I have remained under investigation by Surrey Police since March 2024 without being charged.
Approximately two and a half years later, I still have no charging decision and no clear timetable for completing the outstanding work.
I dispute the allegations against me. This post does not ask readers to decide them. It asks a separate question: how is Surrey Police being held accountable for the time this investigation is taking?
What I have been told
The following chronology comes from correspondence I have received.
March 2024: The investigation began. I dispute the allegations. Approximately two and a half years later, I remain without charge or a charging decision.
Before Christmas 2025: My MP wrote to the Chief Constable seeking progress. I had reached the point of seeking parliamentary assistance to obtain movement in an unresolved police investigation.
4 February 2026: My MP’s office told me that the Chief Constable had apologised for delays and promised closer supervision so the investigation would progress expeditiously. There was still no precise timetable. An apology was welcome; demonstrable progress was what I needed.
20 July 2026: Police told me their internal review had identified further work before the file could go to the Crown Prosecution Service.
24 July 2026: Police told me the file was being sent to the CPS. An August email subsequently confirmed that referral date.
23 September 2026: Police told me the CPS required further information, that obtaining it would not be a quick process, and that no timeframe could be given.
The latest update leaves me facing another period of uncertainty.
The question an apology does not answer
I accept that investigations can be complex, that further enquiries may be necessary, and that some information cannot be disclosed while an investigation continues.
A CPS request for further information does not establish guilt or innocence. Neither does the absence of a charge.
But none of those points answers whether the investigation has involved avoidable delay, whether promised supervision has been effective, or what will now be done to secure progress.
In my view, an apology followed by further uncertainty is not sufficient accountability.
The personal consequences of prolonged investigation do not disappear between police updates. Neither should responsibility for moving the work forward.
What I am asking Surrey Police to do
I ask Surrey Police to provide a substantive written response addressing four points:
- Responsibility: Identify the senior officer responsible for overseeing progress.
- Timetable: Explain whether the outstanding work has a timetable and, if not, why one cannot presently be given.
- Review: Confirm the next supervisory review date and when I will receive a meaningful update.
- Complaints: Explain the current position and anticipated next steps in resolving my outstanding complaints.
I request a response within 14 days. That is a requested response period, not a claim that a statutory deadline applies.
I am not asking for confidential investigative details to be published. Nor am I demanding that necessary enquiries be abandoned or that police or prosecutors reach a particular outcome.
I am asking for clear ownership, effective supervision and an explanation of the elapsed time.
Scrutiny is not a demand for a particular verdict
I have sought assistance through my MP and pursued complaints. Those complaints are not findings of misconduct, and I do not present them as such.
My criticism concerns the documented handling and duration of this investigation. It is not an invitation to target individual officers or any other person.
I welcome a substantive response from Surrey Police and will fairly reflect it in an update to this post. I will also correct any factual error brought to my attention.
The seriousness of an allegation is a reason for a thorough investigation. It does not remove the need to account for delay.
After approximately two and a half years, I am asking Surrey Police to demonstrate what effective oversight now means in practice.
An apology acknowledges a problem. Accountable action must follow it.