Our case highlights serious concerns about the conduct of PC Martin and the wider Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). Evidence disclosed to us shows that PC Martin created false personal information within Police Intelligence systems. This inaccurate and defamatory content caused significant reputational harm to my wife.
The false Intelligence was later shared with the local council, creating a misleading and damaging impression of our family. As a result, we were exposed to prolonged anti‑social behaviour for three years, affecting our work, health, and daily life. We believe the MPS must take accountability for the consequences of this misconduct.
The false profile also misled other officers during crime investigations. This contributed to violent hate‑crime reports being closed with No Further Action, leaving the same perpetrators free to continue their assaults. These failures caused my wife further harm and denied her the protection she was entitled to.
We believe the false entries were not random errors but deliberate acts intended to inflict maximum harm. The content and tone of the entries suggest a targeted campaign to destroy my wife’s reputation and to expose her to danger. The scale and specificity of the false allegations raise serious questions about why a serving police officer would create such damaging material.
PC Martin’s actions expose a wider systemic failure within the MPS as Data Controller. The inaccurate Intelligence influenced multiple police decisions, leading to biased investigations and failures to prevent or properly investigate crime. The inaccurate data was also disseminated to the Tribunal and local council, further compounding the harm.
As a public authority, the MPS had a duty to ensure accuracy, fairness, and lawfulness in the processing of personal information. That duty was not met.
In 2022, we were pressured by our solicitor to accept a settlement that did not address the misconduct of PC Martin. The offer related only to an unrelated data breach by DI Speed. The MPS did not admit liability for the defamatory Intelligence created by PC Martin.
I wrote directly to the Defendant’s solicitor, James West, on three occasions, setting out the misconduct and requesting that the Commissioner address it. Instead, the Commissioner relied on our financial vulnerability—specifically our inability to pay a £25,000 costs bill—to force acceptance of a settlement that did not cover the core wrongdoing. We consider this an evasion of accountability, rendering the settlement voidable.
During our 2025 hearing at Edmonton County Court, the police argued—incorrectly—that my wife’s claim relating to PC Martin’s misconduct had already been settled in 2022. This argument succeeded, despite the settlement not covering that issue. This demonstrates the extent to which the MPS was willing to rely on misleading assertions to avoid accountability.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) found that the MPS breached the Data Protection Act regarding accuracy in Crimint 00326717. Despite this, neither PC Martin nor the MPS have acknowledged that the Intelligence was inaccurate. Instead, the record was deleted without explanation, preventing scrutiny of how it was created or retained for six years. No apology has ever been offered to my wife.
The Police Reform Act entitles members of the public to make complaints and requires the police to investigate them. My last two complaints—PC/1611/25 and PC/2424/26—were not investigated, representing a further breach of statutory duty.
I approached multiple oversight bodies in good faith, trusting that they would uphold the standards of law and accountability. The complete lack of response has been deeply disappointing and has shaken my confidence in these institutions. It raises the troubling possibility that such misconduct may be more widespread than the public realises.
After exhausting all formal avenues, I am now raising public awareness. Police misconduct cannot go unexamined. I invite journalists, media organisations, and legal professionals who are interested in this case to contact me. As a litigant‑in‑person, I have faced significant disadvantages, and public scrutiny is now essential to achieving justice.