Met Police officer had racy affair with suspect before investigation was dropped, tribunal hears

Det Con John McCarthy even hooked up for sex with the woman he was investigating during a lunch break in an unconnected court case, the hearing was told.

<p>Det Con John McCarthy even hooked up for sex with the woman he was investigating during a lunch break in an unconnected court case, it is alleged. Credit: Shutterstock</p>

Det Con John McCarthy even hooked up for sex with the woman he was investigating during a lunch break in an unconnected court case, it is alleged. Credit: Shutterstock

A criminal investigation against a woman was dropped after she began an affair with the senior Met Police officer in her case, a disciplinary tribunal heard.

Det Con John McCarthy even hooked up for sex with the woman he was investigating in public during a lunch break in an unconnected court case, it is alleged.

Det Con McCarthy was acting detective sergeant in the case against ‘Ms A’, who cannot be named for legal reasons, over a three-week period when she was accused of harassing her ex-husband and his mother.

He remained a senior officer in the case during the rest of the investigation, which was eventually dropped.

The police misconduct hearing in central London was told the case was discontinued a month after the pair exchanged steamy messages.

But she later took him to a county court after he failed to repay her more than £3,500 she had lent him to repay debts, leaving her at risk of eviction.

The pair began exchanging flirty messages in January 2017 and their relationship continued until October 2017,it is alleged.

Alan Jenkins, counsel for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, told the hearing: “Several messages were then exchanged between Ms A and the officer, and this continued for several months.

“Initially the messages were appropriate, but they quickly became flirty, before becoming overtly sexual.”

The hearing was told she texted him saying “I love being on top of you and riding your gorgeous c**k” on March 17 2017.

“There are more references to sexual contact between them and he responds in similar terms, saying what sexual position he would like to be in with her,” Mr Jenkins said.

“We say it is absolutely clear from these exchanges that sexual intercourse had taken place between them while he was still the officer in the case.”

Her case was dismissed the following month.

Wood Green Crown Court, where Det Con John McCarthy allegedly hooked up for sex with the woman he was investigating during a lunch break in an unconnected court case. Credit: Shutterstock

The pair also had allegedly had sex in public while the officer was on a lunch break when attending a trial at Wood Green Crown Court.

The tribunal heard on March 29 2017, Det Con McCarthy texted Ms A sexually explicit messages, saying: “You cannot come to court, some of my colleagues will be there, it is too risky.

“We still have to be a little sensible but I should have 30-40 minutes spare.

“I will need to be back in court just after 1.30pm.”

The tribunal heard Ms A texted back saying: “I am hidden opposite Coombe Road, I have found the perfect place for a blowjob.”

“We say he met her there for a sexual encounter which was planned in the vicinity of a Crown Court,” Mr Jenkins told the hearing.

“On April 13 2017, it was decided no further action should be taken in her case, but the relationship continued for some considerable time after this when he was on and off duty.”

The officer, formerly based at the force’s North Area Command Unit, which covers Enfield and Haringey, had been using a work email during many of the exchanges.

He told her: “We will have to wait for the case to be all over or I will really be asking for trouble, who knows what will happen in future.”

Miss A initially claimed the decision not to take further action in her case was made before the relationship became sexual, but later retracted that claim.

In October 2017, he failed to tell bosses she had given him two cat dolls and a hamper as a birthday present.

After they broke up, she filed a county court claim against him after he failed to repay her a £3,580 loan when he got into debt, leaving her “living off noodles” and at risk of eviction.

He failed to tell the force he had been summonsed or that he was in debt.

Ms A said: “Sexual contact occurred before it was decided no action would be taken against me.

“It started on Valentine’s Day 2017.

“It happened while I was on bail before that decision was taken.

“I felt I had to play along in the game by giving him gratification.

“I felt obliged to play along as there was an imbalance of power between us.

“I grew to love him but in the beginning he would toy with my feelings.

“I think it made him feel more powerful.

“He made me feel insecure and scared- even though he told me no further action would be taken against me, he then said he might change his mind.

“He said he could change the outcome at the drop of a hat and re-open it, or encourage the complainants to appeal.

“I felt like he could re-open it at any time if I did not make him happy.

“He found it amusing to toy with me, and I didn’t show it but I was scared and upset.”

She said in an earlier statement: “I was told it was agreed no further action would be taken around three weeks before we started seeing each other.

“He said he was going to move in with me and by April 2017 we had an established relationship which was sexual.

“He would come round to mine, was integrated into my life and friends, family and neighbours became aware of our relationship.

“This affected confidence in the police as I don’t think he had told any of his colleagues.

“He was aware of my vulnerabilities and those of my child, and he was aware of my financial vulnerabilities.

“I felt I had to take him to court as I did not have enough money to feed myself, was living off noodles and was in danger of being evicted.”

The officer has not responded to the allegations and does not accept or deny the claims and did not attend the hearing.

He resigned from his role in the force last month.

If he is found guilty of gross misconduct, he will be barred from ever serving as a police officer again.

He was not represented by a lawyer and no live witnesses were called to give evidence.

The tribunal continues.