Reviewed and updated 22 August 2026.
By Aneeta Prem MBE
Sarah Everard’s murder by a serving Metropolitan Police officer changed the national conversation about women’s safety and trust in policing. The Angiolini Inquiry has since turned that shock into a much harder question: what needs to change so that predatory behaviour is identified earlier and women are not left carrying the burden of keeping themselves safe?
The inquiry is still wider than one case. Its published work now covers Wayne Couzens’ career and conduct, prevention of sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces, police culture and the risk of recurrence across policing. A separate Part 3 examines the career and conduct of former police officer David Carrick.
What happened to Sarah Everard
On 3 March 2021, Sarah Everard was abducted in south London by Wayne Couzens, an off-duty Metropolitan Police officer who misused his police status and warrant card. He later pleaded guilty to her kidnap, rape and murder and received a whole-life order.
The criminal case established his responsibility. The public inquiry was created to examine the institutional questions around how somebody with his history entered and remained in policing and what opportunities to identify risk were missed.
What Part 1 established
Part 1 of the Angiolini Inquiry examined Couzens’ career and conduct.
It identified serious failures and missed opportunities connected with recruitment, vetting, information sharing and earlier allegations of sexual offending. Its central conclusion was stark: Couzens should never have been a police officer.
The Government said in March 2024 that it accepted all recommendations from Part 1 that required government action.
That acceptance matters. The continuing test is implementation.
Part 2 asks a wider question
Part 2 was established to examine whether there is a risk of recurrence across policing, investigate police culture and address broader concerns about women’s safety in public spaces.
Its first report was published on 2 December 2025 and focused on the prevention of sexually motivated crimes against women in public.
The report made further recommendations covering prevention, public messaging, data, policing practice and the way public spaces are designed and managed.
The inquiry’s scope is important because the problem cannot be reduced to one uniquely dangerous officer. The institutional question is whether systems are good enough at identifying predatory behaviour, recognising patterns and preventing escalation.
Why indecent exposure matters
One of the strongest lessons from the inquiry is that non-contact sexual offending should not automatically be treated as trivial.
An allegation of indecent exposure does not prove that somebody will commit a more serious offence. But repeated sexual offending, predatory behaviour or escalating conduct can be relevant to risk and should be investigated competently.
The mistake is not simply failing to predict the future. It is failing to join together information that already exists.
Women should not carry the whole prevention burden
After high-profile attacks on women, public advice often focuses on what women should do differently: change route, travel with somebody, hold keys differently, avoid certain places or remain constantly alert.
Some personal safety choices may be sensible. They are not a substitute for institutional prevention.
The state has responsibilities too: police recruitment and vetting, investigation of sexual offences, management of misconduct, safe public-space design, accurate data and effective action against perpetrators.
Women’s safety cannot depend on women becoming better at avoiding dangerous men.
Trust is part of public safety
Sarah was abducted by a man who used the appearance of lawful police authority.
That makes trust in policing central to the case. People must be able to seek help from police while also having confidence that predatory behaviour inside policing is identified and dealt with.
Trust should not be demanded as an act of faith. It should be earned through recruitment standards, transparent accountability, consistent investigation and evidence that recommendations lead to changed practice.
Part 3 and the risk of treating cases in isolation
Following the conviction and sentencing of former Metropolitan Police officer David Carrick, the Angiolini Inquiry was expanded again. Part 3 examines Carrick’s career and conduct.
That matters because institutional learning becomes weak if every predatory officer is treated as a completely separate anomaly.
The inquiry’s wider value is its ability to compare systems: recruitment, vetting, transfer, misconduct, complaints, supervision, workplace culture and information sharing.
What should be measured now
The most useful response to the inquiry is not another statement that lessons have been learned.
Progress should be visible in measurable questions:
- Are vetting and re-vetting standards being applied consistently?
- Are allegations of sexual and domestic abuse involving officers identified and investigated properly?
- Are forces joining information about repeated predatory behaviour?
- Are indecent-exposure and other public-space sexual offences treated with appropriate seriousness?
- Can women see evidence that prevention work is sustained rather than short-term?
- Are the inquiry’s recommendations being implemented on the timescales set?
Those questions allow public confidence to rest on evidence rather than reassurance.
Why this connects with my safeguarding work
I co-founded Freedom Charity with Lord Toby Harris in 2009. Much of my safeguarding work has involved situations where apparently separate incidents only become clear when somebody joins the pattern: a threat, a restriction, an unexplained journey, surveillance, violence or a disclosure that was not taken seriously enough.
The subject matter in Sarah Everard’s case is different, but the institutional lesson is familiar.
Risk is easier to miss when every incident is filed separately and nobody asks what the whole pattern means.
Final word
Sarah Everard’s murder should never be reduced to a symbol or a slogan. She was a person whose life was taken by a man who abused the authority attached to being a police officer.
The Angiolini Inquiry has given policing and government a detailed body of evidence and recommendations. Its value will be measured by what changes because of them.
The question now is not whether institutions say they understand the failure. It is whether the next warning sign is recognised early enough to prevent another woman becoming the subject of another inquiry.
Sources and further reading
- GOV.UK: Angiolini Inquiry collection
- GOV.UK: Angiolini Inquiry Part 2 first report, 2 December 2025
- GOV.UK: Part 2 terms of reference