Ali Dizaei and his supporters claimed that he was a victim of a decade-long malicious racist witch-hunt. But the conviction of the police commander yesterday for misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice reveals that he was no victim, but a violent bully and liar who abused his position of trust.

The multitude of internal investigations mounted against Dizaei has, at times, divided the Metropolitan Police. The cost of pursuing him has been put at more than £4 million and several hundred police officers were diverted from key jobs. So was all this effort a waste of time and money?

Absolutely not. It is vital that the police are vigilant against corruption in their ranks.

I first became aware of concerns about Dizaei in 2001 when I was in charge of Anti-Corruption in the Met. The Commissioner had pledged to get rid of the 1 per cent of his 25,000 officers whom he suspected of being corrupt and unethical.

The rot had set in when corruption investigators were redirected to other serious crimes. This laxness allowed a small minority of policemen to take backhanders, deal drugs or fabricate evidence to secure convictions.

Corruption is debilitating. You always worry that your work will be undone, or that you will be an unwitting party to the framing of an innocent man. It breaks the trust of teams and breaks down discipline. I recall one officer whom we placed under surveillance reporting for duty then promptly leaving the police station to trade stolen goods and illicit drugs with known criminals. Incredibly, he returned at the end of the day to claim overtime even though he hadn’t touched any police work all day.

Dizaei defied the normal profile of a corrupt policeman. Most offenders were from CID, of junior rank, with about 15 years’ service. Dizaei was a senior officer, who during this tumultuous period gained two promotions, and was one of only a handful of senior officers from an ethnic minority. A former president of the Black Police Association, he presented himself as a role model, but away from the public gaze he cunningly played the system. He knew where he could push the boundaries, and how to use the Met’s fears of appearing racist to make it difficult to investigate him.

What was also unusual about him was the type of wrongdoing of which he was suspected. Although he faced two criminal charges in seven years, most of the allegations were linked to behaviour that fell short of the standards that the public expect.

For instance, when an off-duty but uniformed Dizaei got snarled up in a traffic jam in his private car, he got out and directed the traffic to clear a path for himself. Once a gap had been created, he drove off leaving bedlam behind him. In a similar vein, during the petrol crisis, while off duty, but wearing his uniform, he jumped a forecourt queue, causing an uproar.

The Met found this behaviour difficult to confront. This was not clear-cut criminal activity but abuse of office. Should they direct the full force of their disciplinary machine against him? Or have a quiet word? The latter was tried, but Dizaei ignored any quiet warnings.

Read the entire article at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7019807.ece