Metropolitan Police Officer 'PC Riley' Cannot Be Located for High Court Testimony in Alleged Rape Case
A Metropolitan Police officer identified only as 'PC Riley' has become untraceable, preventing cross-examination in a high court trial where a woman alleges systemic failures by police and social services contributed to her rape as a teenager. The officer previously reported "no concerns" about a man who later brutally attacked the 15-year-old girl.
Background of the Case and Initial Police Response
The case centers on a woman now in her 30s, referred to as EGZ, who claims she was repeatedly raped by older gang-linked men due to negligence by authorities. When EGZ left her Essex foster placement in 2015 with a 35-year-old man she met in a stairwell, police were alerted to her disappearance.
PC Riley responded to the missing persons report and visited a flat in East London where the man, known as X2, was harboring EGZ. According to Metropolitan Police records cited in court documents, PC Riley stated that "intel checks had been undertaken and they were no concerns on this gentleman."
This assessment proved catastrophically inaccurate. X2 was actually a violent drug dealer who had previously been charged with what the claimant's legal team describes as an "especially gruesome rape." Social workers from Hackney Council later discovered EGZ's true age and informed X2 she was only 15.
Subsequent Events and Legal Proceedings
Six months after PC Riley's visit, X2 brutally attacked EGZ, leaving her hospitalized with a brain bleed. EGZ reported the attack and a campaign of rape by X2 to police, though she later withdrew the allegations due to fear of returning to foster care.
More than a decade later, EGZ is suing Hackney Council, the Metropolitan Police, and two additional local authorities for alleged Human Rights Act violations and negligence. Her claim against the Met focuses on their alleged failure to share crucial information about X2's criminal history with Hackney Council, potentially exposing EGZ to sexual exploitation when authorities could have intervened.
The Missing Officer and Investigation Challenges
Typically, the officer who handled the missing persons report would testify to explain why X2 wasn't flagged as a risk and why inaccurate information was provided to Hackney Council. However, PC Riley has themselves become a missing person in this investigation.
Sergeant Helen Wright from the Met's professional standards department testified that efforts to locate the former constable had failed. Letters sent to addresses associated with Simon, Derek, and Lesley Riley went unanswered. When asked if investigators had tried tracking the officer using phone numbers available to Hackney social workers at the time, Sgt Wright responded she was "not sure."
Questioned about whether alternative spellings like 'Reilly' had been considered, Sgt Wright admitted: "Um, no... No alternative spelling has been run by our legal team."
Social Services' Response and Accommodation Issues
After the attack by X2, Hackney Council placed EGZ in privately-run semi-independent accommodation. During the trial, EGZ alleged that older men were able to access this facility to have sex with her and use her to obtain drugs on-site.
Junior barrister Sam Jacobs, representing EGZ, described incidents where older men entered the building, including one 40-year-old who played "a game of cat and mouse with police over 40 minutes." In another instance, a man with a moustache was found hiding in a cupboard in EGZ's bedroom.
Hackney social worker Simone Nyarko acknowledged that X2's associates appeared to be seeking out EGZ even after his imprisonment, describing the situation as "chaos around [EGZ]." However, she rejected suggestions that a care order would have significantly changed EGZ's circumstances.
Defense Positions and Continuing Trial
Both Hackney Council and the Metropolitan Police deny allegations of negligence and human rights violations. The trial continues as the court examines whether systemic failures contributed to EGZ's exploitation and whether authorities fulfilled their duty of care to a vulnerable teenager.
The case highlights significant questions about information sharing between police and social services, the adequacy of risk assessments for vulnerable youth, and the accountability mechanisms within law enforcement when officers cannot be located for crucial testimony.
