Serving Detective Chief Inspector James Mason, 43, received a final written warning after a Police Misconduct Tribunal found his behaviour towards a victim of crime amounted to gross misconduct.
We were told that the victim, then a women in her early twenties, was mugged in 2011 while on her way to buy ingredients for dinner. A man on a bicycle had unsuccessfully tried to grab her phone but in doing so bent her wrist backwards and elbowed her in the face.
The police were called and she was taken to the Robbery Squad office at a Police Station in Camden where her witness statement was taken by DCI James Mason.
What was said to have happened next is explained within the hearing notice:
On the 23rd October 2011 whilst in the rank of Detective Sergeant, DCI Mason took a witness statement from a female victim of an attempted Robbery.
Whilst taking the statement it is alleged that DCI Mason (then DS Mason) asked the victim inappropriate questions about her personal life, relationships and whether she would like to go for dinner that evening.
On the 24th October 2011 it is further alleged that DCI Mason (then DS Mason) was contacted by the female victim via email to enquire if further investigation could be done. DCI Mason (then DS Mason) engaged in an inappropriate email exchange with the female victim in an attempt to establish a relationship with a person he knew to be a victim of crime.
It is alleged that in acting this way Detective Chief Inspector James Mason breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of ‘Honesty & Integrity, Authority, Respect & Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct’.It is further alleged that his conduct, if proven, amounts individually or collectively to gross misconduct
https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/misconduct-hearings/2021/september/hearing-for-dci-james-mason/#
and is so serious as to justify dismissal.
What Happened?
I covered the first day of this hearing, posting a contemporaneous account of proceedings on Twitter. There was a number of Open Justice failures which will be covered in a separate post.
You can read my twitter thread of the first day here or it has been reproduced below with minor editorial corrections.
The second day of the hearing was covered in a detailed report by Local Democracy Reporter Josh Mellor in the Hackney Citizen.
UPDATE: The victims solicitor, Kevin Donoghue, has written in great detail about the case and explains ‘Why Institutional Misogyny Thrives in the Metropolitan Police’ in this three-part-blog.
The Met Police released a watered-down press release with the outcome of the hearing “Met officer given final written warning after misconduct hearing”
In a blatant act of Churnalism this press release was reproduced by:
The Newsshopper
The Independent
Thisislocalondon
Day 1 of the hearing – A Twitter Thread
I’m observing a Met Disciplinary hearing today:
“it is alleged that DCI Mason (then DS Mason) asked the victim inappropriate questions about her personal life, relationships and whether she would like to go for dinner that evening.”
I’ve been taken to a room and am watching the hearing via a video feed.
The sound keeps cutting out and is practically unwatchable.
The feed went blank midway through prosc reply. @metpoliceuk how is this Open Justice? #secretcourt
DCI James Mason alleged to have said “you still look amazingly hot” in an email to robbery victim.
Also alleged to have said the victim is now at his “top spot as my favourite Camden victim of crime” and to have told her “if you ever fancy a drink with a very discreet police officer let me know”
The sound feed to the room lags the video by 80 seconds so when the chair cuts the link to this remote viewing room we lose the last 1m20 of submissions. Our Usher reports this has been the case “for maybe 2 years” @metpoliceuk
We were told that the victim was mugged in 2011 while on her way to buy ingredients for dinner. While taking her witness statement DCI Mason is said to have asked her out for Chinese food “I’m fairly sure it was Chinese”. Was it an off the cuff remark? “No, definitely not”
Asked why she didn’t report it “if you get a man on your side you get the support that you need” … “I didn’t quite realise the significance (of the comment) until…” sound cuts off
The victim, whose identity is protected, cites the #metoo movement allowing “women to speak out and not be laughed at”. At the time she felt a “very independent and powerful women, now I realise I was incredibly vulnerable”
The hearing resumed at 12.08. A light has started flickering in this remote viewing room. Combined with the audio problems reporting is becoming increasingly difficult
The court heard directly from DCI James Mason. He’s 43 and joined the Met Police in 1999. Starting at Belgravia station he joined Hackney as a DS approx “4 or 5 years later”. We hear he has worked for the counter terrorism unit, becoming a DCI in 2017.
