It transpires that before applying to Northumbria Police, he had served in the army where he had been accused of sexually assaulting young male soldiers. The matter was due to go to trial at Edinburgh High Court in 1997 but never progressed because the victims declined to give evidence. Of course this in itself was sufficient to preclude any employment as a police officer and even though Mitchell did not make any disclosure, it seems incredible that either army references were not taken up, or if they were that the MOD failed to inform Northumbria.
I should mention that because Mitchell appears to have been a non-discriminatory sex offender, in that he has abused young boys as well as women, this puts him in one of the most serious categories of sex offender. No doubt this was one reason that the Judge requested psychiatric reports in addition to a PSR before passing sentence.
As if this wasn't enough though we also learn that in 2006 Mitchell was discovered by colleagues to have had sex with a woman who had turned up at the police station drunk saying she had lost her keys. Mitchell gave her a lift home, but was seen to return later alone after his shift ended. A disciplinary hearing required him to resign, but due to a failure in process this could not be enforced and in 2008 he was re-instated. Incredibly a senior police officer is reported as telling the BBC "When he got his job back, we effectively put him in a cupboard. We knew we had to keep him away from the public."
Speaking after the trial, Northumbria Police temporary deputy Chief Constable Jim Campbell said:
"We acknowledge that this investigation has highlighted some failings within Northumbria Police at both the recruitment stage and when subsequent allegations were made during Mitchell's service with the force. Mitchell failed to disclose information which would have prevented him from being appointed as a Northumbria Police Officer, but this was not identified when he applied to join the force."
He also said Mitchell had been subject to investigations after complaints by three women.
Mr Campbell said the inquiries were carried out independently but there was not enough evidence to prosecute. But he said if the complaints had been investigated together, action against Mitchell would have been likely to have been carried out sooner.
It seems clear to me that something very serious happened at Northumbria Police and some very hefty compensation claims are quite likely from a whole string of victims. He had met all the women through his work as a police officer. All were vulnerable being mostly drug users and he plied them with heroin. One was disabled. In total sixteen women were put through the ordeal of having to give evidence against Mitchell, some so scared that they were hidden behind a screen. Even so in total he was aquitted of three counts of rape, three indecent assaults and nine counts of misconduct in public office. In relation to the guilty verdicts, after a week of deliberations the Judge allowed 10 to 2 majority verdicts, so a re-trial was a real possibility.
In the end the Judge decided that two life sentences were appropriate, rather than an Indeterminate Public Protection sentence. In setting the tariff at a slightly baffling seven and a half years before consideration of release he stated 'if at all'. Without doubt this will prove a most challenging case for the allocated probation officer over the coming years.
No comments:
Post a Comment