TWO inexperienced police officers have kept their jobs despite failing to investigate a drug addict’s claims she was sexually assaulted while semi-conscious after taking crack. 

PC Emma Benson-Shaw and PC Joshua Stevens were told before they arrived at a Bristol hostel that the woman, a sex worker, was suicidal and looking for tablets to take as a result of the alleged attack last summer. 

She told them she had overdosed but they believed she was lying because of an “unconscious bias” against her “chaotic” lifestyle, a misconduct panel found. 

PC Benson-Shaw and PC Stevens, who joined Avon and Somerset Police in 2017, said the woman was sleeping against a door when they left, claiming she was not in a fit state to give evidence. She was later hospitalised after being found unresponsive. 

The panel said the officers did “less than the minimum required” to investigate the woman’s claims or to protect her when her life was at risk – but also that they could learn from their mistakes. 

Speaking at the fourth day of a misconduct hearing at the force HQ in Portishead on July 2, panel chair Anna Vigars said: “There was an obvious, real and immediate risk to [the victim’s] life. There was no way of knowing what drugs she had taken. 

“The panel doesn’t find [the victim] was treated differently because of who she was. She was subject to unconscious bias. 

“She was difficult for the two officers to deal with. They considered her chaotic. 

“They wrote off her condition down to her class A drug use. They failed to give her the attention they would have given a complainant without those difficulties. We don’t find that was deliberate.”

The woman told the officers she had suffered a miscarriage, was involved in an ongoing rape case, she was undergoing testing for breast cancer and hepatitis C, and that her mum was dying. 

Representing the force, barrister Elliot Gold said those factors would only have increased her risk of self-harm. 

The woman said she had overdosed and taken all of her tablets but the officers told the hearing they knew that was not the case because she had shown them sealed packets of medication. PC Benson-Shaw took it as a “throwaway comment”. 

She and PC Stevens left after concluding the woman was not in a fit state to give evidence or to consent for swabs to be taken to obtain the suspect’s DNA. They said she was sleeping against the door but they were not concerned for her welfare, as she had not mentioned self-harming to them. 

Ms Vigars said any competent officer would have checked on the woman’s health before leaving the scene, adding: “It must have been clear [the victim] was highly vulnerable and there was a real and immediate risk to her life. The officers left a vulnerable woman who had told the control room of her desire to take an overdose.”

The panel also criticised significant failings in the sexual assault investigation – the officers did not collect a kit to take swabs from the victim despite Trinity Road police station being five minutes away, they did not tell her not to wash to preserve any DNA evidence, and they did not take a description of the suspect or take steps to arrest him. 

Ms Vigars said: “They did less than the minimum required of a competent investigation.”

Mr Gold said those failings put the investigation, and potentially other vulnerable women, at risk. He said the suspect had never been identified and the woman is currently untraceable. 

He said unconscious discrimination can damage public confidence in the police. 

Representing the officers, barrister Ramin Pakrooh said: “This wasn’t a case of wilful wrongdoing or deliberate dishonesty. The bias was unconscious  and may be part of a wider attitude that needs to be educated out. At this stage in the officers’ career, this can be put right by a final written warning.”

Colleagues spoke highly of the two officers and said they go “above and beyond”. 

After a “long and anxious” deliberation, Ms Vigars said their dismissal would have been justified but public confidence in the police service could be maintained if they were handed a final written warning. 

She said the outcome would have been different if they had been more experienced or better supported during the incident.