This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/19/police-chief-convicted-for-having-child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Police chief convicted for having child sex abuse video on phone Police chief convicted for having child sexual abuse video on phone
(about 1 hour later)
Met superintendent Robyn Williams cleared of corruption after three-week trialMet superintendent Robyn Williams cleared of corruption after three-week trial
A police chief has been convicted of having a child sex abuse video on her phone but cleared of corruption. A Metropolitan police chief who was sent an unsolicited video of child sexual abuse via WhatsApp has been convicted of possessing indecent images on her phone.
Metropolitan police superintendent Robyn Williams had been on trial for three weeks over the claims which she denied. Supt Robyn Williams, 54, was found guilty by a jury at the Old Bailey and potentially faces being sacked after 36 years of distinguished service.
Williams, 54, honoured for her work after the Grenfell fire disaster, is one of the most senior African Caribbean female police officers. Williams was at a gym class in February 2018 when she was sent the video via WhatsApp on her phone by her sister, who was outraged by its content and wanted the paedophile behind it hunted down and caught.
She was sent the video via WhatsApp on her phone by her sister in February 2018, who was outraged by its content and wanted the paedophile behind it hunted down and caught. Under the law on possessing indecent images, it was for Williams to prove she had a legitimate reason to have it, or that she had not seen the video and did not have reason to believe it was indecent.
Her sister, co-defendent Jennifer Hodge, 56, was convicted of distributing an indecent image of a child. She sent it via WhatsApp to 17 people, including Williams. Williams, who had denied possessing an indecent image of a child, looked stunned as the jury delivered its 10-to-one majority verdict after more than 10 hours of deliberation. She was found not guilty of corruptly failing to report the image, after the jury rejected the prosecution’s claim that Williams had seen a thumbnail of the image, and thus was aware of its serious nature, but failed to report it because she feared getting her sister into trouble.
Williams maintained she never saw the thumbnail; it was accepted she never played the 1min video. The prosecution alleged Williams was lying to protect her sister.
Williams, who was honoured for her work after the Grenfell fire disaster, is one of the most senior female African-Caribbean police officers.
The jury heard she was a founder member of the National Black Police Association, helped set up a gay police association, campaigned for more women in policing and had received the Queen’s police medal.
Her sister and co-defendant, Jennifer Hodge, 56, was convicted of distributing an indecent image of a child. She sent it via WhatsApp to 17 people, including Williams.
Hodge had been sent it by her partner, Dido Massivi, 61, who was convicted of distributing two indecent images and possessing an extreme image.Hodge had been sent it by her partner, Dido Massivi, 61, who was convicted of distributing two indecent images and possessing an extreme image.
Prosecutor Richard Wright QC, opening the case at the Old Bailey, made it clear the defendants had no sexual interest in the images, but made serious errors of judgment: “We do not suggest that these defendants had any sexual interest in this video, nor do we say that they were distributing it or possessing it for any sinister purpose. This is instead a case in which we allege that each of them made serious errors of judgment about how to handle this video and in dealing with it as they did, each of them has committed serious criminal offences.” The video was sent to Williams on a Saturday and the next day she spent several hours with her sister.
Williams looked stunned as the jury delivered its verdict after over 10 hours of deliberation. She was convicted by a 10 to one majority verdict. She denied possessing an indecent image of a child and corrupt or improper exercise of police powers and privilege. At one point in a police interview Hodge said she had mentioned the video to her sister, but later said she had not.
The prosecution claimed she corruptly failed to report the child abuse video fearing it would land her sister in trouble, and lied about being unaware of its indecent nature. The prosecutor Richard Wright QC, opening the case, made it clear the defendants had no sexual interest in the images: “This is instead a case in which we allege that each of them made serious errors of judgment about how to handle this video and in dealing with it as they did, each of them has committed serious criminal offences.”
The jury acquitted her of the more serious charge of failing in her duty, but the conviction for possessing an indecent image nonetheless jeopardises her 36 year career.
