Senior Met officer sacked for second time over refusing drugs test
Commander Julian Bennett was initially dismissed by a misconduct panel in October 2023 over the incident, but took his case to the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT) in July last year and had his sacking overturned.
He was found to have committed gross misconduct by failing to provide a urine sample for a drugs test on July 21 2020, which led to his suspension shortly afterwards.
A panel found he had breached professional standards when he refused to provide the sample after being called in to do so in the presence of an assistant commissioner, instead offering to resign on the spot and asking for a meeting with then-commissioner Dame Cressida Dick.
Following the PAT's decision to revoke the dismissal, the Met considered a legal challenge by way of a Judicial Review but decided that Mr Bennett should face a fresh misconduct hearing last September.
The allegation proven against Mr Bennett was again found at the level of gross misconduct at the latest hearing.
The officer, who served in the force from 1976, had remained suspended throughout the process and will now be added to the College of Policing's barred list.
Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist said: 'I am enormously concerned that almost five years since this incident happened we have only now been able to dismiss Commander Bennett.
'This should have been a simple matter. Commander Bennett has never disputed he refused a lawful order to take a drugs test.
'As a senior officer who had chaired misconduct hearings, Commander Bennett was highly experienced and knew full well what was required of him, yet he made a choice not to co-operate.
'He has been suspended on full pay for an extraordinary length of time. I am sure Londoners will be as outraged as we are at the utter waste of public funds spent paying a senior officer to sit at home suspended and not work.'
Mr Twist said that 'while the Met is not responsible for all the delays in Commander Bennett's matter, we are also working hard to expedite cases and cut bureaucracy', adding: 'I am confident a situation like Commander Bennett's prolonged case would not happen again.'
Mr Bennett wrote the Met's drugs strategy for 2017-21 as a commander for territorial policing.
The document, called Dealing With The Impact Of Drugs On Communities, set up plans to raise 'awareness of the impact of drug misuse'.
He chaired misconduct panels over several years and freedom of information requests showed he presided over 74 misconduct hearings involving 90 officers between June 2010 and February 2012, leading to 56 officers being dismissed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Daily T: ‘I don't want children to watch me on OnlyFans, I'd rather lose money'
Today, the UK is set to introduce age verification checks on porn sites to stop under age people from accessing explicit content. An Ofcom report showed 8 % of children aged 8–14 accessed porn in just one month, showing a desperate need for change. But will these measures actually work or do they risk pushing young people towards darker corners of the internet? For this special episode of The Daily T, Camilla talks through the new rules and the recommendations made by the Independent Pornography Review with Rebecca Goodwin, an adult film star, and Shaun Flores, a mental health advocate and educator who was addicted to porn. We explore how easy it is for teenagers to access adult content, what impact it's having on mental health and relationships, and whether new laws banning acts like strangulation in porn will make a difference. We also discuss porn performer and content creator Bonnie Blue, who has spoken about creating more extreme content to survive in a competitive market - and the uncomfortable questions this raises about what our young people are seeing about sex online.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why I, as a straight woman, will be marching at Trans+ Pride
I'm not a marcher at heart. I tend to panic in crowds or really anywhere without a good mobile signal if I'm not on horseback. I don't attend parades because they're usually too hot. In short, I'm like a rather pathetic indoor plant. Nonetheless, I will be donning tabard and face mask to steward the accessibility block of London Trans+ Pride: the 'plus' is to include anyone's identity; the mask protects the disabled marchers who lead the march. I'll be there with the many other non-trans people who have attended excruciatingly comprehensive training sessions on Zoom, all wanting to show support for a community who have been made Villain of the Week by a tiny yet overexposed force desperate to stamp on someone more vulnerable than themselves. Certainly, this was why my friend Sara and I first volunteered last year; neither particularly keen joiner-inners, both requiring continuous applications of SPF50 to safely set foot outdoors in July, but rendered so cross by what was being said about trans people in our name that we did what generations have done and channelled our Inner Aunt. Certainly not in The Handmaid's Tale sense, and perhaps slightly less in the formidable Wodehosian, but in allyship; caring about people who aren't your children, and fulsomely advocating for them. I had no idea what on earth to wear to a march, or who would be there, so I wore a wonderfully pedantic T-shirt made by my friend Helen Zaltzman for her language podcast The Allusionist, highlighting that the singular use of 'they' has been in use since 1375. In the lack of a protest sunhat, I wore a cap I'd won in a competition by the, erm, Equestrian Noticeboard. Shortly after I arrived, another steward said hello. It turned out that they worked for a very popular horsey brand and had been volunteering at Trans+ Pride marches since their child came out. Offering support to this march as a straight cisgender person matters (sorry if you dislike that term – please blame academic science). The unfolding campaign against trans people is a ringingly clear repetition of Britain's appalling treatment of gay men through the 80s and 90s. The highest-profile curb on trans rights came in April, when the Supreme Court ruled the legal definition of a woman is someone born biologically female. The focus on trans women – never trans men – narrows the idea of 'What is a woman?' to one that affects anyone who doesn't fit stereotyped femininity. When I was a contestant on Only Connect in 2022, someone tweeted that they were 'supporting the trans team', presumably because I am a very tall Second Alto with my dad's jawline. I took this as both a compliment and