And we hear he worked as a “staff officer” for Cressida Dick before joining the flying squad which is where he is now.
DCI Mason is asked about his question of “do you have a boyfriend” reportedly asked to the victim in the Robbery Squad Office. He says it’s “very much an ordinary question to ask who is at the home address” citing general welfare considerations
Would it have been unusual for officers to have stopped off on the way home to allow the victim to collect food. Answer: no, his officers “are very aware of the best local eateries, particularly Chinese”… “it’s part of victim care”
DCI Mason asked how he feels about the e-mails he sent. “I’m embarrassed, ashamed at the pathetic and nauseating nature of them. It gives me no pleasure to hear them read back”
DCI Mason says he “accepts full responsibility for what he has done” … ” I offer an unreserved apology to the Met, to my colleagues and [the victim]”
DCI Mason tells the hearing that his “personal understanding of the imbalance of power” has lead to recognising “how uncomfortable” and the “huge ramifications”the victim must have felt
Asked how his conduct has been since the incident DCI Mason says “it has been exemplary”…”I have worked in a number of roles that require the highest level of professionalism”
We resumed after lunch at 14.18. The ‘prosecution’ (if that’s the right word in this environment), explains that as 95% of the facts are agreed the only issue for the tribunal is whether this is misconduct or gross misconduct
He invited the panel to consider the witness evidence of the victim “credible” and “it’s understandable why she did not make a prompt complaint”… “she had just experienced a violent act” having been robbed by four youths on bikes
He added “this is not the sort of case where you can say it was acceptable behaviour at the time”
The defence say “they do not seek to say she is not a credible witness” but that the victim “had contact with a number of officers that day” and could have been mistaken as to who invited her for a Chinese meal
The defence invites the panel to find plain misconduct saying that “whilst he has always accepted he has breached professional standards” … “he is clearly an officer who has conducted his duties to a very high standard”. Refer to 7 character statements from fellow officers
A finding of misconduct would mean DCI Mason could not be posted to his next promotion and would prevent involvement in the 2022 and 2023 selection process, the defence tells the hearing
The tribunal has adjourned to consider their findings. Due to the time lag the last 80 seconds of each session is cut off so we don’t know what indication of time the panel gave.
Watch this space
It has now been two hours since the tribunal adjourned and no updates on timing have been given to the public gallery.
Our usher has to leave at 5 and she’s having great difficulty getting through to anyone in the main building to find cover. It’s now been three hours of us staring at a screen stating “This session is currently in recess”.
The usher has not been able to get hold of anyone.
We have no idea what’s going on.
The tribunal may have already gone home ??? Yep, the tribunal had gone home.
We have been kept waiting in a sealed room for 4 hours.
The following day Mr Christopher McKay, chair of the panel, issued a verbal statement apologising for failure to inform public gallery the court had adjourned:
I understand that there are people viewing the hearing and there is a time delay on the process for transmitting the pictures to the remote location, there’s a deliberate time delay in case any matters mentioned which can be excluded from the public domain. The delay has not worked properly and I understand from the support staff here that some of what was said by me in relation to misconduct was not actually heard.
The transmission finished early. This is a public hearing and it’s important that anything, in particular relate to misconduct and gross misconduct, is heard. I understand that last night, for some reason, those in the public gallery were not aware that the case had been adjourned until today and were waiting some considerable time for the hearing to resume, if any of those people are present today I apologise for that, it was not something we were aware of and can assure any members of public that a note has been taken of this situation.
Mr Christopher McKay, Panel Chair
The Tribunal sat on 4th and 5th October 2021 in the hearing suite, Empress State Building, Lillie Road, SW6 1TR
Mouse in the Court 
One thought on “Police Officer “embarrassed & ashamed at the pathetic and nauseating nature” of e-mails sent to victim”