An “obsessively controlling and violent” Met Police officer was granted anonymity in a misconduct report despite there being no legal restriction on naming him, MyLondon has found. Satjeet Dhanjal, a former police constable, subjected a woman to ‘horrendous physical and psychological abuse’ and ‘degraded and assaulted her on multiple occasions’, a Met Police tribunal heard this March.
The 30-year-old of Cavendish Avenue, Harrow, was convicted of six counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of coercive and controlling behaviour after a trial at Reading Crown Court on October 6 last year. At the same court, on December 4, he was sentenced to four years for coercive and controlling behaviour, with concurrent sentences of 18 months each for the assaults.
Reading Crown Court officials have confirmed there was no restriction on reporting his name imposed by the judge during proceedings. Despite this, Dhanjal was anonymised in the Met Police’s publication of the misconduct hearing “due to safety concerns for the officer”. There was also no record of his charges, conviction, or sentence being published to the media by the Met Police or Thames Valley Police, the force jurisdiction where he was prosecuted.
READ MORE: ‘You might not be a very good burglar’ thief told as he’s jailed again by judge with scathing quip
When MyLondon asked the Met Police why Dhanjal had been anonymised, a spokesperson said: “The hearing was held in public, however, the Chair instructed that the officer and the victim were anonymised throughout today’s proceedings and in any subsequent publications. This is following matters highlighted to the chair prior to the hearing.”
They later confirmed the matters highlighted related to Dhanjal’s safety. The ‘A New Met for London’ plan has promised accountability, stating officers will ‘strive to build trust with the public, colleagues, and partners, by being open, honest and taking ownership’.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, who is London’s Police and Crime Commissioner, also previously said he is determined to ‘to lead the way in terms of openness and transparency’.
Previous cases involving Met Police officers who were handed significant jail sentences – even where the victims were entitled to automatic anonymity – included publication of the charging decision against the officer involved and the outcome of the sentence. A recent example was Isaque Rodrigues-Leite, who was jailed for two years and three months for multiple offences against a woman.
After uncovering the identity of the convicted officer, MyLondon has decided to name him. MyLondon also repeatedly asked Thames Valley Police (TVP) for a mugshot photograph but a spokesperson told us the police force only releases mugshots on request up to a week after a sentencing hearing ‘to remain contemporaneous’. This is not a legal requirement.
‘Deliberate and gratuitous’
The tribunal heard Dhanjal was “obsessively controlling and violent” towards the victim, whose witness statement was supported by WhatsApp messages, photos, and videos, which ultimately convinced the jury.
“He became angry and violent if she did not obey his rules. He also degraded and assaulted her on multiple occasions,” Assistant Commissioner Barbara Gray wrote in the ruling. The senior police chief described Dhanjal’s crimes as “a campaign of abuse” coupled with “horrendous physical and psychological abuse”.
Determining Dhanjal would have been sacked if he still worked at the Met, AC Gray said: “Police officers have a particular responsibility to act in a way which protects individuals from threats and violence. For an officer to be himself the perpetrator of such threats and violence is reprehensible. The public could not have confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service if it did not treat Former Officer A’s behaviour extremely seriously.”
‘Transparency where possible’
Home Office guidance says police misconduct hearings should be held publicly and officers named where possible. The policy states: “The presumption should be of transparency where possible. A hearing should not be held privately or notice withheld for administrative reasons; or because of concerns to the reputation of the force or police arising from the hearing being public.”
The guidance also cites times when an officer’s identity may be protected due to an existing court order, because the officer is undercover, or naming them might risk identifying a victim or complainant. Hearings can also be held in private if there are issues of national security, it may interfere with criminal proceedings, or due to the welfare of the officer involved.
Data obtained under Freedom of Information laws also shows 37 per cent of misconduct hearings between April 2018 and August 2022 were held in private. From January 2022 to August 2022, 12 out of 53 misconduct hearings were held behind closed doors, down from a high of 79 out of 107 in 2020, which the Met Police says was due to Covid lockdowns.
‘Upholding high standards is one of our priorities’
In response to our questions about their candour, a Met Police spokesperson told MyLondon: “Upholding high standards is one of our New Met for London priorities and as part of this, we are hearing more cases and dismissing more officers and staff, at a faster rate. As part of our aim to be open and transparent, our misconduct hearings are held in public in order to demonstrate that those officers who breach the standards of behaviour are held accountable for their actions.
“In line with Home Office Guidance, the chair of the hearing may consider relevant representation and determine that it should be held in private or that the subject of a hearing may be anonymised. In this case, in order to maintain transparency, the hearing was held in public. The officer’s name was anonymised following an application which was considered and accepted by the chair.”
Got a story or a court case we should cover? Please email [email protected] or WhatsApp 07580255582
Don’t miss out on the latest crime stories from across London. Sign up to MyLondon’s Court & Crime newsletter HERE
