I’ve known police officers who deserve to be in jail – why can’t the Met do the right thing?

What is more damaging – that an otherwise decent policeman be dismissed for an allegation that has never been proven in a criminal court, or that a serious offender is allowed to remain on the force, asks former Met chief John Sutherland

There are people in policing who have no place being there. Some of them actually belong in jail. And the agonising realities of recent times tell us exactly what can happen when we fail to identify them in time.

I make this observation in the aftermath of a High Court ruling, stating that it would be unlawful for the Metropolitan Police to dismiss officers solely on the basis that their vetting clearance has been removed. Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner, has responded by saying that the court has left policing in a “hopeless position” in its efforts to rid itself of those it believes have no place in its ranks.

The case involved is a highly emotive one. Sergeant Lino Di Maria’s vetting was revoked on the basis that he had been the subject of multiple historical allegations of rape and sexual assault. He had not been found guilty – either in court or in disciplinary proceedings – of any of these allegations, and those representing him argued that he had been denied the right to defend himself. The High Court Judge agreed.

Sir Mark has suggested that the ruling leaves him with no simple and straightforward process for dismissing officers who "cannot be trusted to work with women" or to "enter the homes of vulnerable people”. And his concerns are shared by a leading representative body for the Met’s female officers and staff. In a recent open letter to the Home Secretary, the Met’s Network of Women set out their “collective view that Di Maria’s dismissal would not only be justified but essential.”

As ever, there are no simple answers here. There should always be sufficient protections in place to guard against innocent police officers being falsely accused of things they haven’t done, and losing their livelihoods as a consequence. During my career, I faced malicious complaints that had no basis in fact and I was reliant on those protections to preserve my career and reputation.

But there is a balance to be struck. Society has every right to expect higher standards of police officers than we do of any other individual: because of the promises officers make on joining; because of the powers they are given while serving; and because of the position of trust that they occupy in all of our lives. And officers who fail vetting in the circumstances described in this case should be nowhere near the role.

I have chaired and observed plenty of police discipline boards in my time. I have also worked undercover in an effort to expose police corruption. And, on occasions, I have seen people I know to be guilty escape on a technicality, and remain in policing as a consequence. I mention the fact, not in some clumsy attempt to suggest that due process be abandoned, but to point out that - if we are genuinely serious about wanting to rid policing of those who would do serious harm - a more robust approach may be required. One with appropriate checks and balances, of course, but one that offers the guilty no hiding place.

I have spent much of my time since the announcement of the High Court ruling asking myself the same, nagging question. Which of the following carries the greater risk, not only to policing but to wider society – that an otherwise decent copper is dismissed for an allegation that has never been proven in a court of law, or that a serious offender is allowed to remain?

In a perfect world, of course, neither of those things would ever happen. But the world is far from perfect at the moment - and policing is less perfect than almost anything else.

It may well be that the current vetting system requires some refinement and that the High Court ruling will assist in making that happen, but I am in no doubt about where the greater risk lies. The Met’s recent history teaches us that this is no mere philosophical argument – of little or no consequence in the real world. It is, in fact, a matter of life and death.

* John Sutherland is a former commander of the Metropolitan Police. His latest thriller, ‘The Castle’, will be published in April by Orion Books