and her ex-partner days before he murdered her committed gross misconduct a panel has ruled.
Linah Keza, 29, of Leyton, east London, made a number of phone calls to police in the week prior to her murder on 31 July 2013.
David Gikawa, her former partner, was found guilty of her murder in May 2014 and was jailed for a minimum of 21 years.
Following the murder a referral was made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). Our investigation examined a series of instances where Ms Keza contacted the Metropolitan Police in the days leading up to her death, as well as one instance where Mr Gikawa contacted police.
Metropolitan Police officers Adrian Brown and Christopher Moore both attended the home of Ms Keza in the early hours of 29 July 2013 after she contacted police to make a number of allegations about Mr Gikawa.
Our investigation concluded that the officers had a case to answer for gross misconduct both in the manner in which they conducted themselves while at Ms Keza’s address, but also by not taking steps to arrest Mr Gikawa afterwards.
Ms Keza had alleged that Mr Gikawa had made threats to kill any man she associated with, had tampered with the tyres of her male friend’s car, parked outside the house, and continued to visit the area despite her telling him their relationship was over.
Our investigation found there was a large amount of conflicting evidence, including testimony of a friend of Ms Keza’s who said they were present, about this visit by PC Moore and Brown, and a panel would need to weigh the evidence before making a judgement.
The Metropolitan Police disagreed, but following a directed hearing that opened on 20 February the panel found the officers had breached standards of professional behaviour in relation to how they conducted themselves during the visit, and also for failing to take steps to arrest Mr Gikawa. Both officers were issued a final written warning.
Our investigation also collected conflicting evidence about how the officers followed up this visit. The pair both stated they had been told by a senior officer they did not need to carry out further actions as a different unit would handle any follow up.
This evidence was denied by the senior officer. Our investigation concluded PC Brown and PC Moore had a case to answer in relation to allegations that they may have been dishonest about the advice they received from the senior officer. The panel ruled the officers did not lie about the advice they received from their senior officer.
On 30 July 2013 Mr Gikawa made a call to the Metropolitan Police to request an officer attend Ms Keza’s house with him while he collect his belongings. This was on the advice he had received days earlier by different officers.
Our investigation found evidence to suggest PS Sidney Rogers failed to give consideration to existing intelligence relating to Mr Gikawa when handling this incident and that Mr Gikawa was advised he should attend the property with his brother.
We also found evidence that suggested PS Rogers may have lied in interview about the information he passed on to a fellow officer to be entered into police records about his conversation with Mr Gikawa.
The panel ruled PS Rogers failed to carry out his duties and responsibilities and lied to the IOPC during our investigation and issued him a final written warning.
IOPC regional director Sarah Green said: “The death of Linah was truly tragic and I offer my condolences to everyone affected. In the days before her death, Linah made a number of calls to the Metropolitan Police raising concerns about the man who would ultimately kill her.
“A panel has ruled that three officers prior to this terrible crime being committed, breached standards of professional behaviour in how they carried out their work.
“The panel has also ruled one of them then sought to distort the truth of their actions by misleading our investigation.
“Our investigation, which was completed in September 2016, also concluded two further officers committed misconduct in the way they handled their interactions with Ms Keza. One officer had already left the force while the other received management action.”
The IOPC directed the three officers face a gross misconduct hearing in July 2017.
An act of parliament that provides the core framework of police powers to combat crime and provide codes of practice for the exercise of these powers.
Leads and manages the development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The body that represents the interests of all police constables, sergeants, and inspectors.
Deals with someone’s inability or failure to perform to a satisfactory level, but without breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Focuses on putting an issue right and preventing it from happening again by encouraging those involved to reflect on their actions and learn. It is not a disciplinary process or a disciplinary outcome.
Department within a police force that deals with complaints and conduct matters.
Refers to lower-level misconduct or performance-related issues, which are dealt with in a proportionate and constructive manner.
This means doing what is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the facts and the context in which the complaint has been raised, within the framework of legislation and guidance.
The average is calculated using the individual results of the forces in that most similar force group.
An investigation carried out by IOPC staff.
Carried out by the police under their own direction and control. The IOPC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report when it is complete. Complainants have a right of appeal following a supervised investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
This act sets out how the police complaints system operates.
How a police force is run, for example policing standards or policing policy.
An investigation carried out by the police under the direction and control of the IOPC.
The organisation that is responsible for assessing how to deal with a complaint. For example – whether it can be handled locally or reaches the criteria for referral to the IOPC. The appropriate authority may be the chief officer of the police force or the PCC for the force. If a complaint investigation finds that someone has a case to answer for misconduct, the appropriate authority is responsible for arranging any misconduct proceedings. If you make a complaint, the appropriate authority for your case will contact you.
An intelligence-led agency with law enforcement powers, it is also responsible for reducing the harm that is caused to people and communities by serious organised crime.
Policing bodies include police and crime commissioners, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
Investigations carried out entirely by the police. Complainants have a right of appeal following a local investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
IOPC guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.
A complaint or recordable conduct matter that doesn’t need to be referred to the IOPC, but where the seriousness or circumstances justifies referral.
Parameters within which an investigation is conducted.
A person is adversely affected if he or she suffers any form of loss or damage, distress or inconvenience, if he or she is put in danger or is otherwise unduly put at risk of being adversely affected.
This is where a manager deals with the way someone has behaved. It can include: showing the police officer or member of staff how their behaviour fell short of expectations set out in the Standards of Professional Behaviour; identifying expectations for future conduct; or addressing any underlying causes of misconduct.
This could be the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A breach of standards of professional behaviour by police officers or staff so serious it could justify their dismissal.
A matter where no complaint has been received, but where there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
Quarter 1 covers 1 April - 30 June
Quarter 2 covers 1 April - 30 September
Quarter 3 covers 1 April - 31 December
Quarter 4 covers the full financial year (1 April - 31 March).
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
Used to house anyone who has been detained.
Complainants have the right to appeal to the IOPC if a police force did not record their complaint or notify the correct police force if it was made originally to the wrong force.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts behind a complaint, conduct matter, or DSI matter and reach conclusions. An investigator looks into matters and produces a report that sets out and analyses the evidence. There are three types of investigations: local, directed and independent.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
A person who makes a complaint about the conduct of someone serving with the police.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
List of officers and staff who have been dismissed from policing, or would have been if they had not retired or resigned.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
An independent judicial officer, the coroner enquires into deaths reported to him/her.
A breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that would justify at least a written warning.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
A record is made of a complaint, giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
This is a format where information is written in plain English and short sentences.
The IOPC must be notified about specific types of complaint or incidents to be able to decide how they should be dealt with.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
Casework involves assessing appeals. Casework staff also have a role in overseeing the police complaints system to help ensure police forces handle complaints in the best possible way.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
Conduct includes acts, omissions, statements and decisions (whether actual, alleged or inferred). For example: language used and the manner or tone of communications.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
