SUFFOLK police has denied allegations of a "cover up" in the investigation into a detective's claims against a fellow officer.Detective chief inspector Jim Friend, of the force's integrity and intelligence unit, was responding to accusations Vivienne Yarham's grievances were not looked into.
SUFFOLK police has denied allegations of a "cover up" in the investigation into a detective's claims against a fellow officer.
Detective chief inspector Jim Friend, of the force's integrity and intelligence unit, was responding to accusations Vivienne Yarham's grievances were not looked into.
The 44-year-old former detective constable was claiming constructive unfair dismissal against Suffolk police at an employment tribunal in Bury St Edmunds.
Speaking yesterday, on the final day of the hearing, DCI Friend said: "It certainly wasn't a cover up."
You may also want to watch:
"Investigating a police officer is a very difficult job. But that doesn't mean we don't do it."
His comments came after it was revealed neither Dc Yarham nor Dc Steve Rowland were asked to expand on written statements they had submitted.
- 1 Supermarket switch opens door to new Ipswich Lidl
- 2 Former Ipswich teacher appears in court charged with historic sex offences
- 3 Well-known Felixstowe bookseller to retire and hand over to vinyl store
- 4 Work finally starts on the Ipswich Garden Suburb after decades of debate
- 5 Man accused of Ipswich stabbing refuses to leave cell to enter plea
- 6 No need to wait for booster invitation - clarification after Covid jab confusion
- 7 Major Ipswich road partially blocked after crash involving Audi and Mercedes
- 8 15-year-old boy to face trial over alleged Ipswich stabbing
- 9 Police want to trace man in connection with Waterfront sexual assault
- 10 'It's like we're in the stone age' - Homophobic abuse halts LGBT+ parties
Dc Yarham had accused Dc Rowland of falsifying evidence in order to secure payment for one of his informers.
She also alleged he had laid a carpet during work hours and also had unsupervised contact with his informants, something that was against force policy.
The tribunal panel was also told Dc Rowland and a colleague had visited a crack house after drinking alcohol and at a time when they were off duty.
It was said these premises were under investigation at the time and the officers' actions could have compromised this.
But DCI Friend said Dc Yarham was not asked to explain her allegations, while Dc Rowland had no opportunity to defend them.
He said: "The taking of a witness statement was seen as pointless."
The tribunal was told Dc Yarham had been described as "paranoid" by her line manager, detective sergeant Stan Nichols.
This was said to infer Dc Yarham may have had a mental illness.
But this claim was rubbished by both superintendent Dave Cole and detective superintendent Paul Marshall.
Supt Cole had said he had been planning a meeting of the criminal investigation department to "dispel" any rumours.
He added the suggestion put forward by Ds Nichols had been "unprofessional" and "inappropriate"
Despite recognising this, Supt Cole said he did not speak to the officer about his use of words.
Addressing the tribunal, Supt Cole said: "On reflection… that may have been a failure on my part.
"Ds Nicholls was a very experienced officer who I respected and trusted. On reflection, his terminology may not have been appropriate."
Det supt Marshall said his investigation into the matter found Dc Yarham had done nothing wrong was a "very good source handler".
However, he found Dc Rowland's contact with his informants was not "fully in accordance with force policy".
He added it was "understandable" Dc Yarham had not wanted to return to work until she had received answers to all of her concerns. She resigned in October last year.
The panel is due to make a decision by October.