Commissioner Foreword The IPCC investigations into how reports about Ian Watkins’ sexual interest in children were handled over a four year period were amongst the most sensitive, exhaustive and distressing investigations that I have overseen in my four years as the IPCC Commissioner for Wales. The number of forces involved and the subject matter – Watkins’ commission of contact child offences and possession of indecent images of children, together with the use of, and possession, production and sale of illegal drugs – made the investigations both complex and challenging. The investigation team had to piece together who knew what, and when, and what steps were taken to act on the number of reports received. Underlying it all was the question of whether opportunities were missed to bring Watkins to justice earlier. The main report was concluded in May 2016 and South Wales Police accepted in full all the findings of all the investigation reports, producing a wide ranging Organisational Learning Report to address all the systemic weaknesses identified. I comment further on this later in this Foreword. Watkins’ offending came to light after police examined his computers and other media, seized following the execution of a drugs warrant in September 2012. Evidence gained triggered South Wales Police to start its criminal investigation, Operation Globe, which swiftly and successfully brought Watkins, and two co- defendants, to justice just over a year later. However, South Wales Police and some other forces had received reports and intelligence about Watkins’ drug use and sexual interest in children as far back as 2008. A significant number of the reports were made by Watkins’ former partner Joanne Mjadzelics, and the initial police assessment of her credibility impacted negatively on the police response over a four year period. But Joanne Mjadzelics was not a lone voice. Several other individuals came forward, partly through Crimestoppers, with disturbing information about Watkins’ behaviour. Joanne Mjadzelics’ first report was made in late December 2008 to Rhondda Cynon Taf Council Social Services, which also forwarded the information to South Wales Police. Ms Mjadzelics reported that Watkins had told her he had given an infant child cocaine and touched the child inappropriately. The report was investigated by police but it was later determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation, and no further action was taken. Over the next four years, South Wales Police received various reports and intelligence submissions about Watkins’ alleged drug use, possession of indecent images of children and sexual interest in children. Ms Mjadzelics also made complaints to police over the same period about the lack of police action, including

1 For publication one complaint in May 2011; this complaint was sent to the force ‘ACPO email inbox’, an inbox intended to enable the public to complain to the chief constable. However, no chief officer saw the complaint and it was not recorded or investigated by South Wales Police at the time. In addition, reports about Watkins’ sexual interest in children were made to other police forces, specifically: Bedfordshire, South Yorkshire, Essex and the Metropolitan Police. Following a referral from South Wales Police in January 2013, the IPCC instigated a wide-ranging independent investigation to look thoroughly at: the force handling of the reports and intelligence received; whether actions were influenced by Watkins’ celebrity profile or perceptions about Ms Mjadzelics; the contact South Wales Police had with other forces; the supervision of officers allocated to investigate and South Wales Police’s compliance with national and force policies and guidance. This Foreword focuses on South Wales Police which, as the main recipient of reports about Watkins and the force covering his home address, was best placed to investigate. The IPCC also investigated the handling of reports and actions undertaken by South Yorkshire Police and Bedfordshire Police, and has reported separately on these investigations. We identified shortcomings in the South Wales Police investigation of the report made by Ms Mjadzelics in December 2008. Crucially, we found that the alleged victim and her parents were not visited at the time, contrary to force policy. Ms Mjadzelics’ mobile phone was not examined in 2009. Had it been, a message sent by Ian Watkins in August 2007, explicitly revealing his wish to have sex with children, would have been discovered. The message corroborated Ms Mjadzelics’ account and would potentially have led to the early perceptions of her reports as lacking credibility being reassessed. I therefore view this as a significant missed opportunity, which could have led to Watkins being brought to justice much earlier than he was. In fact, none of the reports or intelligence submissions made from December 2008 to June 2012 led to Watkins being arrested, questioned or otherwise required to respond to the allegations made against him. While the focus of the IPCC investigation was necessarily on Watkins’ commission of contact child sex offences and possession of indecent images of children, police received several reports about his use of and possession, production and sale of illegal drugs. Save for one report, made in June 2012, none of the intelligence about Watkins’ alleged drug use was directed to officers for action. His arrest for a drugs offence in September 2012, and evidence about his drug use gathered by Operation Globe, indicates that the numerous prior allegations about his drug use were well- founded. The judge who sentenced Watkins concluded that use of drugs played a significant role in his commission of child sex offences. Arresting Watkins for drugs

