Police Ombudsman signals there was not enough evidence to take action over claim officer abused 14-year-old
The police ombudsman has signalled that there was insufficient evidence to take action over a claim that a policeman abused a 14-year-old girl.
The watchdog had stated as fact that the abuse took place.
When pressed, it has now indicated that there were no criminal or disciplinary proceedings launched over the allegation – though it has declined to be absolutely definitive.
It comes after it released a report this month into allegations of sexual misconduct by officers.
It calls this behaviour “abuse of position for sexual purposes” (APSP).
The report looked at a sample of 42 cases of alleged APSP from 2018 up to 2025, all by policemen against females.
The report stated that “the youngest victim was 14-years-old when the abuse took place”.
This led to headlines such as the following the from BBC NI: ‘Girl, 14, among victims of 'predatory' police behaviour’.
SDLP Policing Board member Colin McGrath said: “These cases are incredibly serious, they involve police officers using their role to take advantage of very vulnerable people, with the youngest recorded being just 14.
“The public must be able to rely on our police officers; this is people’s trust being exploited in the worst way.”
The 14-year-old is mentioned twice in the ombudsman's 36-page report, but there is no clue as to what became of her case.
Obviously, a policeman sexually abusing a 14-year-old is a crime, so the News Letter wondered why there had been no reports of a court case concerning the matter.
The ombudsman's office was asked whether the officer was dismissed and/or convicted over this.
It responded: “Of the [42] investigations included in the analysis:
“Three cases have resulted in convictions;
“Three cases have resulted in the dismissal of the police officer;
“One case resulted in a final written warning;
“One case was closed as the police officer left the service before disciplinary proceedings took place;
“Eight cases await the outcome of criminal or disciplinary proceedings;
“And four investigations are ongoing.
“The remaining cases were closed for a number of reasons, including where victims felt unable to engage with the investigation (an issue which is highlighted in the report) or where the threshold for criminal or disciplinary proceedings was not met.
“The case involving the 14-year-old child is among these investigations.
“We will not provide any further detail in order to safeguard the victim.”
For the avoidance of any doubt, the News Letter asked the ombudsman's office to be “unambiguous”: is it saying the officer accused in the case involving this 14-year-old child was neither disciplined nor prosecuted?
It responded: “On this occasion because of the risk of identification of both the victim and the police officer, we are unable to make any further comment.”
The News Letter had made similar enquiries with the PSNI, but it had directed the News Letter to the ombudsman.
The report stated that all victims it had looked at had “at least one known vulnerability”.
The ombudsman deemed there to be 18 different things that count as ‘vulnerabilities’, including being the perpetrator of a crime (as well as being a foreign national, being a single parent, abusing alcohol or drugs, and self-diagnosing with mental health issues).
The ombudsman's office said: “Involvement in a crime can make a female victim more vulnerable to exploitation by a police officer, for example in ‘turning a blind eye’ to offending in return for favours.”
A recurring point in the report is that some ‘victims’ do not consider themselves to be ‘victims’.
The report states: “It is our hope that by publishing these emerging findings and working with key stakeholders – including victims and their advocacy groups as well as partners in the criminal justice system – we can support victims to recognise themselves as such and encourage them to come forward so the behaviours can be investigated.”