Sussex chief inspector resigns after shoplifting arrest (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Sussex chief inspector resigns after shoplifting arrest
12:26pm Monday 20th July 2009 in
A Sussex Police chief inspector has resigned ten months after her arrest for shoplifting.
Ch Insp Sharon Rowe, the police district commander for Worthing, was arrested on suspicion of stealing wine from Marks and Spencer in the Holmbush Centre, Shoreham, in September last year.
She was arrested with Detective Chief Inspector Jim Torbet of the force's professional standards department.
Both were suspended from duty but neither was charged.
DCI Torbet killed himself at his home in Peacehaven in October 2008.
The Crown Prosecution Service later issued a statement saying it would not be in the public interest to charge Ch Insp Rowe.
She had been due to face a disciplinary hearing at the end of this month.
The hearing had been postponed twice.
A spokeswoman for Sussex Police said: "Sussex Police have received and accepted the resignation of Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe.
"With effect from today she is no longer a serving officer and there will therefore be no further action in relation to any alleged misconduct."
Comments(39)
Randy Lahey
says...
1:55pm Mon 20 Jul 09
BlackRocker wrote:I didn't know Susan Boyle moonlighted as a cop!?
I trust she has forfeited her right to a generous pension.
She resigned so I imagine she is still entitled to her pension, as she did not have her contract ended by the police.
emma barnes
says...
2:08pm Mon 20 Jul 09
BiggerH
says...
2:24pm Mon 20 Jul 09
or if they're a copper it's "not in the public interest" and charges are dropped?
makes no sense
Osama bin there
says...
2:47pm Mon 20 Jul 09
What an absolutely ridiculous decision.
Actually it would be very much 'in the public interest' to charge the woman if she has allegedly (see what I did there, Jo?) been caught shoplifting.
Otherwise, we'll all have to join Bibble in thinking that it's one law for us, and a different set if you happen to be a policeman / woman.
A very, very poor decision.
Argus, maybe you could find out who was responsible for it.
I leave the stage for Bibble to have his/her say......
Brightonscouse2
says...
5:54pm Mon 20 Jul 09
Or is the fact that she was a high ranking officer got something to do with the charges being dropped.
Oh and "not in the public interest" did they ask the public?
Lil
says...
6:25pm Mon 20 Jul 09
Cash back!
emma barnes
says...
7:25pm Mon 20 Jul 09
Bog Vern
says...
7:57pm Mon 20 Jul 09
Poor show. Poor show.
Donkey OT
says...
8:02pm Mon 20 Jul 09
Same old,same old.
One rule for one etc etc ad infinitum.
Had a few warnings then Osama?
worthingite
says...
9:37pm Mon 20 Jul 09
Lil
says...
10:07pm Mon 20 Jul 09
If we can, then we should to get the truth.
This is a sham.
davyboy
says...
10:09pm Mon 20 Jul 09
chris elmes
says...
11:29pm Mon 20 Jul 09
Having said that it could be suggested that throughout this whole(in my opinion)sordid affair there has been the stench of corruption from on high,there are certain inconstancy's in this matter which I shall address for clarity's sake.
1) There were forty two alleged offences in this matter,the CPS refused to consider all but three WHY?
2) the CPS have admitted that they had sufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution but would not do so as it was "not in the public interest" WHY NOT?
3)Mr Rowe is a very senior barrister and allegations of malfeasance by his wife in addition to being thought a cuckold by his wife's alleged adultery with Jim Torbin,this would have been extremely damaging professionally as well as socially. Mr Rowe by virtue of his position would know many very senior members of the police,CPS and the judiciary,he has has a vested self-intrest in this issue being quietly swept under the carpet. It is my personal opinion this was all sorted out in private possably with the accompnyment of funny hand-shakes,leather aprons and rolled-up trouser legs. I therefore invite you all to draw your own conclusions as to the truth of this issue.
QUIS CUSTODIET IPSO CUSTODES
peebee9
says...
12:18am Tue 21 Jul 09
chris elmes
says...
