PSNI ‘failed’ woman over claim against Katie Simpson murder accused
A PSNI investigation into an alleged act of indecent exposure by the man who was charged with the murder of Katie Simpson was “inadequate”, the Police Ombudsman has found.
The Ombudsman revealed the complainant was failed after officers took no additional statements despite there being three potential witnesses, and did not listen to an allegedly threatening voice message sent to the victim.
The PSNI has previously apologised for “unacceptable failings” in their investigation into the death of the 21-year-old showjumper.
Ms Simpson, from Tynan, Co Armagh, died in Altnagelvin Area Hospital almost a week after an incident in Gortnessy Meadows, Lettershandoney.
Police originally thought she had taken her own life.
It was not until the following year that Jonathan Creswell, the partner of Ms Simpson’s sister, was arrested on suspicion of murder.
The trial of Creswell, 36, for the murder of Ms Simpson ended in April 2024 after he took his own life following the first day of proceedings.
After Creswell’s death a woman made a complaint to the Police Ombudsman raising concerns on how police had dealt with a report she made in January 2016, that he exposed himself to her at a horse yard in Co Antrim some months prior.
The Ombudsman found a number of shortcomings in the police investigation, such as the officer that was initially assigned to the case recording only one witness statement during the four months she was in charge.
No statements were obtained from three other witnesses, including a potential eyewitness.
A second officer subsequently allocated the case did not obtain any further statements, and neither officer listened to a recording of an allegedly threatening voice message sent by Creswell.
Furthermore, the ombudsman found the file submitted to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) by the second investigating officer was inaccurate.
It stated that Creswell was known to police only for motoring offences, when he had previously been jailed for violent offending against a woman; and incorrectly stated that there was no outstanding evidence and no other witnesses in the case.
The PPS subsequently directed that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute but advised that if Creswell was interviewed about the allegation in future, the file could be resubmitted for further consideration.
When interviewed by Police Ombudsman investigators, the police officer initially assigned to the case said she would have obtained the outstanding witness statements if she had kept ownership of the investigation.
The second officer, who was allocated the case five months after the initial allegation, said he had not been instructed to obtain any further evidence and believed his role to have been in a monitoring capacity.
He added that he had not considered Creswell’s previous violent offending to be relevant to the case.
The Police Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations, Nikki Davis, said police “failed the complainant, both as a woman and as a victim”.
“Indecent exposure is a serious crime and can indicate a potential for escalating sexual offending, so it is important that reports are robustly investigated,” she said.
“We also know that sexual crime is under-reported, and that it takes great courage for victims to go to the police.
“Unless reports of sexual offences are properly investigated, victims will be less likely to come forward, offenders will remain free to reoffend, and efforts to combat violence and sexual offending against women and girls will be undermined.”