further proof that anyone who says 'You can just tell ' where appearance is concerned is unrelentingly stupid. The trans people I know are objectively more attractive than I am, for one. The 'gender critical' crowd's nonsensical rubbishing of anyone who seems different impacts us all – not just in terms of how we are perceived, but in taking us backwards. It is rolling back our humanity. The most moving signs I saw at last year's Trans+ Pride were those held by parents, warmly offering free hugs to people whose own parents didn't accept them. It reminded me of last month's exhibition of the UK Aids Memorial Quilt at the Tate Modern and everything I have learned about the Aids epidemic when families shunned their children or banished their partners. Being 'critical' of someone's right to exist is perilously close to fascism. The United States has shown where such anti-freedom legislation can lead in the shortest time. Rolling back on trans rights is a dangerous path – and one that entirely distracts from the real issue. No man, God bless them, needs to spend years transitioning in order to attack women. Anyone with that cruelty in mind can do so by simply walking through their front door. It is important for us to stand up now, however much we feel it doesn't affect us, because, truly, it does. In the years since Section 28 was ended, I've seen relatives' views on gay people evolve from 'He must be terribly sad' to greater understanding. It hasn't 'made' any of my straight relatives gay. My own understanding has evolved, too, because a side effect of Section 28 was breeding ignorance – and that despite the work Channel 4 did to quietly educate British kids through late-night documentary strands and Eurotrash. New rules suppressing trans discussion in schools, brought in by this Labour government, won't stop young people questioning their identity. It will only make them less safe – just as it did when 'gay' rang out as an insult across BBC radio and school playing fields. The legacy of Section 28 showed us Britain that suppression only wounds; it doesn't prevent. However much their identity might frighten you – or, perhaps, society's response to this identity – you cannot stop someone being who they are, only delay it. Nor can you make anyone what they are not. The government may have forgotten the sins of the past – even, and most shamefully, those among them who themselves are gay – but I have not. I have no wish to return to being the ignorant person I was, nor letting wildly over-amplified voices overtake society's reason. Life unquestionably has particular challenges for each of us, but those of us who are heterosexual and non-trans are lucky enough to be playing in society's default mode. Standing up for the rights of our fellows under challenging circumstances is not limited to the distant past. It continues to be the most British of values – and the right thing to do.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Driver who caused death of young mother who was knocked off e-bike is jailed
A driver who admitted causing the death of a young mother who was knocked off the back of an electric motorbike ridden by her boyfriend has been jailed for more than five years. Keaton Muldoon, 23, was acquitted after a trial at Derby Crown Court of murdering 25-year-old Alana Armstrong and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to her boyfriend Jordan Newton-Kay, who had his right leg amputated 15cm above the knee after the crash on November 26 last year. Before the trial began, Muldoon, of Tuckers Lane in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, causing serious injury by dangerous driving and driving whilst disqualified. Muldoon, who the court heard was a drug dealer, told the jury of 11 women and one man during the trial that he 'did not know' he had hit anyone while driving his Land Rover Discovery on the evening of November 26 last year, and thought he had overtaken Mr Newton-Kay's bike at a passing point. The prosecution alleged that Muldoon 'pursued' the couple, and another electric bike ridden by a friend of Mr Newton-Kay, after they stopped near the defendant's 4×4 at a lay-by and shined their lights inside the vehicle. The defendant told the court he feared he was going to be robbed but did not 'chase' the Sur-Ron off-road bike for more than a mile from the lay-by in Sampsons Lane, Pleasley. In a victim impact statement read to the court by prosecution counsel Sally Howes KC on Friday, Mr Newton-Kay said 'nothing feels right' without his partner, adding: 'I can't see a future without her in it. 'My life has been turned upside down. I have lost my leg and the love of my life by the age of 23.' In another statement, Ms Armstrong's mother said she was a 'kind-hearted soul' who wanted the best for everyone she cared about. She said: 'I have lost my baby… As a family, we feel tormented that she has lost her life because of someone else's actions.' Defending Muldoon, Adrian Langdale KC said the defendant was 'extremely young' at the time of the incident but had written a 'mature' letter to Judge Shaun Smith KC highlighting his remorse for what happened. Judge Smith imposed a sentence of five years and three months for causing the death of Ms Armstrong, with concurrent sentences of 27 months for injuring Mr Newton-Kay and one month for driving whilst disqualified. He banned him from driving for 12 and a half years and said he must serve at least half of his sentence before he can be released on extended licence. He said he could not be sure that Muldoon's vehicle made contact with Mr Newton-Kay's bike, but he was satisfied that it was the defendant's dangerous driving that made the bike lose control. He said: 'You were irritated by what happened and decided you were going to teach them a lesson by frightening them. 'What you did was, on more than occasion, got close to one or more of the e-bikes to frighten them. 'It was not only dangerous, but carried the real risk of a collision or cause one of them to lose control, leading to potentially tragic consequences. 'I take the view that each decision you took that night was conscious and deliberate. You knew exactly what you were doing.' Despite this, the judge accepted Muldoon had not intended to cause death or injury that evening. He said: 'You didn't set out that night to injure or kill someone. You are, I accept, truly remorseful.' He added: 'There is no price of a human life, but neither can sentence be measured by revenge. 'It cannot return Alana to those who love her or return Mr Newton-Kay to full health. 'Those who know and love Alana have been utterly crushed and devastated.'