12:41am Tue 21 Jul 09
peebee9 wrote:each item allegedly stolen constitutes a separate offence although in a prosecution a small number would be used to secure a conviction and the rest taken into consideration.
"Forty two alleged offences".What were all these,sounds like a regular crime wave.
Brightonscouse2
says...
12:53am Tue 21 Jul 09
Brightonscouse2
says...
12:55am Tue 21 Jul 09
stan bailey
says...
7:36am Tue 21 Jul 09
chris elmes wrote:Are we still in the UK or some banana republic?
This was a foregone conclusion.Sharon Rowe has not been tried or convicted with respect to these alleged offence's and must therefore be deemed innocent.As she has resigned any disciplinary action will be dropped and the records shredded,leaving her with full entitlement to all her pay/holiday pay plus any bonus/incentives and pension.In addition she can apply for any job with a clean slate including a position as a senior police officer.As she has the relevant experience she would in my view get the job as any refusal would leave(in my opinion)the relevant police authority open to a complaint of sexual discrimination, also any reference to the allegations or disciplinary proceeding's(neither of these has hap pend)could be considered defamatory.
Having said that it could be suggested that throughout this whole(in my opinion)sordid affair there has been the stench of corruption from on high,there are certain inconstancy's in this matter which I shall address for clarity's sake.
1) There were forty two alleged offences in this matter,the CPS refused to consider all but three WHY?
2) the CPS have admitted that they had sufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution but would not do so as it was "not in the public interest" WHY NOT?
3)Mr Rowe is a very senior barrister and allegations of malfeasance by his wife in addition to being thought a cuckold by his wife's alleged adultery with Jim Torbin,this would have been extremely damaging professionally as well as socially. Mr Rowe by virtue of his position would know many very senior members of the police,CPS and the judiciary,he has has a vested self-intrest in this issue being quietly swept under the carpet. It is my personal opinion this was all sorted out in private possably with the accompnyment of funny hand-shakes,leather aprons and rolled-up trouser legs. I therefore invite you all to draw your own conclusions as to the truth of this issue.
QUIS CUSTODIET IPSO CUSTODES
bibble
says...
9:37am Tue 21 Jul 09
Osama bin there is right. There is one law for the police and another for the public. There is a case at trial at the moment of a policeman using his police credit card to buy holidays and sex toys. It's in the national media so it won't be hard to find. Was he charged with theft? No. He was given a chance to pay the money back, then was charged with dishonesty in public office - a much lower level crime.
When things are stated to be done "in the public interest" the reasons for doing so should be made public for OUR scrutiny.
Chris Elmes is right that we should consider Rowe to be innocent. But one does wonder if the same course of events would happen to Joe Public, let's say some druggie in London Road.
kfirette
says...
12:05pm Tue 21 Jul 09
I bet if the ordinary person quit their job before a hearing we would still get done for the crimes, but because she knows the law - or doesn't which ever way you wish to view it then she will get away with it.
Is my tax money going to apy her keep in a pension - what a shame I pay tax!!!!!!!!!
She may be innocent but give us our day in court to find out!!!
Usual Suspects
says...
1:51pm Tue 21 Jul 09
"Those factors included the likely sentence in the event of a conviction, the suspect’s good character and long record of public service and the recent and untimely death of the close friend whom she was with at the time of the alleged offence.”
It is a complete joke....everyone could use defences like this!
Usual Suspects
says...
2:02pm Tue 21 Jul 09
thensx
says...
2:44pm Tue 21 Jul 09
PowerlessParent
says...
3:43pm Tue 21 Jul 09
bibble
says...
3:56pm Tue 21 Jul 09
PowerlessParent wrote:No distance at all. None.
Judging from the comments here this shameful decision will serve to seriously undermine Sussex Police. The distance from here to corruption seems very small indeed.
Osama bin there
says...
4:04pm Tue 21 Jul 09
chris elmes wrote:Excellent piece of investigative journalism, Chris.
