Police officer left with phobia of police stations sues Met for £1m

A former police officer is suing the Metropolitan Police for £1m in compensation, claiming she developed a phobia of police stations after being repeatedly exposed to “harrowing” scenes at work.

Kirstie Coy-Martin says her mental health was ruined by years of having to investigate crimes against children, including attending traumatic scenes of abuse and child death.

The 52-year-old left her work around child abuse in 2016, but says her career ended in 2023 due to the “triggering” of her PTSD by everyday work experiences, including being sent paperwork with a logo showing a baby’s foot.

In the end, she was so fragile that she would be triggered into a panic attack simply by being told to attend a police station, she claims.

The “excessive stress” she was placed under led to her suffering a massive breakdown, which resulted in her being retired due to ill health in 2023.

Ms Coy-Martin, of Chichester, West Sussex, is now suing the Met at Central London County Court for £1m in damages, claiming it breached the duty of care it owed to her as an employer.

open image in gallery

Her lawyers say her bosses should have known that she was at risk of mental ill health because of her long stint in the child abuse team, and should have done more to protect her.

Such work carries a much greater risk of experiencing “harrowing, distressing and shocking events, material and environments”, her lawyers say.

The Met denies the claim, saying it is “incredible” for a serving officer to suggest they should not have been asked to attend police stations.

The force also says Ms Coy-Martin did not complain about stress during the years she was working on sexual and child abuse investigations, and insists she had not been placed under “excessive” work stress in more recent years.

According to papers filed at the court, Ms Coy-Martin joined the Met in 1997 and worked in child abuse and sexual offence teams between 2005 and 2016.

“As such, the claimant was exposed to extremely shocking and distressing incidents, which she was required to investigate,” say her lawyers.

“This necessitated attending to scenes of abuse against babies, children and young people, and which in some cases had led to their death.

“Such [a] working environment was inherently unsafe due to the horrific nature of the crimes the claimant was required to investigate.

“It was inherently foreseeable to the defendant that exposure to such would expose the claimant to a risk of psychiatric injury.

“Throughout the claimant’s time with the Child Abuse Investigation Team, it is averred that the defendant failed to take any, or any adequate, steps to prevent the claimant from suffering psychiatric harm.”

Ms Coy-Martin later moved on to work as a custody sergeant, taking her away from the child abuse, and later, in a mostly home-based job which involved analysing CCTV footage.

In 2020, after overhearing a video call participant criticising her, Ms Coy-Martin became extremely distressed and was signed off work the next day, her lawyers say.

While off, she began to suffer “extreme symptoms of psychiatric ill health,” including flashbacks to her time on the child abuse team.

She was ultimately diagnosed with PTSD, which her doctor put down to her experiences working on abuse cases.

When she returned to work, Ms Coy-Martin was placed into a home-based investigations role due to fears that having to attend police stations might trigger her PTSD.

However, even in that role, she experienced stress when told she would need to attend a police building to pick up CCTV evidence.

Ms Coy-Martin claims that thereafter, her condition was exacerbated by a series of incidents at work, including being nominated for a job as a family representative.

As part of that, she was sent job literature, which included a picture of a baby’s foot, something she claims was a trigger for her mental condition.

It led to a relapse, which kept her off work for months.

Back at work again in 2021, Ms Coy-Martin said she had again been asked to attend a police station and suffered a panic attack, only to be told “don’t stress, it’s not worth it”.

As time went on, she continued to be asked to attend police buildings, her lawyers continued, “despite the known impact this had on the claimant’s health”.

She was ill-health retired in October 2023.

Ms Coy-Martin blames her condition on the Met, claiming that she was at a “foreseeable risk of injury” due to stress and that her bosses had ignored warning signs, including the fact she had disclosed her use of antidepressants.

She says she was placed under “excessive stress” at work, there had been a failure to take adequate action when she complained, and that there had not been suitable “health surveillance”.

Overall, there had been “clear signs” of impending harm when the Met should have been aware of the need to keep her safe, in the knowledge of the harrowing scenes she had investigated earlier in her career.

For the Met, barrister Edwin Buckett denied any negligence in how Ms Coy-Martin was treated at work and pointed out the fact that her time in the child and sex abuse teams was many years ago.

He said it was denied that the teams were “inherently unsafe” to work in, or that it was “foreseeable” that they carried a risk of psychiatric injury.

“The working environment was safe,” he said in the Met’s defence. “The claimant was assessed and vetted for working in these units and nothing untoward was identified before and during her time there.”

Ms Coy-Martin had not claimed she was “depressed, anxious, stressed” or of not being able to cope at work while on those teams and had only made limited disclosures of mental health issues after she left them.

Those issues had been linked to other problems, including her having an epileptic seizure, suffering physical medical issues and a surfing injury, and being assaulted by a shoplifter.

Lifelong surfer Ms Coy-Martin says time on her board is her “safe space” and has spoken about teaching her therapy dog, Scooter, to surf with her.

Mr Buckett continued: “It is denied that from 4 April 2016, the claimant indicated that she was vulnerable to sustaining psychiatric injury.

“Overall, prior to May 2020, the claimant had a very poor sickness record, which was linked to physical incidents/symptoms – save for one reference to anxiety in 2016.

“None of the reasons given by the claimant for time off work previously indicated a vulnerability to sustaining psychiatric injury.

“The defendant adequately supported the claimant and did not cause or contribute to her psychiatric injury.”

Mr Buckett added: “Requiring the claimant to attend a police building was entirely reasonable and it is incredible to assert that a serving police officer should not have to attend such a building on occasion, or that this caused or contributed to the claimant’s alleged psychiatric condition.

“The fact that the claimant was sent an email with a baby’s foot logo on it was not inappropriate or negligent, nor did this cause or contribute to the claimant’s alleged psychiatric condition.

“It is denied that there were warning signs of the danger that the claimant was suffering imminent and foreseeable psychiatric injury. The claimant was treated reasonably.

“It is denied that the claimant was placed under excessive stress and/or pressure of work. She did not complain of excessive stress or pressure of work.”

The case – described by the Met as “strongly disputed” – reached court last week for a pre-trial hearing to determine which evidence could be included in future proceedings.

It will return to court for a full trial at a later date, unless the parties agree on a settlement earlier.