Former police Commissioner Ian McGrail said the allegation that he sexually assaulted a junior female officer in 2018 was âa delusional fantasyâ concocted by the complainant, as he robustly denied the accusation and pointed to gaps and âcontradictionsâ in her account.
In evidence to the Magistrates Court during the fourth day of his trial, Mr McGrail also alleged âan active conspiracyâ to undermine his reputation ahead of the public inquiry tasked with examining the circumstances of his controversial early retirement in 2020.
Mr McGrail is accused of sexually assaulting the junior female police officer in the summer of 2018, while he was still in post and two years before his controversial early retirement in June 2020.
He is alleged to have grabbed the complainantâs buttock after bumping into her in a corridor in New Mole House.
Addressing the court on Tuesday, Mr McGrail said several offices led on to the corridor, which was âa busy thoroughfareâ in the police station through which numerous people could have passed at any time.
Prosecutor Johann Fernandez put it to him that his powerful position at the top of the Royal Gibraltar Police meant he thought he could get away with it.
But Mr McGrail, who âvehementlyâ denies that the assault took place, said it was nonsense to think he would put his position at risk in this way.
âI worked very hard to get where I was,â Mr McGrail, who had a 32-year career in the police, said.
âWould I be so stupid?â
Sometimes choking with emotion, Mr McGrail added: âI have not assaulted her in any way, shape or form.â
âI have never had physical contact with her.â
âI have never been alone with her.â
The complainant, he said, ââŚhas produced a delusional fantasy in coming up with this allegation.â
CREDIBILITY
The case came down to âcredibilityâ, Mr Fernandez told the court earlier this week, and while the defendant had not been able to pinpoint the exact date of the alleged assault, UK officers who investigated the case said this was not uncommon in circumstances of this nature.
The complainant had told the court the alleged incident left her feeling âdisgusted, intimidated, repulsed and embarrassedâ but that she said nothing at the time, other than to her mother, for fear it would impact her career.
It was only against the backdrop of the McGrail Inquiry that she felt her voice would be heard and âsomeone would believe meâ, she told the court.
The complainantâs mother told the court her daughter was âin a terrible state, crying and very distressedâ when she called in 2018.
But Mr McGrail said it was odd that a trained police officer would not have made a note to record details of an incident she claimed had impacted her so deeply.
And he said the absence of a specific date deprived him of the ability to provide an alibi in his defence.
The court heard that the complainant had patrolled with Mr McGrail earlier in the year, claiming that, at his direction, they walked through town and that during the patrol, he had commented on how attractive she was and said they should have coffee one day.
She said the conversation had made her feel uncomfortable but that she had not realised this until after the alleged assault.
But Mr McGrail, who denies talking suggestively to the complainant or inviting her to coffee, said he believed he had patrolled that night with two female officers.
A second police officer confirmed this and told the court in a statement she saw nothing inappropriate, though the complainant insists she had been alone with the former Commissioner before that.
Mr McGrail highlighted too contemporaneous WhatsApp messages sent that night by the complainant to her then boyfriend, also a police officer, in which she described the former Commissioner as âsuper buena genteâ and made no mention of anything inappropriate.
The complainant had spoken too of a conference later in the year, after the alleged assault, which she attended in uniform, she said, at the request of Mr McGrail.
She told the court she did not understand why a junior officer would have been asked to attend and that she was the only one in uniform at the event.
âI felt I was being used as an object and it was quite uncomfortable to be up there,â she said.
But the court saw photographs and video footage that showed Mr McGrail mixing with VIPs and delegates at the conference, at which there were numerous uniformed officers present.
The complainant appears with McGrail only in one image, in which there are other people too.
The former Commissioner said it was a PR image, one of many such photographs taken through the day in what he said had been a relaxed event.
âThereâs nothing sinister about that photograph,â Mr McGrail said.
And he later added: âIâm not a criminal. Iâm not a predator.â
He said his conscience was at peace but that the allegation had âturned my life upside down.â
âSIGNED, SEALED, DELIVEREDâ
Mr McGrail was critical too of the UK team of detectives that investigated the case, adding he believed they had already decided to charge him even before he was interviewed under caution following a dawn arrest at his home on April 13.
âWhatever came out of that interview, the decision was signed, sealed and delivered,â he told the court.
âI was going to be charged.â
He said the investigators had not followed key lines of inquiry with sufficient depth â more could have been done to identify footage of the conference to test the complainantâs claims, for example â and that the officers had not acted on information he provided to them about his concerns of a conspiracy against him.