This was a foregone conclusion.Sharon Rowe has not been tried or convicted with respect to these alleged offence's and must therefore be deemed innocent.As she has resigned any disciplinary action will be dropped and the records shredded,leaving her with full entitlement to all her pay/holiday pay plus any bonus/incentives and pension.In addition she can apply for any job with a clean slate including a position as a senior police officer.As she has the relevant experience she would in my view get the job as any refusal would leave(in my opinion)the relevant police authority open to a complaint of sexual discrimination, also any reference to the allegations or disciplinary proceeding's(neither of these has hap pend)could be considered defamatory. Having said that it could be suggested that throughout this whole(in my opinion)sordid affair there has been the stench of corruption from on high,there are certain inconstancy's in this matter which I shall address for clarity's sake. 1) There were forty two alleged offences in this matter,the CPS refused to consider all but three WHY? 2) the CPS have admitted that they had sufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution but would not do so as it was "not in the public interest" WHY NOT? 3)Mr Rowe is a very senior barrister and allegations of malfeasance by his wife in addition to being thought a cuckold by his wife's alleged adultery with Jim Torbin,this would have been extremely damaging professionally as well as socially. Mr Rowe by virtue of his position would know many very senior members of the police,CPS and the judiciary,he has has a vested self-intrest in this issue being quietly swept under the carpet. It is my personal opinion this was all sorted out in private possably with the accompnyment of funny hand-shakes,leather aprons and rolled-up trouser legs. I therefore invite you all to draw your own conclusions as to the truth of this issue. QUIS CUSTODIET IPSO CUSTODES
One wonders why the Argus couldn't have done some similar work. Especially with regard to Mr Rowe being a top barrister.
It IS relevant. Very relevant. It MIGHT go some way to explaining why the CPS were allegedly persuaded to drop a prosecution for which they allegedly had sufficient evidence.
And yes, Chris, anyone reading your piece will draw their own conclusions.
LtPaperclip
says...
4:13pm Tue 21 Jul 09
I wonder why he done that ? and I wonder why she has not ?
Maybe she will blame some sort of disorder or sexual harressment and get a large ££££££££ pay out.
andrea11
says...
5:48pm Tue 21 Jul 09
I know the Rowes and Mrs Rowe is as unlikely to steal from a shop as Mother Theresa. She is a kind, thoughtful, and dedicated professional person, who is also well off enough to be able to afford a bottle of wine. And if she did want to shoplift, she would not have chosen M&S in Shoreham as it is known by the police to have one of the best cctv systems in the area, with many concealed cameras.
What you need to consider is this : If YOU had been caught leaving a shop with a couple of bottles of wine under your trolley, and you had no previous form, you would probably be let off. (Obviously if it was in your coat pocket, that would be a different matter!) According to you lot, my dad should be banged up for forgetting that he'd hung a bath mat on his shopping trolley until he got to his car.
Any ordinary person would have been let off with a caution. Instead someone has used Mrs Rowe's absentminded slip to put a feather in his cap.
She was happy to go to court to clear her name, but listen to the CPS - they have said it was not in the public interest BECAUSE SHE WOULD GET A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE, which would not be in the public interest, bearing in mind her good character and years of public service. Eh? How did they know she would get a custodial sentence ahead of the trial? In the face of this pre-judgement, wouldn't you protect your pension?
Leave the poor woman - and her family - alone.
Osama bin there
says...
6:12pm Tue 21 Jul 09
andrea11 wrote:And you were there at the time, and have access to all the evidence the CPS have?
