New Police Misconduct Panel Dismisses Senior Met Officer Guilty of Gross Misconduct Against Kristina O’Connor

On the 20 June 2025, a new police misconduct panel found Detective Chief Inspector James Mason guilty of gross misconduct and ordered his dismissal from the Metropolitan Police. The panel concluded that Mason’s sustained sexual harassment of Kristina O’Connor, when she sought help as a victim of crime, warranted his immediate dismissal.

This decision follows a five-year legal battle led by Ms O’Connor, which concluded in January 2025, when the Court of Appeal condemned the decision of a previous misconduct panel that had allowed Mason to remain in the force.

The initial panel, held in October 2021, merely issued Mason a final written warning and noted his otherwise “excellent service record” - a rationale the Court of Appeal would later reject.

The panel’s new decision marks a long-overdue recognition of the harm suffered by Ms O’Connor. However, the need for sustained legal action and the intervention of one of the highest courts in England and Wales, raises concerns about the effectiveness of existing police disciplinary mechanisms.

These concerns are amplified when viewed against the backdrop of the murder of Sarah Everard by serving Met Officer Wayne Couzens - an event that took place just nine months before Mason’s first misconduct hearing. In response to Sarah Everard’s murder, the Metropolitan Police promised “an urgent review” of all ongoing misconduct investigations and acknowledged that the case was part of “a much bigger and troubling picture.”

Ms O’Connor’s experience raises doubts about whether the purported lessons from the case of Sarah Everard have truly been learnt. Despite a formal misconduct hearing, clear evidence, and demonstrated harm, it took half a decade and an appellate intervention to achieve true recognition of the severity of Mason’s actions.

Following the case of Sarah Everard, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) issued a learning report highlighting systemic failures in police vetting and misconduct procedures. It recommended a national system to ensure that police forces are informed when serious allegations are made against serving officers. The IOPC made clear that proper investigation of allegations against Couzens could have led to his dismissal long before the horrific crime.

However, Ms O’Connor’s first panel experience illustrates that even when misconduct is acknowledged, institutional reluctance to impose meaningful sanctions persists.

Ms O’Connor’s ultimate success in challenging this failure now offers hope for other women who have suffered similar mistreatment at the hands of the police. It offers precedent for future police misconduct panels to acknowledge the seriousness of claims of this nature from the outset and to reflect this through sanctioning offending officers with dismissal.

Her bravery in speaking out has already positively influenced other women’s pursuit of justice against the police, as after hearing about the case, serving officer Lizzie Jones came forward citing Mason’s inappropriate behaviour towards her.

Speaking to 4 News, Lizzie Jones explained that Mason’s ‘‘behaviour around women officers was predatory.’’

“I was at a custody suite. I was on my own dealing with a prisoner and I asked for a lift home from someone, or someone to help me charge this person, because the Tubes had all stopped and I couldn’t get back. So I messaged him and he said, ‘I’ll do anything for an attractive officer’.”

When asked by 4 News if she challenged what was going on at the time, Jones said:

“No. I’d been groomed into thinking all these kinds of comments and behaviour towards me was just normal. And it was anything but normal.”

The experiences of Kristina O’Connor and Lizzie Jones critically underscores that there is still much work to be done. The dismissal of Mason should not be seen as a conclusion, but a call to action and a reminder that institutional change requires sustained pressure, legal scrutiny, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about power, gender, and accountability in British policing.

Law for Change is proud to have backed Kristina O’Connor in her determined pursuit of justice.

Ms O’Connor is represented by Nancy Collins, partner, and Rebecca Argall, paralegal, of Bindmans. Before the Cout of Appeal she was represented by Maya Sikand KC and Rosa Polaschek of Doughty Street Chambers. Ms O’Connor was represented by Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC and Fiona Murphy KC in the Administrative Court, and by Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC, Fiona Murphy KC and Rosa Polaschek in connection the application for permission to appeal.

Read more about this case here