A POLICE inspector has been given a written warning after an investigation into Hampshire Constabulary’s handling of the attack on Andrew Toseland.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission launched a probe into the force after Mr Toseland, 50, was savagely attacked at a block of flats in Gosport.
Inspector Jim Logan – who was promoted from sergeant after the attack in August 2012 – has been given the warning.
The investigation found Inspector Logan had a case to answer for misconduct as he did not sufficiently grasp the issues at Garland Court and inadequately supervised local officers.
It comes after the IPCC looked into the way the force handled reports of anti-social behaviour at Garland Court, in Forton Road, Gosport, where Andrew Toseland was attacked.
As reported, Mr Toseland was attacked by 19-year-old Samuel Armstrong, when the factory worker asked him to be quiet outside the flat.
The IPCC looked into the way the police responded to complaints at the flats and enquiries carried out by officers with residents between 20 May and 25 August, in 2012. It also looked into the management of anti-social behaviour.
IPCC Commissioner Derrick Campbell said: ‘Anti-social behaviour causes misery for residents and as highlighted by this terrible and other tragic cases it can also have a devastating effect on peoples’ lives.
‘Although Hampshire Constabulary responded appropriately to some reports of disorder at Garland Court, it was done so in isolation and without the bigger picture being pieced together.
‘As the Neighbourhood Sergeant who had responsibility for the area at the time of the anti-social behaviour, Inspector Logan should have realised the situation at Garland Court was escalating in relation to the number of reported incidents and put in place a clear action plan for his team to tackle the problem.
‘Our investigation concluded that Inspector Logan did not grasp the extent of the issues at Garland Court and failed to adequately supervise his local officers.
‘Such failings are a clear breach of the standards expected of officers and it is right he has received a written warning.
‘Additionally our investigation identified issues relating to Hampshire Constabulary’s training programme and we recommended the force reviews how it supports officers and identifies potential training requirements.’
Inspector Logan appeared before a misconduct meeting last Wednesday, when the case against him was proven.
Hampshire police, which referred itself to the IPCC said: ‘We recognise our service to the residents of Garland Court in 2012 did not meet the standard of excellence expected by this force.’