CONFIDENTIAL INVESTIGATION INTO CONDUCT OF DC RANDULF GALLOWGLASS, CONDUCTED BY DI ADOLPHO PUGA, BAKERS MOOR STATION

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS—

• DC Gallowglass did attack [redacted] on Fair Road in Earmam, breaking his nose and a tooth and then refused to call for medical treatment before questioning him. There was insufficient evidence to suggest [redacted] was a suspect in reported crime.
• DC Gallowglass repeatedly pursued suspects in cases that were not assigned to him, interfering in areas of investigations and districts of the city where his work obstructed other officers, despite multiple warnings.
• DC Gallowglass, in at least one provable case, suppressed evidence against a suspect he considered a source of information, and in so doing prevented a charge and likely conviction being brought against that suspect.
• DC Gallowglass used his position to pursue vendettas against several individuals who had angered him, either by refusing to work as a source for him or by proving investigations of his to be wrong. These vendettas included threatening the individuals and harassing them by informing neighbors and employers that the individuals were under investigation by Challaid Police when they were not.
• DC Gallowglass did attack [redacted] in a corridor of Cnocaid police station. DC Gallowglass had gone to the cell in which [redacted] was being held and attempted to force her to talk to him without a lawyer present. He did become violent when she refused, dragging her out into the corridor and striking her twice about the head.

In the course of investigating the conduct of DC Gallowglass I have found evidence of seventy-one clear breaches of conduct and twelve criminal offenses of varying severity on his part. His colleagues have repeatedly stated that they no longer feel safe working with him, and his behavior toward fellow officers, witnesses and suspects has routinely fallen far below that expected of a serving officer. For the sake of the dignity of the force and the trust of the public, it is not conscionable that DC Gallowglass should remain a serving officer.

  

Further to the investigation into DC Gallowglass’s conduct, I recommend that those working most closely with him, particularly his direct superior officers, be investigated. In light of the catalog of misdemeanors carried out by DC Gallowglass, it is improbable that none of his direct superiors could have been aware of his conduct. Several officers have informed my inquiry that they reported DC Gallowglass to his superiors and yet not only was no action taken, no record of the complaints was kept and the complainants were made to feel intimidated within the station.

  

Challaid Police continues to suffer low trust ratings among the public, and it is the actions of officers like DC Gallowglass that are to blame for this. He has been allowed to behave as though the laws he enforces do not apply to him, and not only must that culture end, Challaid Police must be seen to be the ones ending it before an external force does.