Listen to yourselves. Since when has someone been guilty until proved innocent in this country (except in the Daily Mail)? I know the Rowes and Mrs Rowe is as unlikely to steal from a shop as Mother Theresa. She is a kind, thoughtful, and dedicated professional person, who is also well off enough to be able to afford a bottle of wine. And if she did want to shoplift, she would not have chosen M&S in Shoreham as it is known by the police to have one of the best cctv systems in the area, with many concealed cameras. What you need to consider is this : If YOU had been caught leaving a shop with a couple of bottles of wine under your trolley, and you had no previous form, you would probably be let off. (Obviously if it was in your coat pocket, that would be a different matter!) According to you lot, my dad should be banged up for forgetting that he'd hung a bath mat on his shopping trolley until he got to his car. Any ordinary person would have been let off with a caution. Instead someone has used Mrs Rowe's absentminded slip to put a feather in his cap. She was happy to go to court to clear her name, but listen to the CPS - they have said it was not in the public interest BECAUSE SHE WOULD GET A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE, which would not be in the public interest, bearing in mind her good character and years of public service. Eh? How did they know she would get a custodial sentence ahead of the trial? In the face of this pre-judgement, wouldn't you protect your pension? Leave the poor woman - and her family - alone.
No, thought not.
And don't forget her long standing affair with Mr Torbet.
Maybe she should have thought about her family before she got involved with that.
chris elmes
says...
11:44pm Tue 21 Jul 09
thensx wrote:No not at all!
Did you know that not a single person who works for the East Sussex Speed Camera 'partnership' has any points on their license? Not one. Odd that, eh?
However this article is with regard to(former)Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe not the activities of Chief Superintendent Peter Coll.(stick to the relevant subject please)
Usual Suspects
says...
4:43pm Wed 22 Jul 09
Listen to yourselves. Since when has someone been guilty until proved innocent in this country (except in the Daily Mail)? I know the Rowes and Mrs Rowe is as unlikely to steal from a shop as Mother Theresa. She is a kind, thoughtful, and dedicated professional person, who is also well off enough to be able to afford a bottle of wine. And if she did want to shoplift, she would not have chosen M&S in Shoreham as it is known by the police to have one of the best cctv systems in the area, with many concealed cameras. What you need to consider is this : If YOU had been caught leaving a shop with a couple of bottles of wine under your trolley, and you had no previous form, you would probably be let off. (Obviously if it was in your coat pocket, that would be a different matter!) According to you lot, my dad should be banged up for forgetting that he'd hung a bath mat on his shopping trolley until he got to his car. Any ordinary person would have been let off with a caution. Instead someone has used Mrs Rowe's absentminded slip to put a feather in his cap. She was happy to go to court to clear her name, but listen to the CPS - they have said it was not in the public interest BECAUSE SHE WOULD GET A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE, which would not be in the public interest, bearing in mind her good character and years of public service. Eh? How did they know she would get a custodial sentence ahead of the trial? In the face of this pre-judgement, wouldn't you protect your pension? Leave the poor woman - and her family - alone."
OF COURSE SHE WOULD NOT SHOPLIFT......BUT THEN AGAIN, MOTHER THERESA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH A MARRIED SENIOR OFFICER IN AN ELICIT AFFAIR FOR OVER 7 YEARS AND THEN RESIGNED ON A FULL PENSION RATHER THAN CLEAR HER SULLIED NAME....
She is a disgrace.
Copperend
says...
5:32pm Sat 25 Jul 09
As for the CPS and Police being cahoots with this is total rubbish.
Women can't roll their trouser leg up so what is there to gain.
The comments on this story make me laugh when people don't know the full facts can judge another human being.
Its like reading a comic book.
He who has committed no sin throw the first stone. Guilty charged and hung before a trial.
No wonder England is a disgrace to the human world when people like you lot condemn a person then blame the system for not convicting.
God help you all
debs21
says...
10:59pm Sat 25 Jul 09
Randy Lahey wrote:I don't think it's Susan Boyle, I think it's Shane Ritchie
BlackRocker wrote:I didn't know Susan Boyle moonlighted as a cop!?
I trust she has forfeited her right to a generous pension.
She resigned so I imagine she is still entitled to her pension, as she did not have her contract ended by the police.
chris elmes
says...
