Last month, former Surrey Police Constable Ross Martin narrowly evaded incarceration after acknowledging his misconduct in public office, namely for transmitting sexually inappropriate communications to a vulnerable crime victim.
Although Ross Martin is no longer an active officer—having resigned three days before to a disciplinary panel’s formal dismissal, resulting in his inclusion on the notorious “Police Barred List”—his acts exemplify the flagrant misuse of power.
Having represented numerous victims of police misconduct, I find this case regrettably familiar. When a police officer abuses their authority to exploit a vulnerable individual rather than to safeguard them, the breach of trust is significant—not only for the affected person but also for public faith in law enforcement overall.
Police personnel are endowed with significant authority: to detain, to investigate, to obtain confidential information, and to intrude into the most private aspects of individuals’ lives, frequently during their most vulnerable moments. Such authority necessitates an elevated standard of conduct — encompassing not only legal compliance but also ethical integrity.
The victim was previously recognised as vulnerable. Martin’s conduct was not an isolated incident but a recurring pattern of sexualised correspondence spanning two weeks. That constitutes calculated exploitation.
The suspended sentence has already elicited concern; the reality that Martin would not serve any time in prison may be perceived as an inadequately “chilling” deterrent to other cops inclined to violate regulations.
Women who have called “999” for police assistance need not fear that they have simultaneously summoned “666” and brought malevolence into their life.
Detective Chief Inspector James Ansell of Surrey Police’s anti-corruption squad stated that offences perpetrated by police “cannot be condoned.”
That is a gratifying sentiment. However, mere words will not avert future abuse. Which processes malfunctioned that permitted Martin’s actions to remain unnoticed for two weeks? Were there overlooked warning signs or deficiencies in oversight? Were the recruitment and vetting procedures that permitted his entry into the Police adequately rigorous and comprehensive?
The majority of police officers exhibit commitment and integrity in their service. However, it requires only a few — as I have frequently observed in my legal profession — to cause enduring harm to victims and diminish public trust.
For victims of police misbehaviour, the criminal process constitutes but one aspect of the narrative. Civil claims against the police for misfeasance in public office, violations of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (inhuman or degrading treatment), or infringements of data protection and privacy may provide a means for compensation and formal recognition of misconduct in such cases.
No individual should be subjected to victimisation by those from whom they seek protection.
Please read the original version of the article at Solicitor Iain Gould’s website
There are many other stories on his site and we recommend a read.
If you or anyone you know have been affected by the people highlighted in this article, then please report those individuals to the Police on 101 (999 if an emergency) or visit their online resources for further details of the options for reporting a crime. You can also make a report at Crimestoppers should you wish to be completely anonymous. There is help available on our support links page.