Instead, they had arrested him twice in the space of two weeks on different matters, including suspicion that he had conspired to cause a data breach affecting the McGrail Inquiry.
Mr McGrail, who was later released without charge from the data breach arrest, said it was he who had uncovered the leak and that, as a core participant in the inquiry, it was data he was legitimately entitled to see.
âThe essence is that I uncovered the leak [but] the public outcry was out there [after his arrest],â he said.
âI stood to lose the confidence of the inquiry.â
During the police interview on April 13 â which was played to the court â Mr McGrail told UK investigators that he suspected he was being âstitched upâ and that there was âa masterplanâ to destroy his reputation ahead of the inquiry.
On Thursday, he told the court that even before he called for the inquiry, he had deposited details of his concerns with his lawyers and âpeople of high repute in Gibraltar and abroad in case something untoward was to happen to meâ.
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
Over four days, the court explored concerns raised by Mr McGrail and his lawyer, Charles Gomez, that witnesses were being induced to produce statements in exchange for jobs in other areas of the public service.
The court was told 14 serving police officers had made statements to the McGrail Inquiry which had been passed to the UK team of investigators because they included allegations of potential criminality. Of those 14 officers, around five had left the force, with the remainder on sick leave.
The complainant in the trial repeatedly insisted she had not been pressured or incentivised into making her statement alleging a sexual assault.
In common with the other officers who had made statements, however, she had been offered whistleblower protection should her job at the RGP become untenable.
The âletter of assuranceâ â signed by the Chief Minister â meant she would retain her RGP terms and conditions if employed elsewhere in the public service, as the law required.
The complainant, who is still a serving officer, repeatedly said she hoped to remain in the RGP, which was her âdream jobâ.
She said the letter of assurance was only a safety net but acknowledged she would not have made the complaint against Mr McGrail without it.
Mr Fernandez told the court that complainants in cases of this sort were âoften made to feel like the defendantâ.
The court heard the young officer had felt this way when UK detectives trawled through years of her financial statements to see if she had received any unusual payments. They found nothing of concern.
âThe only reason a young officer would go through that is because sheâs telling the truth,â the prosecutor said.
But Mr McGrail was unconvinced when Mr Fernandez put it him: âYour position is sheâs lying because sheâs going to get something out of the lie?â
âYes,â the former Commisioner said.
âABSOLUTELY NOTâ
The complainant told the court she was first asked whether she wanted to proceed with the complaint after meeting UK investigators led by John McVea, a retired Detective Chief Superintendent formerly with the Police Service of Northern Ireland brought to Gibraltar to investigate the alleged data breach affecting the inquiry.
Mr McVeaâs team launched the investigation into the allegation of sexual assault after receiving a copy of her statement from the inquiry team and, simultaneously, from Charles Bonfante, the lawyer for the Gibraltar Police Federation who also represents the officers who had made the statements.
Prior to making the statement to the inquiry, the complainant had first approached the Federation and met twice with two of its representatives, its then chairman Maurice Morello and the secretary at the time, Leif Simpson.
A government official, Michael Crome, had also been present at the second meeting, during which he outlined the whistleblower protections, which were later put in writing and approved by the Chief Minister. It was a standard letter, the same sent to other officers who had made statements to the inquiry.
The complainant said the second meeting took place in Zoca Tavern but in evidence to the court on Thursday, the two former Federation officials and Mr Crome said it was at the GPF offices in Lathbury.
Mr Crome, who has been the governmentâs liaison officer with the GPF for six years, told the court he had attended the meeting with the complainant after she first raised the allegation with the Federation, but that he had not had sight or access to her statement.
The court heard too that the interviews between Mr McVeaâs team and the complainant took place in a boardroom at Hassans, Mr Bonfanteâs law firm.
That raised concerns for Mr McGrail and his team, although Mr McVea said it was normal given the sensitivity of the allegation and the need for anonymity, coupled to the fact Mr Bonfante was her lawyer.
In evidence to the court, Mr Morello said that prior to the McGrail inquiry, there had never been any events that required whistleblower protection for officers.
Asked if the Federation had actively sought out officers to make statements, he replied: âAbsolutely not.â
The prosecution and the defence have both closed their respective cases and will this morning sum up before Stipendiary Magistrate Charles Pitto, who will then consider his verdict.
Nick Gomez appears alongside Mr Gomez for the defence.
The trial resumes at 9.30am on Friday.
