In 2015, there was an opportunity for Kent police to stop Wayne Couzens in his tracks. His registered vehicle, for which he was the only male insured to drive, was identified in a report of an alleged indecent exposure. There was a woeful absence of proactive investigation and the matter was hastily dropped.
The failure of Kent police to investigate this case properly allowed Couzens the privilege to continue serving as a police officer and the powers that come with it. He could have been stopped. This was a major missed opportunity to have potentially stopped him in his tracks, and who knows what this could have meant for Sarah Everard.
For me, this missed opportunity isn’t just about the obvious failings from Kent police but about how we all, from the police and the courts to the media and wider society, perceive and respond to indecent exposure.
The inquiry demonstrates how, on four occasions, allegations of indecent exposure were poorly investigated by Kent and the Met police. In the same vein, this crime is often trivialised. The act is typically referred to as “flashing”, a colloquialism that does not convey the deeply sinister nature and seriousness of what is a sexual crime.
It’s time we lose the “flashing” narrative and recognise indecent exposure for the potentially very serious crime that it is, not least because of the risk for it to escalate into horrific brutality as it did with Couzens and with many other sex offenders. We belittle and thereby create a perception that the crime is almost something laughable while the reality for so many of its victims is profoundly terrifying, and the act itself could be indicative of a very sinister trajectory.
Treating indecent exposure as a low-level offence has wide ramifications. It means, as we have clear evidence, that levels of investigations are often woefully inadequate, with opportunities to catch perpetrators missed. It means victims lack confidence in the system to investigate or are too mortified to come forward, and others assume that nothing will happen to the individual if they do.
So many women and girls experience this type of behaviour. How many of us as women can speak to having been a victim? We mustn’t as a society underestimate the impact it has on the victim.
I am in no doubt that the failure to investigate these allegations of Couzens indecently exposing his genitals, with the intention that someone would see them and be caused alarm and distress, were missed opportunities to disrupt or even prevent his further offending.
In part one of my inquiry, I am calling for a step change in the way police respond to indecent exposure cases. My five clear recommendations on dealing with sexual offences include a public information campaign to encourage victims to come forward, and to increase understanding of the seriousness of the crime and an immediate review of indecent exposure allegations against serving police officers. At the earliest opportunity, and by September 2024 at the latest, police forces should ensure that they have a specialist policy on investigating all sexual offences, including indecent exposure.
In part two of the inquiry, we will explore whether this attitude reflects a wider culture in policing in which finding reasons not to pursue a crime such as indecent exposure is preferred over any attempt to build a successful case for prosecution.
Couzens’ depraved actions damaged the social contract on which policing is based – if women are to feel safer again, policing leaders across the country need to stop, listen and make some serious changes. For a start, let’s stop minimising the seriousness of these crimes by talking about “flashing” and recognise indecent exposure for the deeply troubling crime it is. For Sarah and her family’s sake, and for those other victims of sexual offending, we need to do everything we can to stop another Couzens operating in plain sight.
Lady Elish Angiolini was chair of the inquiry into Sarah Everard’s murder