2 For publication offences at an earlier stage may also have provided an opportunity to disrupt his offending towards children and vulnerable women. In the course of gathering evidence, the investigation team carefully examined hundreds of documents, police logs and statements. Investigators interviewed/took written responses from three police officers as subjects to the investigation, and more than 20 other officers and police staff as witnesses. Ms Mjadzelics was interviewed at length as a significant witness, and other members of the public provided information relevant to our investigations. Some of the evidence is set out in the executive summary, also published today, along with the IPCC’s findings and recommendations. It is salutary to reflect again on Watkins’ offending. Ian Watkins, now 40, was the lead singer of a rock band, the Lostprophets, whose members were originally from the Pontypridd area of South Wales. The band was successful, achieving considerable fame and worldwide record sales. When not touring, Watkins spent much of his time in Los Angeles, London and the Pontypridd area of South Wales, where he was well-known. He carried out charity work in Wales, acting as an ambassador for young people for the Kidney Wales Foundation. But when away from the public eye, Watkins lived a dissolute lifestyle, characterised by heavy drug use and casual sexual relationships. He habitually recorded his sexual encounters, storing recordings on electronic devices such as iPhones, iPads, laptops and external hard drives. He was also a prolific user of email and internet instant messaging sites such as AOL Instant Messenger (AIM); he used other sites to communicate with fans and partners, including Twitter and Skype. In addition to having a sexual interest in children, Watkins also gravitated towards vulnerable females, some of whom had mental health concerns. He encouraged sexual partners to take drugs with him, and expressed a desire to stupefy several of his child victims with drugs. When evidence of the full nature of his offending was finally uncovered, Watkins was brought to trial for a series of child sexual abuse offences – a case so horrific the Judge, The Honourable Mr Justice Royce described it as ‘breaking new ground’ and ‘plumbing new depths of depravity’. In December 2013, Watkins was sentenced to 29 years’ imprisonment at Cardiff Crown Court, with an additional six years to be spent on licence. In sentencing him, The Honourable Mr Justice Royce said: “You Watkins achieved fame and success as the lead singer of the Lostprophets. You had many fawning fans. That gave you power. You knew you could use that power to induce young female fans to help satisfy your apparently insatiable lust and to take part in the sexual abuse of their young children. Away from the highlights of your public performances lay a dark and sinister side. “I am satisfied that you are a deeply corrupting influence; you are highly manipulative; you are a sexual predator; you are dangerous. The public and in particular young females and children need protection from you.”

3 For publication Given the gravity of Watkins’ offending, it was incumbent on the IPCC to assess whether anything could have been done differently, and whether Ian Watkins could have been brought to justice earlier. South Wales Police came into possession of eight reports and three intelligence logs sourced from six named individuals concerning Watkins’ activities over a four year period, and failed to action them adequately. In my view, all the reports made were subject to a biased response, whether this was conscious or unconscious. Some were conflated with reports made by Ms Mjadzelics and were thus dismissed as lacking credibility. All those involved in responding accepted the initial sceptical view of Ms Mjadzelics’ reports, demonstrating a lack of open-mindedness and professional curiosity. This continued until ‘the right type of complainant came along’. There was no evidence to show that police inaction was a result of Watkins’ celebrity. Rather, the assessment of Joanne Mjadzelics as lacking credibility resulted in the force not taking adequate steps to progress reports. While this decision making was due to a small number of South Wales Police officers and a lack of open-mindedness on their part, I was concerned that it pointed to wider systemic issues in the force at the time. The IPCC investigation found weaknesses in South Wales Police procedures relating to allegations of child abuse across several themes, including: poor record keeping and retention; poor management of intelligence; safeguarding; supervision; a lack of rigour in progressing investigations; the handling of third party reports as opposed to those from victims; and an inadequate approach to cross border investigations. The IPCC has a role in both assessing whether individual officers and staff have a case to answer for misconduct/performance and in identifying organisational learning to improve overall police policy and practice. This Foreword concentrates on the wider learning for South Wales Police around its handling of child abuse investigations. Police officers will rarely encounter a perfect witness; it is vital that officers ensure they remain open-minded and pursue all appropriate lines of enquiry to establish whether there is any independent corroboration for the allegations being made. This case demonstrates the risks inherent in failing to explore investigative opportunities to the fullest in such circumstances. The Organisational Learning Report, plus the commitment shown by the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Chief Constable and the Deputy Chief Constable to take action to prevent such missed opportunities reoccurring in the future, provide assurance to the public that if they come forward with credible concerns, those concerns will be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, without bias, conscious or unconscious, creeping in. I welcome the readiness of the Police and Crime Commissioner to host a learning conference in the autumn of this year, to reinforce this message. The Police and Crime Commissioner has been steadfast in his commitment to do everything in his power to put things right for the future, being joined in this intent by the chief officer

4 For publication group together with the Professional Standards Department. I have visited the Multi- Agency Safeguarding Hub in Pontypridd and seen first-hand the system improvements made to manage any reports of child abuse/ exploitation very differently now. Taking the extensive work done to date into account, I have determined that I need to add only two final recommendations: 1. that South Wales Police should consider how best it can support officers and staff in recognising the potential for unconscious bias to creep in, unchallenged, and how to set clear expectations in relation to independent thinking, professional curiosity, an investigative mindset and an open-minded approach at all times; and 2. that South Wales Police should identify positive role models to be officially tasked with supporting officers and staff to challenge bias, in all its forms. This investigation raised the most disturbing concerns about the way in which reports of Ian Watkins’ sickening child abuse were handled between 2008 and 2012. Watkins’ arrest for his depraved activities followed only after an arrest for drugs offences, an added cause for serious concern. The timeline of reports made to South Wales Police, and to other forces, speaks for itself in terms of opportunities missed. The lessons were stark, as were the significant organisational defects. The leadership of South Wales Police responded with a comprehensive overhaul of systems, policies and procedures and a key cultural message around the need for open-mindedness and professional curiosity at all times. I hope that the messages set out in my recommendations will reinforce the fact that bias, conscious or unconscious, has no place in 21st Century policing.

Jan Williams IPCC Commissioner for Wales August 2017

5 For publication