Crime Desk

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has today published the findings from its independent investigation into concerns raised by the family of Arsema Dawit into the police action in the months prior to her death.

On 30 April 2024 Miss Dawit, accompanied by her mother and cousin, attended Kennington Police Station in London to report an incident of assault and threats to kill made by her ex-boyfriend Thomas Nugesse.  Miss Dawit was killed on 2 June 2024 by Mr Nugesse.  On 20 May 2009, a jury found Mr Nugesse had committed the act of murder and the Judge ordered him to be detained indefinitely in a secure hospital.  

The IPCC investigation examined the circumstances surrounding the police contact with Ms Dawit between 30 April and 2 June 2008.  Overall, it found there were collective and organisational failings in the handling of Miss Dawit’s allegations.  

In particular, the investigation looked at the actions of an Inspector, a Detective Inspector, a Detective Constable and a Station Receptionist.  It found that a Station Receptionist failed to inform a senior officer that there was an allegation of a threat to kill, to record contact details for Miss Dawit’s cousin and to seize mobile phones as evidence.  

The investigation also found that a Detective Constable, who investigated the complaint, did not conduct a timely and effective investigation.  A culmination of leave, other work commitments and a reliance on a schools officer to make contact with Ms Dawit, meant progress by the Detective Constable was slow.  

IPCC Commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said:  

“This is an extremely tragic case.  Nothing can compensate for the loss of a loved daughter and I again extend my sincere condolences to Ms Dawit’s family and friends.

“While our investigation has found that a Station Receptionist and a Detective Constable could have done more, neither were responsible for what happened to Miss Dawit.  Tragically through omission, misunderstanding and assumption, the messages and information given by the family on the night of 30 April were not sufficiently acted upon.

“I was concerned by the high workload of the Inspectors interviewed as part of our investigation, in particular the almost unmanageable volume of work some supervisors are responsible for and the risk it creates of cases falling through the net.  However, I am encouraged by the fact that the MPS has conducted its own critical incident review of the case, which resulted in eight recommendations, including a review of available supervision resources.  I believe these recommendations go a long way to ensure incidents like these do not happen again.”

The Station Receptionist has received management action together with a development plan regarding work performance.  The Detective Constable has been spoken to by a senior officer about the role as an investigator and has been given a number of learning points to take forward.

The Inspector and Detective Inspector were found to have both acted appropriately during their involvement with the case.  

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) referred the incident to the IPCC on 4 June 2008.   On 6 June 2024 an independent investigation was launched but on the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service it was put on hold while the criminal investigation took place.  Following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings on 20 May 2009, the IPCC investigation commenced.  On 9 July 2009, as part of their statement, the family made a formal complaint about the MPS’s failure to take appropriate action to protect her after reporting the incident of assault and threats to kill made by Mr Nugesse.