A Met officer has been dismissed without notice for accessing protected police records to discover the identity of the officer arrested in connection with Sarah Everard’s disappearance. A misconduct panel found that former constable Clare Tett committed gross misconduct by searching records without any role in the investigation.
Tett accessed the files on 10 March 2021, the day following Wayne Couzens’s detention and two days before his name became public. The panel concluded that her actions were driven by curiosity, rather than a policing purpose. She will be placed on the College of Policing Barred List.
The records included custody files for Couzens and his wife, as well as the crime report information system entry for the Everard case. The findings concern Tett’s use of sensitive information held on police systems, not any involvement by her in investigating the disappearance.
Protected records opened
In total, Tett viewed seven protected records. Alongside the files connected to Couzens and the Everard investigation, she accessed records for four other detainees held over serious offences, including murder and blackmail. The panel found no legitimate investigative connection that justified her access to the Everard material.
The timing was central to the panel’s finding about her motivation. Couzens had been detained, but his identity was not publicly known until 12 March. Tett used police systems during that interval to establish who the arrested officer was, rather than to carry out duties connected with the case.
The panel found that she was ‘motivated by curiosity to find the identity of the officer who had been arrested’. That conclusion distinguishes the misconduct from an authorised search carried out by someone working on the investigation. Her ability to open the records did not mean she had permission to view them.
The inclusion of custody material relating to Couzens’s wife also shows that the access extended beyond the file identifying him. The misconduct finding concerns the viewing of those protected records. It should not be read as a finding of wrongdoing against anyone whose information appeared within them.
Training and warnings
Tett had more than 20 years’ service and had completed data protection training. She also clicked through warnings stating that continuing without authorisation was an offence. Those circumstances formed part of a case in which an experienced officer accessed information despite having been instructed about the restrictions on its use.
Police systems contain information that is not available to the public, including custody details and material gathered during criminal investigations. Access is intended to support policing work. The panel’s decision makes clear that interest in a prominent case, even one involving another officer, was not a professional reason to examine its records.
The outcome was dismissal without notice, with placement on the College of Policing Barred List to follow. The Met published the outcome summary on 9 November. The finding was one of gross misconduct, and the proceedings described here were disciplinary proceedings concerning Tett’s conduct as an officer.
Wider access failures
Tett is among several officers identified as having accessed material connected with the Everard investigation without an apparent policing purpose. The High Court has previously ruled that seven officers accessed files without a professional reason. That ruling provides a wider context for the handling of information relating to the case.
For Londoners, the issue is not simply whether police can keep sensitive records secure from outsiders. It is also whether officers who can legitimately use those systems for their work observe the limits on that access. The Everard murder exposed systemic failures, and the handling of case information remains an issue of public confidence for the force.
The practical consequence for Tett is that her police service has ended through dismissal without notice, with barred-list placement still to follow. The decision establishes the disciplinary outcome in her case, while the wider question for the Met remains how it ensures that access to protected information is confined to a genuine policing purpose.
