Police officer left with phobia of police stations sues Met for £1 million
A former police officer is suing the Met Police for £1m damages, claiming he developed a phobia of police stations after being repeatedly exposed to “distressing” and traumatic scenes at work.
Kirstie Coy-Martin said her mental health had deteriorated after years of having to investigate crimes against children, including attending “distressing” scenes of abuse and child death.
The 52-year-old left his job in 2016 over child abuse but says his career is over in 2023 because day-to-day work experiences, including being sent paperwork with a logo showing a baby’s foot, “triggered” his PTSD.
Eventually he was so fragile that he claimed he would be driven into a panic attack simply by being told to go to the police station.
The “extreme stress” he was exposed to caused him to experience a major crisis and to retire in 2023 due to health problems.
Ms Coy-Martin, from Chichester, West Sussex, is now suing the Met for £1 million in damages at the Central London District Court, claiming it breached the duty of care owed to her as an employer.
His lawyers said his bosses should have known he was at risk for mental health because of his long tenure on the child abuse squad and should have done more to protect him.
His lawyers say such work carries a much higher risk of experiencing “distressing, distressing and shocking events, materials and environments.”
The Met denies the claim, saying it was “incredible” that a police officer would say they should not be asked to go to police stations.
The force also said Ms. Coy-Martin had not complained of stress during her years working on sexual abuse and child abuse investigations and insisted she had not been subjected to “excessive” work stress in recent years.
According to documents presented in court, Ms Coy-Martin joined the Met in 1997 and worked in the child abuse and sexual offenses teams between 2005 and 2016.
“The plaintiff was thus exposed to extremely shocking and distressing events which he must investigate,” his lawyers said.
“This required responding to scenes of abuse of babies, children and young people, which in some cases resulted in death.
“This type of working environment was inherently unsafe due to the horrific nature of the crimes the plaintiff was required to investigate.
“It was inherently foreseeable on the part of the defendant that exposure to such a situation would expose the plaintiff to the risk of psychiatric injury.
“During the plaintiff’s time with the Child Abuse Investigation Team, it was determined that the defendant failed to take any or sufficient steps to prevent the plaintiff from suffering psychiatric harm.”
Ms Coy-Martin then began working as a custody sergeant, which took her away from child abuse, and she later took up a job that was mostly done at home and involved analyzing CCTV footage.
After hearing a video call participant criticize her in 2020, Ms. Coy-Martin became extremely upset and was fired the next day, her lawyers said.
While on holiday, he began experiencing “extreme symptoms of psychiatric disorders”, including flashbacks to his time in the child abuse squad.
He was eventually diagnosed with PTSD based on his doctor’s experiences working on abuse cases.
When Ms Coy-Martin returned to work, she was placed on home-based investigative duty due to fears that having to attend police stations could trigger post-traumatic stress disorder.
But even in this role, he experienced stress when he was told he had to go to the police building to collect CCTV evidence.
Ms Coy-Martin alleges her situation was subsequently made worse by a series of incidents at work, including being nominated for the job as the family representative.
As part of this, he was sent business documents containing a picture of a baby’s foot, which he claimed triggered his mental state.
This led to a relapse of the disease that kept him away from work for months.
Ms. Coy-Martin, who returned to work in 2021, said she was asked to go to the police station again and had a panic attack, and was told “don’t stress, it’s not worth it.”
His lawyers said he continued to be asked to attend police premises as time went on, “despite the known impact this had on the plaintiff’s health”.
His health declined and he retired in October 2023.
Ms Coy-Martin blames the Met for her condition, claiming she was at “a foreseeable risk of injury” due to stress and that her bosses ignored warning signs, including revealing she was taking antidepressants.
She says she was subjected to “extreme stress” at work, that appropriate precautions were not taken when she complained, and that appropriate “health checks” were not carried out.
Overall, while the Met, with knowledge of the harrowing scenes he had investigated early in his career, should have been aware of the need to keep him safe, there were “clear signs” of impending harm.
Lawyer Edwin Buckett, for the Met, denies any negligence in how Ms Coy-Martin was treated at work, pointing out that her time in the child and sexual abuse teams was years ago.
But claims that the teams’ work was “inherently unsafe” or that it was “foreseeable” that they posed a risk of psychiatric injury were rejected, he said.
“The working environment was safe,” he said in the Met’s defence. “Plaintiff’s employment in these units was evaluated and reviewed and no adverse events were identified prior to or during his time there.”
Ms Coy-Martin did not claim to be “depressed, anxious, stressed” or unable to cope at work while on these teams, and made only limited disclosures about her mental health issues after leaving them.
These problems were linked to other problems, such as having epileptic seizures, physical medical problems, being injured while surfing, and being attacked by a thief.
A lifelong surfer, Ms. Coy-Martin says her time on a surfboard has been her “safe space” and mentions teaching her therapy dog, Scooter, to surf with her.
Mr Buckett continued: “The claimant’s claim that he was vulnerable to psychiatric injury from 4 April 2016 was rejected.
“Overall, before May 2020, the claimant had a very poor record of illness associated with physical events/symptoms, apart from one reference to anxiety in 2016.
“None of the reasons given by the plaintiff for taking leave from work demonstrated a prior risk of suffering psychiatric injury.
“The defendant adequately supported the plaintiff and did not cause or contribute to her psychiatric injury.”
Mr Buckett added: “It was entirely reasonable to require the plaintiff to attend a police premises and to argue that a serving police officer should not occasionally have to attend such a premises or that this caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s alleged psychiatric condition is incredible.
“The fact that the plaintiff was sent an email with a baby feet logo was not inappropriate or negligent and did not cause or contribute to the plaintiff’s alleged psychiatric condition.
“It was denied that there were warning signs that the plaintiff was in imminent and foreseeable danger of suffering psychiatric injury. The plaintiff was treated reasonably.”
“It was denied that the plaintiff was placed under undue stress and/or work pressure. He was not complaining of undue stress or work pressure.”
The case, described by the Met as “highly contested”, reached court last week for a pre-trial hearing to determine what evidence could be included in future hearings.
Unless the parties reach an agreement earlier, the case will return to court for a full hearing at a later date.