The jury heard Williams was a founder member of the National Black Police Association, helped set up a gay police association and campaigned for more women in policing. She has received the Queen’s police medal and was commended for her work after the Grenfell Tower fire.
“As an experienced officer of high standing, we say she knew full well what was expected of her and moreover that there was an urgent child welfare need to report the video as soon as she saw it,” Wright said.
Williams denied having seen the video.
After sending the video, Hodge sent a message expressing her outrage about the video: “Sorry had to send this it’s so sad that this person would put this out please post this and let’s hope he gets life.”After sending the video, Hodge sent a message expressing her outrage about the video: “Sorry had to send this it’s so sad that this person would put this out please post this and let’s hope he gets life.”
The crown say that 40 minutes later Williams opened WhatsApp. Wright said: “She would have seen a tile [thumbnail] that showed the first frame of the video. It would have been clear … and we say it would have been immediately obvious exactly what it was: an indecent video of a child.”The crown say that 40 minutes later Williams opened WhatsApp. Wright said: “She would have seen a tile [thumbnail] that showed the first frame of the video. It would have been clear … and we say it would have been immediately obvious exactly what it was: an indecent video of a child.”
The jury heard Williams then tried to contact her sister, calling and texting. Hodge later sent a WhatsApp message to Williams asking: “Could you find out if it’s been reported?”, which the prosecutor said was a reference to the indecent video. Another person who was sent the video by Hodge reported it to the police. An investigation began and identified Williams as one of those who received the video.
Williams and Hodge later spoke but Wright told the jury the senior officer still did not report the video. After the verdict, the deputy assistant commissioner, responsible for professionalism, Matthew Horne said: “The prosecution called this a ‘sad case’ and referred to the ‘serious errors of judgment’ made by those involved. The court heard that Supt Williams has led a distinguished career in policing and previously been commended for her professionalism.“The Independent Office for Police Conduct is carrying out an independent misconduct investigation into the actions of Supt Williams and we await the outcome.”Williams remains on restricted duties at this stage.
Another person sent the video by Hodge reported it to police. A police investigation began, which identified Williams as one of those who received the video. The officer, who at the time was the borough commander for Sutton in south London, told the jury she never saw the image of a man sexually assaulting a girl, and would have taken immediate action if she had.
The image was sent to Williams while she was attending gym classes on a day off. Her barrister, Anesta Weekes QC, asked her about the crown’s case that she must have seen the image soon after it was sent to her on that Saturday morning.
Williams said: “That’s not the case. I did not see anything … I really did not see anything.”
She told the jury she sometimes did not look at or open messages sent to her on WhatsApp and that she would act to report or stop a crime even if she was off-duty.
Williams, who at the time was the borough commander for Sutton in south London, told the jury she never saw the image of a man sexually assaulting a girl, and would have taken immediate taken action if she had.
“If I’d seen anything remotely like that, I would have simply, simply – I am on speed dial to my chief inspector – I would have called my lead for safeguarding and asked what was the best possible way to get this evidence into the chain of action, so we could safeguard and best protect this child. Simple phone call, no discussion.”“If I’d seen anything remotely like that, I would have simply, simply – I am on speed dial to my chief inspector – I would have called my lead for safeguarding and asked what was the best possible way to get this evidence into the chain of action, so we could safeguard and best protect this child. Simple phone call, no discussion.”
All three will be sentenced on 26 November.All three will be sentenced on 26 November.
Supporters of Williams were aghast that she was put on trial when there was no evidence she played the video. Some in policing were also concerned that the case appeared to show a black officer being picked on, threatened with humiliation, ruin and jail.Supporters of Williams were aghast that she was put on trial when there was no evidence she played the video. Some in policing were also concerned that the case appeared to show a black officer being picked on, threatened with humiliation, ruin and jail.
The Police Superintendents’ Association and Black Police Association asked the Met to review the case five times, but the force declined.The Police Superintendents’ Association and Black Police Association asked the Met to review the case five times, but the force declined.