Police are slammed for failing to stop ‘one of worst ever domestic violence cases’ that saw girlfriend beaten with hammers and forced to eat…
Read Time:12 Minute, 22 Second
#MTNshortz3sixtyworld
Police are slammed for failing to stop ‘one of worst ever domestic violence cases’ that saw girlfriend beaten with hammers and forced to eat pictures of her dead relatives by her abusive ex
An investigation has found widespread failings in how police handled ‘one of worst ever cases’ of domestic violence seen in Wales.
Craig Thomas was jailed in 2013 for subjecting his then-partner to several months of near constant torture after locking her in his Cardiff flat.
Despite being pregnant with his child, he beat Charlotte Rooks, 35, with hammers, made her sleep naked standing up and forced her to eat pictures of deceased loved ones.
The judge who jailed Thomas, then 33, for 10 years labelled it ‘one of the worst cases of domestic abuse’ he had ever encountered.
Now a damning report from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has revealed how police:
- Visited the flat where Miss Rooks was trapped several times after tip-offs from members of the public.
- Failed to grasp the full horror of the victim’s enduring ordeal.
- Failed to arrest her tormentor until she finally managed to escape through her own daring.
- Failed to properly conduct their own internal investigations into mistakes made.
Following its publication, South Wales Police have issued a ‘sincere apology’ and admitted that the victim was let down by them.
The report itself details a timeline of errors made over a 12-month period.
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013, a member of the public reported hearing the sound of a woman screaming at Miss Rooks’s home at the time in Cardiff. The witness also told police they had recently seen Miss Rooks and that she was visibly bruised.
Two officers attended the home – identified in the report as PC A and PC B.
After calling at the property they concluded the couple had been having loud sex. In fact Thomas had been brutally beating Miss Rooks.
The police officers did not contact the person who made the tip-off, and the report concluded that ‘the rationale that they had disturbed a couple “having sex” does not explain the presence of the bruising seen days before by the witness. This was seemingly overlooked by both officers’.
The officers did not attempt to speak to Miss Rooks in a separate room to her alleged attacker, despite it being their policy to do so.
They failed to even record the names of Miss Rooks and Thomas so other officers would know if similar incidents happened.
Miss Rooks even tried to tip the officers off by saying it was her baby that had been heard. They did not pick up on the hint that she didn’t have a baby.
In the report the investigator said there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to charge the officers with misconduct but South Wales Police said that the actions ‘fell below the standard expected and that their performance was unsatisfactory’.
The report also found that the officer’s supervisor, PC J, ‘fell below the standard expected’ by not questioning why a more thorough investigation was undertaken.
PC J has since left the force. On July 8 a member of the public reported seeing Thomas attacking Miss Rooks through the window of his flat on Trenchard Drive in Llanishen, Cardiff.
Four officers went to the flat and Thomas told the them the call was a fake.
According to one of the officers, known as PC C in the report, Thomas told officers that ‘people had a vendetta against him over drugs and suggested that this was why the police had been called’.
The call was in fact genuine. Thomas had been repeatedly beating a pregnant Miss Rooks, hitting her stomach with the metal extension from his vacuum.
Despite the fact officers identified reddening on her cheek that ‘looked fresh’ and injuries to her eye it was recorded that there was no sign of a disturbance.
The incident was closed and no further action was taken.
In a damning conclusion the report said: ‘There is no evidence to support the notion that the call was malicious, bar what the officers were told by Mr Thomas.’
Most incredibly the report found that ‘officers did not undertake any enquiries at all’ despite the fact ‘[Miss Rooks] lived in a block of flats at the time, which in all probability would have meant a number of residents lived within earshot of the premises’.
South Wales Police acknowledged that two of the officers had a case to answer for misconduct.
When the police left on that day Thomas took out his frustrations on Miss Rooks.
‘When they left I knew that I was f***ed,’ said Miss Rooks. ‘I thought that I was going to die.That night I remember saying to him to just kill me.
‘He said: “I will either give you bleach or you can put a bag over your head.”
‘I remember really weighing up these options because I just wanted to die.
‘That night he lifted up the sofa and made me lie down and put my arms above my head so that my hands were trapped under the sofa and would then repeatedly jump on my stomach.
‘Obviously your body reaction is to curl up but my hands were trapped under the sofa. If I couldn’t control my reflexes he would just stamp on my head – that went on all night.
‘I was being tortured. That is exactly what CID said. [The person interviewing me] had to take a break himself during the interview.’
Thomas was eventually arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison at Cardiff Crown Court.
According to the report an officer listed as Ch Insp G conducted a review into the conduct of the officers leading up the evental conviction.
He ‘accepted the officers’ belief that the explanation for the reddening of her eye as satisfactory’.
The report also says that Ch Insp G said that if the officers had obtained photographs of the scene or injuries it could be viewed as an intrusion into Thomas’ privacy and contrary to article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
On May 30, 2017, South Wales Police agreed the actions of Ch Insp G fell below the standard expected and that his performance was unsatisfactory and that ‘consideration would be given to Ch Insp G receiving additional / refresher training in relation to domestic abuse’.
In May 2014 Miss Rooks contacted South Wales Police via her solicitor to complain about the way the two incidents were dealt with.
The officer investigating, known only PS H, was found to have a case to answer for.
