Anthony Stansfeld acted outside his remit as elected head

Anthony Stansfeld has been repeatedly accused of stepping out of line and getting involved in police matters that are seemingly outside of his role as police and crime commissioner.

He has defended his actions on more than one occasion by saying he is ‘entitled to his own opinion’ and the complaints are ‘not matters’ that a group of councillors designed to hold him accountable should ‘get involved with’.

He has also batted off claims by saying he was acting in his role as the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners lead for fraud and cyber crime. 

Anthony Stansfeld. Picture Ed Nix

Councillors have previously told him to make sure there is ‘more clarity and transparency’ when he is acting in either role. 

Now in the latest complaint made against the Conservative head of force, the same group of 18 councillors on the police and crime complaints panel have passed the matter on to the highest authority in the land to deal with instead. 

The group invited Mr Stansfeld to a meeting to explain his actions after a complaint was lodged against him by David Standish and Blair Nimmo of KPMG and their legal advisors DLA Piper UK LLP. 
The complaint related to him personally getting involved in civil matters outside of his role as PCC. 

The complaints panel said that they ‘noted the robust explanation’ from Mr Stansfeld as to why he got involved in the matter, particularly the claim he was acting as the portfolio holder for fraud and cyber crime.

READ MORE: Power cuts in Reading to last for '2 hours'

However, the committee decided to uphold the complaint after it was found that he didn’t have the authority and should never have got involved.

Now, the Independent Office for Police Conduct will be told about the matter and the panel will write to the APCC copying in the Home Office minister to tell them about his actions. 

Typically, when a Thames Valley Police officer is complained about and investigated by the IOPC they are dismissed until there is a resolution, which sometimes takes months. 

Mr Stansfeld, however, is currently still working in his role and is expected to carry on until he stands down ahead of the elections in May. 

Complaints against Mr Stansfeld, who gets paid £87,000-a-year to control police budgets, are first sent to his own office before they are passed to the police and crime panel. 

However, last year it emerged that the panel have no real powers to punish him.

The limited power of the panel means that if he has not broken the law the panel can only suggest what he could do differently in the future or ask him to apologise – and even then, he could choose not to. 

The official complaints procedure also means that the panel cannot actually investigate the complaints – it can only hear both sides of the argument and then make its decision.

Previous allegations

Last year the panel decided that Mr Stansfeld had not broken any rules after it heard of a previous accusation that he had been using his position to try to influence a matter outside of his remit.

Mr Stansfeld admitted using his professional work email to warn a private citizen of police action in a bid to try and help a billionaire's ex-wife find his missing millions. 

In October 2019, a man called Michael Murrin got in touch with the Oxford Mail saying he had been hired by a woman called Michelle Young to retrieve two computer hard drives which contained information about her millionaire ex-husband’s hidden assets. 

However, Mr Murrin said that, having got the hard drives, there was then a disagreement over the payment and he refused to hand them over.

A week later, to his complete surprise, he received an email about the disagreement from Anthony Stansfeld which said: “I have taken an interest in the case of Michelle Young. Unless you have a signed contract with Ms Young which shows a clear contract with her, I suggest you hand back the hard drives to her before this becomes a police matter.

“As far as I can see, you may be able to show otherwise, this appears to me to be extortion.” 

READ MORE: Drugs and knife seized as police continue stop and search efforts

Mr Murrin replied the following day asking Mr Stansfeld why he had got involved in the case, given none of the people involved even lived in the Thames Valley area, and accusing him of ‘abusing his office by issuing threats of criminal investigation’. He eventually filed a complaint formally. 

When the Oxford Mail asked Mr Stansfeld about the accusation over the phone, he at one point said: “I am not going to be open with you in the future if you run this story.”

He then claimed he had taken a personal interest in that case because ‘the police do not investigate fraud well’.

Anthony Stansfeld sitting on a panel beside Michelle Young

The PCC complaints panel finally met to discuss that complaint on September 4 in private – away from the public, press and Mr Stansfeld – to decide if he had committed misconduct. 

In its decision addressed to Mr Murrin, which has been seen by this paper, the panel decided Mr Stansfeld had not broken any rules. 

The head of the panel noted that Mr Stansfeld’s own response to the complaints which were that as a PCC he is ‘entitled to his own opinion’ and that the complaints are ‘not matters which the panel should get involved with’. 

The panel also last year partially upheld another complaint similar to that made by Mr Murrin. 

Though the details of that have been kept a secret, the sub-committee revealed it had asked the PCC to ensure he made it more clear when he was acting in his official capacity as PCC.