Northern Ireland

Chief Constable from England questioned as Emma Bond PSNI sex discrimination tribunal nears end

Former PSNI Chief Superintendent Emma Bond leaves an employment tribunal in Belfast. Picture Mal McCann.
Former PSNI Chief Superintendent Emma Bond leaves an employment tribunal in Belfast. Picture Mal McCann. Former PSNI Chief Superintendent Emma Bond leaves an employment tribunal in Belfast. Picture Mal McCann.

A Chief Constable from England has been quizzed over how he concluded a high-profile former PSNI officer lacked bias when he investigated one-time district commander Emma Bond.

West Midlands Chief Constable Craig Guildford was questioned over his review of events in the Derry City and Strabane District in the early days of the pandemic.

Mr Guildford, head of Nottinghamshire Police at the time of the review, defended its conclusion during the penultimate day of witness testimony at the tribunal hearing into claims of sex discrimination and breaches of whistleblower rights by the PSNI.

He is the second chief constable to face questioning at these hearings after the PSNI’s Simon Byrne.

Former Chief Superintendent Emma Bond, now Assistant Chief Constable with Police Scotland, claims she was moved from her position as Derry City and Strabane district commander after “pushing” for action against officers who stayed at home for two weeks in April 2020 without approval.

Counsel for Ms Bond, Neil Phillips, suggested the outcome of the review, which cleared all involved of any misconduct, was good for the reputation of the force and in line with the chief constable’s position. Mr Guildford denied the outcome was pre-determined.

One of Mr Guildford’s officers carried out the review of the actions of Ms Bond and an investigation that led to her facing a gross misconduct notice.

At the centre of the events was the then Chief Inspector Jon Burrows, a one-time head of the force’s discipline branch, part of the Professional Standards Department.

Mr Burrows was tasked with investigating Ms Bond’s calling of two meetings at Derry’s Strand Road station after she heard about the “stay at home” officers. Previous testimony described her giving a “rollicking” to officers.

He concluded she be served with a gross misconduct charge, adding that 250 officers in Derry were “despicably treated” and that dozens were packed into a 150 square metre room, less than the size of tennis court. This was when strict social distancing regulations were in place.

The review concluded Mr Burrows made the wrong decision as he looked at the events much too narrowly and failed to take into account the context around which the meetings took place.

But the authors also said Mr Burrows acted without bias or any lack of professionalism. Previous testimony heard of history between the two officers, including Ms Bond sitting on a interview panel where Mr Burrows was not promoted, her pulling him up for making an alleged inappropriate remark and a vehicle collision involving her and his father.

However, the tribunal heard that Chief Superintendent John McVeigh, the head of the Professional Standards, did not consider Mr Burrows impartial “having already sided with the officers” and considered the chief inspector’s judgement “seriously flawed”. That was his perception, Mr Guildford said.

Mr Phillips, Ms Bond's counsel, repeatedly pressed Mr Guildford on the issue of bias. The chief constable on several occasions replied Mr Burrows could have done a better and more “fulsome” job investigating the former chief superintendent but there was no bias or lack of professionalism.

Mr Burrows was not called to give testimony but last year penned an opinion piece in the Sunday Independent following his retirement where he argued junior officers are disciplined more harshly than senior ones.

He mentioned the officers staying at home, adding an inquiry led to a “swathe of officers being hastily labelled as unethical”.

“When the innocence of the officers was established, no apology was given,” he wrote.

The tribunal will reconvene at a later date to hear the testimony of the last witness, a psychiatrist.