The officer’s failings in this investigation stretch to almost five pages and include:
- Making no reference to the May incident in his proportionate report despite the fact it was 50 per cent of the complaint. At interview he conceded that he had been unable to find it on police records.
- Failing to speak to Miss Rooks directly at any point.
- Not maintaining a workbook or policy file in relation to recording his decision-making or actions as part of his investigation.
- Failing to speak to PC C as part of the investigation.
- Failing to ‘have reviewed any police records, other than the incident and NICHE occurrence for the incident on 8 July 2013’.
- Not being aware if the original informant had been recontacted by the officers, if house-to-house enquiries had been completed, or if there had been any injuries recorded.
He stated that he had not received any training in relation to undertaking misconduct investigations, he was not familiar with the Police Reform Act 2002 and only had a limited awareness of the police misconduct process.
He also stated he was not aware where he could find additional information relating to misconduct legislation
In a damning conclusion the report writer said that: ‘In my opinion, PS H completed a limited investigation into the complaints.
‘Given PS H’s lack of training in dealing with police complaints, it is suggested there is a significant gap in his knowledge base in relation to dealing with higher-level misconduct complaints.
![Most incredibly the report found that 'officers did not undertake any enquiries at all' despite the fact '[Miss Rooks] lived in a block of flats at the time, which in all probability would have meant a number of residents lived within earshot of the premises'](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/01/17/4DCE987700000578-5906419-image-a-138_1530462106617.jpg)
‘He completed the report in just over a month, which also included a period of annual leave over Christmas.
‘In my opinion, the complaints made by Charlotte constituted a potentially complex complaint. PS H’s report appears brief and arguably missed out several important investigative actions.’
According to the report, PS H ‘will be dealt with by being given Management Action’.
It said: ‘This resolution would include a thorough debrief with the officer,highlighting this independent investigation’s findings and, where necessary, action required to address any training needs or further awareness-raising which may emerge from this process.’
Miss Rooks was not given a full copy of the report as parts were redacted and the full report has not been made available to the public.
She feels that until she is given a full copy she can never truly know if lessons have been learnt.
‘I am not telling women in the same position as me not to go to the police but I just want to hear that lessons have been learnt,’ she said.
‘A couple of hours training means nothing, it needs to be something they are constantly aware of and looking for.
‘It’s an absolute joke. What would I say to those officers? There are a few who I have the most contempt for.
‘There was one who came with me when I eventually got taken to hospital and he was one of the ones who had left me with him the night before.
‘One of the ones that sticks in my mind the most was one of the women.
‘Not one person has lost their job over what happened to me. I think that is disgusting.
‘If I am one of the worst cases of domestic violence they have ever seen what message does that send out when they didn’t help me?
‘Please don’t get me wrong. I am not telling women not to report things but I find it really hard to have the faith in the justice system after what I have been through. It wasn’t just me – I was pregnant.’
A South Wales Police statement said: ‘The manner in which we investigate and support victims has changed significantly since 2013, when this case took place, and the improvements we have made have subsequently been positively highlighted in an inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC).
‘We acknowledge that in this case we did not provide the victim with the care and protection she needed and deserved, and we are sincerely sorry for those shortcomings.
‘All of the officers who were identified by the IOPC in this case have since received appropriate management action.
‘In recent years we have worked incredibly hard to improve our response to domestic violence, and while of course we recognise that this may provide little comfort to the victim in this case because she was not given the safeguards she needed, we have evidence – supported by HMIC – that we are now providing a significantly improved response to protecting domestic abuse victims.
‘In a 2017 report, HMIC said they were pleased with the improvements we as a force had made in the way we protect vulnerable people from harm and how we support victims.
‘HMIC also stated that we now have a good understanding of the nature and scale of vulnerability among people in South Wales, having trained staff to identify repeat and vulnerable victims when they first contact us.
‘Tackling domestic abuse is an absolute priority for South Wales Police, and we continue to monitor the service we provide to ensure the safeguarding of victims is continuously improved.
‘We understand that absolute importance for victims to have the confidence both to report incidents of domestic abuse in the first place and to be reassured that we will listen to them and act positively, fairly and professionally throughout.
‘Anyone who wants to talk to someone about domestic abuse can speak to organisations including Welsh Women’s Aid, Victim Support, and Respect. You can call police on 101, and always dial 999 in an emergency.’
An IOPC spokeswoman said: ‘Our investigation into South Wales Police contact with Charlotte Rooks prior to a violent assault by her then boyfriend concluded in March 2017 and we met with Ms Rooks to outline our findings.
‘The investigation, which began in 2016, followed a complaint made by Ms Rooks about how South Wales Police handled incidents in May and July 2013, prior to the horrific attack on her.
‘She also appealed a subsequent police investigation into her complaint.
‘We reviewed the South Wales Police response, whether officers complied with relevant policies and procedures concerning potential domestic abuse incidents, and the force handling of her complaint.
‘A number of officers were investigated during the course of our enquiries.
‘Two officers were found to have cases to answer for misconduct for not taking positive action in relation to domestic abuse.
‘One was dealt with by the force through management action, and the other had left the force prior to the investigation taking place.
‘While not amounting to misconduct, the actions of three other officers fell below the standard expected and they were placed on a formal action plan by South Wales Police.
‘A police sergeant was also found to have a case to answer for misconduct for the quality of an internal investigation into Ms Rooks’ complaint and was dealt with through management action.’
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0