Man jailed for attacking woman abused others as police ‘failed to heed rape threats’

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

A man jailed for attacking a woman and who allegedly threatened to rape others was able to commit his offences because police failed to investigate “red-flag” allegations against him, The Independent has learned.

Campaigners have warned that the case, which came to light this week, provides more evidence that police are failing to heed warnings given to them about dangerous behaviour committed by men against women and girls, leaving them free to commit other offences.

In 2019, a Brighton woman contacted police to report receiving digital messages that amounted to sexual harassment.

The alleged perpetrator had met the victim once for a business meeting a year earlier and had connected with her on social media, but was now harassing her by sending so-called “d*** pics”, videos of masturbation and rape threats.

Police visited the 41-year-old mother at her home, but then downplayed the incident and encouraged her not to take formal action.

She explained: “They came to my house and that’s when they said ‘are you sure it’s him? How can you tell?’ The insinuation was that it’s not really a crime and he can say he was hacked.”

Police told the woman she could press charges but it would be difficult and time-consuming, and advised her they would visit the man to give him a verbal warning instead. Police sent an email confirming they would speak to the man to warn him to desist, and told her to lock her doors and change her routine to keep herself safe.

When the woman chased police to check that a warning had been given, she was told it had not but that they had established he was “no longer a threat”. By googling the man, she discovered this was because he had been imprisoned for an offence involving another woman, for which he was charged with robbery. The victim had spoken of her fear that he had intended to sexually assault her.

“If you read the heartbreaking report from the woman, it’s clear she felt she was going to be raped,” she said. “I have no doubt either. This incident happened after I reported [the videos].”

She also found other women describing receiving similar rape threats from the man.

The Brighton woman contacted Sussex Police again and said that she wanted to press charges in the hope that it would be taken into account when considering his release from prison.

In a letter to the force, she wrote: “My worry is that the authorities do not fully understand the risks of this man and his clear intention/fascination with rape… I hate the thought that another woman could be attacked and/or sexually assaulted when it could have been prevented.”

Sussex Police resumed inquiries into her case, referring it to another police force because the man was arrested and imprisoned in another area.

An officer wrote to the woman confirming they were investigating his digital communications and promised to update her in “a couple of weeks”. The officers then passed the case back to Sussex Police without explaining why to the victim or the force.

Sussex Police visited the woman at home in Brighton again to explain that her complaint could no longer be progressed because the timeframe in which charges could be brought on this type of offence had passed. “The guy couldn’t even look at me,” she said. “He said ‘we know it’s wrong’.”

The criminal in question has now completed his jail sentence and has not been prosecuted for or convicted of any sexual offence.

The woman made a formal complaint via the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which passed the complaint back to Sussex to assess its own protocol.

In a letter, the complaints department said it had concluded that “the service provided by Sussex Police was acceptable” but that it could not comment on why the other police force had not been able to conclude the investigation within the required timeframe. It stated that the other police force would send an independent reply to the complaint, but no message has been forthcoming.

Speaking to The Independent, the woman said: “Nothing has been done. I’m so angry. What will it take for the police to listen to us?”

She referenced how it was now clear the man who killed Sarah Everard was known to the police, and how his alleged “indecent exposure” wasn’t immediately investigated.

Jamie Klingler, a campaigner with the Reclaim These Streets movement, said apparently minor incidents of sexually aggressive behaviour from men were a “flashing omen” routinely dismissed by police when first reported.

“Women and violence against women are deprioritised,” she said. “We’re not taken seriously, we’re not believed and they do not legitimise our threats. It feels like it’s a shorthand for them just to cancel us, to cancel the validity of our emotions.”

A spokesperson for the other police force said: “[We] carried out extensive enquiries into the matter and, in line with [our] crime recording standards, the report was returned to Sussex Police for further enquiry. We are not aware of a request from the IOPC for a statement regarding this matter.” The force is not covered by the IOPC.

A spokesperson for Sussex Police said: “The agreed practice of managing crime investigations in this scenario is [that] the force where the suspect is residing should take primacy. [The appropriate police force] were provided with all relevant paperwork and agreed to take ownership of the investigation. Our professional standards department has retained a copy of the complaint and the outcome for monitoring purposes.”

The IOPC declined to comment on the handling of the complaint.