1:13pm Sun 26 Jul 09
Copperend wrote:And your point is?...However to answer your incoherent and disjointed ramblings(have you had a little drinkie?)just because someone has a lot of money doesn't stop them shoplifting...no let's call it what it is stealing!The actress Winona Ryder springs to mind as a good example. Regarding the police CPS ect being "in cahoots" and "total Rubbish" I made the suggestion based on self-evident fact that and I stress if Sharon Rowe had been tried and convicted of these alleged offences it would by virtue of her position as a police district commander reflected very badly on Sussex police,in addition as I have said Mr Rowe is a senior barrister who would suffer enormous damage professionally if this had occurred,it is my opinion that members of the legal profession look out for each other. You do not make your case by logical discourse you just make sweeping statements presented as holy writ and that may not be questioned. On the subject of "trouser legs" you forgot funny handshakes and aprons,unless Harriet Harperson has had her way the freemasons(are you one)is still a male bastion with an awful lot of judges,senior police officers,barristers ect. I hold the view that the comments in general and those of mine that you have singled out do not make you laugh at all,you come across as a badly frightened member of one of the groups with a vested interest involved in this matter.Oh and whilst we're on this "people don't know the full facts" and you do? Even if you do(and I suspect that you do because of the venom of your attack)do not forget that others know the "full facts" too as you run the risk of making yourself look a fool.In addition this matter is not about throwing stones,its about an allegation of theft against individuals who "hold a position of trust" and the furore is because there has not been nor will be a trial to settle this issue one way or another and we are not blaming the system for not convicting its non prosecution we take issue with!
Why should a Chief Inspector need to shoplift on her pay and that of her Partners. Thats the question. As for the CPS and Police being cahoots with this is total rubbish. Women can't roll their trouser leg up so what is there to gain. The comments on this story make me laugh when people don't know the full facts can judge another human being. Its like reading a comic book. He who has committed no sin throw the first stone. Guilty charged and hung before a trial. No wonder England is a disgrace to the human world when people like you lot condemn a person then blame the system for not convicting. God help you all
Furthermore I have to dispute with your(in my opinion)pernicious and unpatriotic reference to this nation,I suggest the true disgrace is(in my opinion)the PC common purpose 5th columnist subversives who have undermined this great nation.
One final point,non-existent anthropomorphic entities are of no help to anyone,not even you.
QUIS CUSTODIET IPSO CUSTODES
Copperend
says...
6:51pm Sun 26 Jul 09
chris elmes
says...
9:59pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Copperend wrote:I see Ive made my point. You haven't come back with a cohesive argument to refute my views,just a petulant little dig to try to dismiss them. I'm most disapointed with your efforts,you really must try harder.
Gosh, you are angry aren't you? Long words and smart comments don't hide the fact that you seem to hate people in general. I feel for you.
Copperend
says...
8:48am Tue 28 Jul 09
In your eyes you will always be right.
As I said I feel sorry for you.
Good luck in your quest for perfection
chris elmes
says...
12:24am Wed 29 Jul 09
Copperend wrote:But you haven't made an argument in the first place,all you have done is attempt to mock and belittle anyone who challenges your viewpoint. As to my belief that I am always right you have made the presumption that I have a fixed world viewpoint you are in error. If you made a counter-argument supported by fact I might be compelled to concede to your views on this subject. I have offered you ample opportunity to support your position with fact,You have so far declined to do so,this leads me to the conclusion that you are unable to do so,however if I am mistaken and you have some insightful point to make in support of your position then you ought to do so.I await your next post with baited breath.
Not worth arguing about. In your eyes you will always be right. As I said I feel sorry for you. Good luck in your quest for perfection
More News stories
- Tax credit changes hit poor families
- Airport ready for passenger numbers to soar
- Breastfeeding gets support
- Cycling safety bid in memory of Hove teacher
- Uncertain future for Southlands Hospital
- Busy Brighton street to close to traffic
- Fans arrested after trouble breaks out at Albion v Millwall game
- Pregnant woman twice turned away from hospital
- Defiant council bosses to ignore pay call
- Brighton grocery closes with loss of 15 jobs
Shoplifting arrest officer resigns
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
BlackRocker says...
1:42pm Mon 20 Jul 09