by Dr Clare Torrible, University of Bristol Law School
On 1st October 2025, BBC Panorama revealed appalling misogyny and racism among officers at Charing Cross police station, alongside several examples of officers revelling in the use of unlawful excessive force. Despite this signalling a clear failure on the part of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police (MPS), Sir Mark Rowley, to meaningfully address similar findings in the same station by the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) in 2022, he remains in post. This is problematic. As discussed below, the clear and catastrophic management failure made evident by the Panorama programme is symptomatic of deeper issues with Sir Mark’s leadership which, in the absence of radical change, make his continued service as Commissioner unsustainable.
It is well documented that the 2023 Casey Review into the Standards of Behaviour and Internal Culture of the MPS found it to be institutionally racist, misogynist and homophobic. Further in line with the more recent revelations concerning Charing Cross, the Casey Review also detailed instances of officers being trained and encouraged to use extreme excessive unlawful force. However, while Sir Mark accepted the findings of the Casey Review and committed to addressing them, he has repeatedly refused to accede to the label ‘institutional’ in relation to them.
Sir Mark’s position in this regard has always been questionable and is now untenable. As the Chapman Review of the Police Disciplinary System in England and Wales confirmed leadership is crucial to shaping culture. If institutional racism, misogyny, homophobia, and routine use of excessive force are to be overcome, the management response to them must be unambiguously alive to the insidious nature of issues that are ‘institutional’. Furthermore, the ‘tone from the top’ in relation to addressing them must be unequivocal and consistent because mixed messages in this regard can breed cynicism and thereby impede cultural change. In both these Rowley has failed.
It is evident from Sir Mark’s response to the recent revelations about Charing Cross that he remains entrenched in a ‘bad apple’ view of the issues Casey raised. For example, when challenged on how he could claim to be on top of the problem when a toxic culture at the station had again been exposed, Rowley’s responded, ‘I’m on top of things because of all the people we have removed’.
This belief that the elimination of a few rotten apples will leave the rest of the barrel intact is anathema to addressing problems as ‘institutional’. The Panorama programme confirms that clinging to this erroneous view has led Rowley to blatant and reprehensible management failure. Crucially, it also demonstrates that in doing so he is guilty of giving mixed messages to officers across the force about his genuine commitment to reform.
The 2022 IOPC Report on Charing Cross was unequivocal that the issues it identified (including bullying and aggressive behaviour; ‘banter’ used to excuse oppressive and offensive behaviours; discrimination; toxic masculinity, misogyny and sexual harassment; and failure to challenge and report improper conduct) were not simply a matter of ‘bad apples’. Instead, the Report specifically pointed to the re-emergence of appalling and toxic behaviours in subsequent investigations, even after the team which was originally identified as toxic had been disbanded.
Any manager who was genuinely committed to ensuring the welfare of female officers and staff at Charring Cross would have monitored the behaviours and practices at that station over the following few years to ensure that the steps taken to replace the toxic misogynistic culture were working and that a new culture had become fully embedded. In allowing, for example, the openly sexualised and misogynistic behaviour shown in the Panorama programme to go unchecked (in a station that had clear markers for recurring toxic misogyny), the Commissioner is complicit in that behaviour (and the harm done to the female officers and staff subjected to it and the female victims of violent crime who may have gone inadequately protected or supported because of it). That his apology about the conduct of the officers shown in the programme did not extend to a personal apology to the people impacted by those officers’ conduct, suggests that he is insufficiently alive to or concerned about the harmful implications of the toxic culture that has persisted in that station on his watch.
More broadly, the previous scandal at Charing Cross Station was instrumental in Sir Mark’s predecessor, Cressida Dick, being forced to resign and, on his appointment, Rowley promised to clean up the force . This unquestionably made Charing Cross a potential ‘flagship’ station in relation to the MPS’s response to the Casey Review. The successful embedding of a new culture at Charing Cross would have assisted in sending a signal to officers across the force that the Commissioner’s stated commitment to changing MPS culture in line with Casey’s recommendations was incontrovertible. Additionally, successful implementation of cultural change at Charing Cross could have demonstrated across the force that such change was positive for the working environment of all officers and staff, and for the communities they serve. That the Commissioner has failed to take these opportunities sends appalling and damaging mixed messages to officers and to all those who have low trust in the police.
Deeper concerns in this regard are raised by my analysis of the Commissioner and then Deputy Commissioner’s John Harris Memorial Lecture in September 2024 (Torrible, C. 2025 ‘Police Institutional Racism, Labelling and Mixed Messages: Analysis of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police’s John Harris Memorial Lecture 2024’ International Journal of Police Science 4(2) (forthcoming)). The analysis demonstrates that this Lecture, which must be taken as a carefully crafted oration designed to represent precisely what the Commissioner intended to convey, included elements that were insensitive to racialised communities, might fuel social division, and could invite officers to adopt defensive responses to allegations of bias. These elements may be attributable to some oversight in properly sense-checking the text of the Lecture. Significantly, however, full acceptance that the issues at the MPS are indeed institutional (and may include the Commissioner’s own unconscious bias) would involve putting in place practices to ensure such oversights are not repeated in other settings.
Whether Rowley should continue as Commissioner is doubtful. However, what is absolutely clear is that if he is to remain in post this should be conditional on him accepting the label ‘institutional’ in relation to the issues raised in the Casey review.