A Police Ombudsman investigation in Northern Ireland has concluded that a PSNI inquiry into an alleged indecent exposure incident involving the man later charged with murdering Katie Simpson was “inadequate”.
According to the Ombudsman, the complainant was let down by police after officers failed to take further statements, despite three potential witnesses being identified. Investigators also did not listen to an allegedly threatening voicemail said to have been sent to the victim.
The findings come after the PSNI previously issued an apology for what it described as “unacceptable failings” in its handling of the investigation into the death of 21-year-old showjumper Katie Simpson. Ms Simpson, from Tynan in Co. Armagh, died at Altnagelvin Area Hospital in Derry almost a week after an incident at Gortnessy Meadows in Lettershandoney.
Police initially believed Ms Simpson had died by suicide. However, the following year Jonathan Creswell, who was the partner of Ms Simpson’s sister, was arrested on suspicion of murder.
Creswell, 36, went on trial accused of murdering Ms Simpson, but the proceedings ended in April 2024 after he took his own life following the first day in court.
Following his death, a woman made a complaint to the Police Ombudsman raising concerns about how police had dealt with a report she made in January 2016, about how he had exposed himself to her at a horse yard in Co. Antrim months previously.
The PSNI has previously apologised for ‘unacceptable failings’ in their investigation into the death of the 21-year-old showjumper
The Ombudsman found several shortcomings in the police investigation, such as the officer initially assigned to the case recording only one witness statement during the four months she was in charge. No statements were obtained from three other witnesses, including a potential eyewitness.
A second officer who was subsequently assigned to the case did not obtain any further statements, and neither officer listened to a recording of an allegedly threatening voice message sent by Creswell.
The Ombudsman also found the file sent to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) by the second investigating officer was inaccurate. It stated Creswell was known to police only for motoring offences, when he had previously been jailed for violent offending against a woman; and incorrectly stated there was no outstanding evidence nor other witnesses in the case.
The PPS directed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute but advised that if Creswell was interviewed about the allegation in future, the file could be resubmitted.
MORE STORY: Jane Kim Faces Profound Dishonesty Allegation in Insurance Commissioner Race
The officer initially assigned to the case told Police Ombudsman investigators she would have obtained outstanding witness statements if she had kept ownership of the investigation.
The second officer – who was put on the case five months after the initial allegation – said he had not been told to obtain further evidence and believed his was a monitoring role. He said he had not considered Creswell’s previous violent offending to be relevant to the case.
The Ombudsman’s director of investigations, Nikki Davis, said police ‘failed the complainant, both as a woman and as a victim’. She said: ‘Indecent exposure is a serious crime and can indicate a potential for escalating sexual offending… We also know that sexual crime is under-reported, and it takes great courage for victims to go to the police.’
The trial of Creswell, 36, for the murder of Ms Simpson ended in April 2024 after he took his own life following the first day of proceedings
She said unless reports are properly investigated, ‘victims will be less likely to come forward, offenders will remain free to re-offend, and efforts to combat violence and sexual offending against women and girls will be undermined’.
She added: ‘Indecent exposure is a non-contact sexual offence and a form of sexual violence, so the prior conviction was entirely relevant and should have been disclosed to the PPS. It is widely acknowledged that police should be looking at behavioural patterns across incidents and seeking to identify where repeat offending might indicate escalating risk. That clearly did not happen in this case.’
The Police Ombudsman also found that the officers had made inadequate inquiries to find and interview Creswell, although Ms Davis noted they had tried to contact him by phone, visited an address associated with him, made inquiries relating to his equestrian background and placed alerts on police systems about two vehicles linked to him.
In a misconduct file submitted to the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman recommended that the two officers should be disciplined for failing to properly investigate the case and not providing adequate updates to the complainant.
The PSNI determined that the issues identified would be better addressed by taking measures to improve the officers’ conduct.
Police Ombudsman investigators were unable to complete their inquiries into a separate allegation involving a different police officer who retired during the course of the investigation.
The complainant believed the officer was trying to stop her from talking to the media. He stated he had called her to advise of the police response to a media query, and about how information could be reported. The complaint to the Police Ombudsman’s Office was initially closed but a new investigation commenced after further correspondence was received from the complainant.