Bullying by police superintendent so bad her office was known as ‘war department’, court hears
The bullying behaviour of a police superintendent was so bad her office became known as a “war department”, a court heard.
Tessa Barrow and Julie Welch claim they ended up leaving their jobs as officers in Hertfordshire because of “assault, bullying, belittling and oppressive behaviour” from their superior, Superintendent Sue Jameson.
Supt Jameson was said to be so “loud” and to suffer such “unpredictable swings of behaviour” that her section became known as “the war department”.
Ms Barrow and Ms Welch allege harassment, resulting in psychological injury and the end of their careers, and are suing for about £1.35 million at the High Court in London.
Lawyers for Hertfordshire Constabulary deny that Supt Jameson was a bully and instead claim she was a “tactile” boss who liked a joke.
‘If you weren’t favoured, you were bullied’
All three women were working in the force’s Local Change Department when the majority of incidents are alleged to have taken place between 2017 and 2018, Laura Pegley, the claimants’ barrister, said during a pre-trial hearing.
“The claimants’ case is that you were either favoured by Jameson or you weren’t. If you weren’t favoured, you were bullied,” she told the judge, Deputy Master Fine.
“Both allege incidents of assault in the context of office working. The assaults that are alleged range from poking and prodding to hitting on the back of the head to gain attention or to move people.
“The bullying and harassment allegations centre on micro-management, a lack of trust and questioning constantly the actions of each of the individuals,” said Ms Pegley.
“Each claims they were singled out and were specifically targeted.”
Both claim to have suffered psychiatric injury, with Ms Barrow, who left the force as a sergeant, seeking £850,000 damages, and Ms Welch, an inspector, about £500,000.
In court papers relating to Ms Barrow’s claim, Ms Pegley said: “After the commencement of her work at the Change Team, the claimant became aware that the corridor where the rooms were located was referred to colloquially as ‘The War Department’ because of the atmosphere created by Jameson, who was physically imposing, loud and prone to unpredictable swings of behaviour and management.
“The latter was characterised by a lack of trust, and little autonomy towards those targeted by Jameson.”
The barrister said Supt Jameson should have been aware that her rank gave her “significant power and authority over her subordinate officers”.
She should also have known that her behaviour “was likely to have a cumulative effect and cause anxiety, embarrassment, stress and humiliation, which could, and did, result in psychiatric injury”.
‘A respected superintendent with impressive record’
Defence lawyers, however, deny that Supt Jameson “created a work environment that was oppressive and fearful for those whom she did not favour”.
Rehana Azib KC, defending, said: “At all material times, she was a respected superintendent, with an impressive work record.
“She had close working relationships and professional friendships with her staff, such relationships involving mutual jokes and humour.
“She was known to be humorous and jovial and the Local Change Team was generally a jovial team whereby colleagues and managers joked with one another.
“She was also a generally tactile person, and others in the office would reciprocate this tactile behaviour.”
She continues: “It is expressly denied that she was physically imposing.”
In relation to specific allegations, she said it is denied that Supt Jameson “hit” her subordinates or was “physically aggressive”.
Ms Azib said an alleged “slap” by Supt Jameson after Ms Barrow clicked her fingers was actually “an almost involuntary flick” which Ms Barrow had not characterised as an assault at the time.
Both women had “misinterpreted the actions of Jameson as being directed personally from her, as opposed to from management more generally”.
The force says there were genuine concerns about the two officers’ work, which justified them being managed more closely, with suggestions that Ms Welch was “underperforming” and needed “additional management”, while there were “good grounds” for suspecting Ms Barrow had been studying when she should have been working.
The case reached court last month after an application for the two cases to be joined and heard together as one in a future trial, rather than separately.
Giving judgment, Deputy Master Fine said the claims should be joined for a trial lasting about two weeks as most of the witnesses would have to give evidence twice if they were kept separate.
No date has been set for the trial of the two claims.
