Female cop accused of 'fabricating sex attack by male colleague' that bosses 'compared to crimes of Wayne Couzens’

A female police officer has been charged with perverting the course of justice amid allegations she 'falsely accused' a male colleague of a sex attack that superiors compared to the crimes of Wayne Couzens (above).

PC Alexander Watson, who has more than 20 years service with the Met Police, was arrested as a result of the claims.

The officer was then named to his close colleagues as the suspect of a major criminal sex offence probe that the Met Police Professional Standards Unit (PSU) described as "Wayne Couzens 2".

His colleagues were even told he was likely to be charged and remanded into custody and that anyone who did not come forward with evidence of any other alleged offending by him could be subject to misconduct proceedings.

It has emerged that the force later dropped the criminal investigation into PC Watson after suspicions arose that the female officer may have "fabricated the allegations against him".

She was suspended from duty following her arrest on Thursday, 20 April 2023 and later charged with committing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice.

She has pleaded not guilty with a trial awaited.

Couzens received a whole life term in September 2021 after he admitted to kidnapping and raping Sarah Everard, 33, (below) before murdering her and concealing her body.

He used his warrant card to lure her into a hire car that he then drove to Kent during the lockdown in March 2021.

Mr Watson was said to have been "devastated" by the alleged falsified allegation and "the manner in which he was arrested and investigated."

Yet, he went on to face a professional misconduct hearing after a number of younger female colleagues did come forward during the investigation and said in unrelated incidents he had made inappropriate advances or comments towards them.

Details of the Wayne Couzens 2 probe emerged in a written summary of his misconduct hearing just released after a five-day misconduct hearing held in London from February 17.

It states: "The circumstances in which PC Watson was investigated and which subsequently led to these misconduct proceedings are that a female officer indicated that she had been sexually assaulted by an unknown male police officer in circumstances which were regarded as being similar to those of “Wayne Couzens”.

An investigation was launched, and PC Watson was identified as being the suspect. He was arrested and the matter was treated as one of the utmost seriousness.

"While the investigation was proceeding, members of the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) approached members of PC Watson’s team; advised them of the fact that he had been arrested in the most serious circumstances; implied that he would be charged and remanded; asked members of the team for any incidents that occurred in respect of them which may assist the criminal investigation

and referred to the case as being “Wayne Couzens 2”.

"Following the investigation, it emerged that the female officer who made the initial allegation was an alleged fantasist.

"The criminal investigation against PC Watson was dropped and instead criminal proceedings were instigated against the female

officer concerned and these remain outstanding."

At the time the allegations surfaced PC Watson was working undercover on Operation Orochi, investigating county lines organised drugs gangs.

The misconduct summary said: "The nature of the work undertaken by the team meant that they frequently were working away from home and staying in hotels. It was at a time when the effects of covid were still in place with limits on the number of people that could

socialise together. As a result of this, officers on the team appear to have, on occasions, gathered in the rooms of each other in order to drink, socialise and so they could, on occasions, discuss confidential matters concerning their investigations without the risk of being heard in public."

The hearing was told that junior female colleagues came forward to say that PC Watson propositioned them, "inviting them to his room" for drinks before making "inappropriate references to their bodies" and sending "inappropriate messages or images to them."

In the case of one female officer only named as PC D, who he was mentoring, it was alleged that he told her "he had a work crush on her and found her highly attractive."

PC Watson’s actions were said to be unwelcome and made female officers feel uncomfortable. He was charged with propositioning younger female officers for a sexual purpose.

It was also alleged that if rebuffed by a junior colleague, he was accused subsequently of changing his behaviour towards them, such as largely or completely stopping talking to them or criticising them in front of fellow officers.

These alleged actions were considered to breach the standards of professional behaviour.

Yet, most of the complainants declined to take part in the misconduct proceedings and, in some cases, declined to make a witness statement.

Two of the officers merely provided information concerning their interactions with PC Watson in email form.

The summary said: "PC Watson indicated that he had been devastated by the falsified allegation against him and

the manner in which he was arrested and investigated.

"He believed that the investigation was tainted. He, in the main, denied the allegations before the panel. He accepted that he had a work crush on PC D but indicated that when she stated that she was not interested he accepted that."

He provided details of his WhatsApp messaging between himself and three of the female officers indicating that they had a close and friendly relationship including after the time that the allegations were said to have occurred.

He alleged that at no time did any officer criticise or comment on his behaviour, giving him no indication that his actions were a cause for concern.

Five female officers took part in the hearing after one pulled out for health reasons.

Aside from PC D, he was alleged to have implied that he wanted a photo of PC A in her beachwear, which was not proven, and asked her to go to his room which the panel accepted did happen.

PC B said he invited her to his room during an overnight hotel stay in Essex, which was accepted by the panel as true.

PC C said he sent her a photo of an Ann Summers shop and made reference to her hotel room number which she had not told him, which were proven, but allegations that he commented on her legs and made reference to females in swimwear were not.

PC E alleged he commented on her bottom, which was proven, while PC F described a sexist culture on the team and referred to what other female officers told her about PC Watson’s behaviour.

PC Watson admitted pursuing PC D, but said he stopped after she was not interested. The allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards her were proven.

In the other cases he denied acting inappropriately and said actions alleged of him were misinterpreted.

He denied sexual propositioning or ostracising female officers who were said to have rebuffed him.

The panel took account of the Wayne Couzens investigation in reaching its outcome.

The summary said: "A significant factor in this case was the fact that the allegations arose following an investigation by the

DPS into PC Watson at a time when he was wrongly suspected to have been the perpetrator of a serious criminal sexual assault, which the DPS have established was a fabrication.

"The manner in which the DPS approached witnesses to give evidence; implied threat of misconduct proceedings for

the witnesses’ lack of reporting.

"At the time of their witness statements/emails they were led to believe that PC Watson was the perpetrator of a serious assault, which had the potential to taint these misconduct proceedings.

"Nonetheless, the panel found on the whole that the witnesses gave a truthful account; did not have an axe to grind against PC Watson; spoke of him in glowing terms in respect of his abilities as a serving officer in a department dealing with complex investigations, including attempting to break county line OCGs, and in respect of his positive role as a mentor with

regard to the professional nature of his investigations and work-related advice and guidance.

"He had clearly suffered enormously as a result of the DPS investigation, and the falsified allegation made against him, which he indicated had unleashed a “tsunami”."

The panel concluded the proven allegations did amount to gross misconduct.

The report said: "He was working alongside a number of young female officers, some of whom he acted as a mentor to. The panel found that PC Watson acted inappropriately in a number of respects against some of these officers. The panel was concerned that he failed to display any significant insight into his actions in retrospect, or the impact that the same had had for the female officers who gave evidence before the panel."

He received a three-year final written warning.

If PC Watson reads this and is planning to appeal or take a claim against the Met, please make contact via jonaustinreporter@gmail.com.