A police force was today embroiled in a ‘secrecy and sexism’ row involving a perverted superintendent secretly filming female colleagues and offensive texts that led to nine police officers being found guilty of gross misconduct.
Superintendent Edward Cook, 47, was sacked and barred from policing after a disciplinary hearing found he distributed and smoked cannabis, hired and had sex with a prostitute and covertly recorded women police officers, force staff and members of the public without their consent for his own sexual gratification over a seven-year period.
He also engaged in highly ‘inappropriate’ exchanges with Inspector Scott Snowden, 51, a colleague in the Humberside force who for four years sent texts that were ‘offensive to women,’ contained ‘inappropriate images’ and comments that were ‘misogynistic and suggestive of violence.’
Seven police constables were also found to have breached professional standards in the linked investigations. However, the misconduct hearings were all held behind closed doors and Humberside Police refused to identify the junior officers.
Humberside Police condemned the actions of all the officers – seven of whom were dismissed or resigned before being sacked – as ‘deplorable.’
Superintendent Edward Cook, 47, was sacked and barred from policing after a disciplinary hearing found he distributed and smoked cannabis, hired and had sex with a prostitute and covertly recorded women police officers, force staff and members of the public without their consent for his own sexual gratification over a seven-year period
But the force was facing criticism today for revealing only the barest details about what happened and protecting the guilty by refusing to name the seven constables.
Supt Cook’s cannabis use was said to be in a ‘social’ setting more than a decade ago and his liaison with a Cleethorpes hooker took place in 2003.
No further details have been disclosed about the covert videos, but campaigners have asked why he hasn’t been prosecuted for voyeurism.
Insp Snowden, who also searched porn websites on his mobile phone on duty, would have been sacked for breaching standards had he not already resigned. He was also barred from police work.
A police constable involved in the same disciplinary investigation who sent offensive videos would also have been sacked had he not left the force. He was banned from policing.
Insp Snowden, who also searched porn websites on his mobile phone on duty, would have been sacked for breaching standards had he not already resigned. He was also barred from police work
A separate although related inquiry involved six police officers involved in a WhatsApp group. They exchanged what were described as ‘wholly inappropriate offensive, sexist, racist, homophobic, misogynistic and anti-Semitic messages.’
The messages were sent over a nine-month period and the panel chaired by Chief Constable Lee Freeman found they were a clear breach of professional standards and undermined the trust and confidence in the force.
Three of the officers were sacked and a fourth would have been sacked had he not already quit. All four were barred from police work. The two remaining members of the group were given final written warnings.
Details of the texts have not been revealed by Humberside Police and there has been no explanation as to why the constables have not been named.
All the hearings took place in 2019 and kept secret as Supt Cook and Insp Snowden were charged with a criminal offence under the 2003 Communications Act of sending a grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing electronic message.
They denied the charge and were found not guilty at Leeds Magistrates Court last month.
Commenting on the gross misconduct findings, Assistant Chief Constable of Humberside Dave Marshall said: ‘The actions of these officers were deplorable and Humberside Police, its leadership and more importantly, our staff will not stand for this behaviour.
‘When this information came to light, we acted swiftly and robustly, and sought to bring appropriate sanctions to those involved. That has meant that seven of those involved have been dismissed and no longer work in policing.’
Adding: ‘I would like to reassure the community that while the actions of these officers may have tarnished their view of the police service, these aren’t the beliefs held by the overwhelming majority of officers at Humberside Police. I, along with the rest of my team, continue to identify and tackle anyone whose beliefs and behaviours do not match the values of Humberside Police.’
Harriet Wistrich, Director of the Centre for Women’s Justice, criticised the secrecy surrounding the Humberside misconduct cases. She said: ‘It’s in the public interest to know the nature of the allegations and to have the names of those who have been found guilty of misconduct.
‘Given what has come to light in the last few years about misconduct in the police and sexual misconduct in particular, there should be more transparency.’
She said it was ‘concerning’ that seven of the officers had remained anonymous and there was ‘no justification’ for the limited disclosure of information.
Commenting on Supt Cook’s case, she added: ‘Why wasn’t the officer prosecuted for voyeurism offences? These are serious offences.’
