The disturbing messages and videos on PC Edward Bengree’s phone came to light only because of a blunder in an unrelated court case.
Clive Steer, a businessman from Surrey had never heard of the Scotland Yard officer when he was charged with bribery in July 2016.
The 39-year-old, who runs a printing and design business in Guildford, was wrongly accused of paying bribes of £200 and £250 to an employee at Surrey Sports Park to obtain printing contracts.
But he denied any wrongdoing and told police that emails proving his innocence were on his computer showing the payments were for legitimate consultancy work.
Mr Steer’s lawyers were repeatedly refused access to the computer files and it was only when a new prosecutor took over the case, that a court order was made forcing police to hand over the evidence.
But the investigating officer Detective Constable Russell Cannon mistakenly gave his lawyer a police report on PC Edward Bengree’s phone instead of a copy of Mr Steer’s laptop.
On January 5, the case against Mr Steer collapsed after it emerged at Guildford Crown Court that police had filed the wrong material and failed to investigate Mr Steer’s laptop which proved his innocence.
Judge Robert Fraser described the case against Mr Steer as ‘absolute nonsense’, saying: ‘I am going to recommend the Crown investigates this matter fully, the police force and Detective Constable Cannon.’
Defending Mr Steer, Julia Smart said: ‘There has been a failure by the police to investigate this case properly and to disclose the evidence by the CPS.
‘Mr Steer went into enormous detail of the contact he had and could not have done more to help the police.
‘The emails between these two business people are the evidence in this case – the computer and the emails were the very material the officers should have been investigating.
‘But that was never looked at by the police. The material was not read by the CPS. It blew a hole in their case.
‘There was a court order for the hard drive be served to the lawyers in the case. When the officer hand delivered it to Mr Steer, it did not relate to him.
‘It is yet another example of a man, 18 months on bail, waiting for this moment with all the effects it has on his life.’
Yesterday Mr Steer told of his anger after the case threatened to ruin his business, Ink on Everything which he had to rebuild as he fought to prove his innocence.
The entrepreneur said he had been living in fear for 18 months after being told that he could face up to four years in prison if found guilty.
He said: ‘They came to my house at 5.30am and arrested me in front of my children. I was forced to lie to my daughter about where I was going.
‘It was only when I asked the police whether they had my work laptop that they thought to take it during the search.
‘I helped them to the point that I investigated my own case. I almost lost my business because of this.
‘My fiancé Gemma and I postponed our wedding so that this was not hanging over our heads – I did not want to marry her with the prospect that I could then go to jail.
‘The way that Surrey Police have operated is scandalous.’
Surrey Police have refused to explain the circumstances of why they ordered a report on PC Bengree’s phone and how it came to be disclosed to Mr Steer’s lawyers.
It is thought the force came across the contents of PC Bengree’s phone when they examined a laptop seized in relation to an investigation into the man Mr Steer was accused of bribing, Roscoe Brown.
Brown is believed to be a friend of PC Bengree, although it is not known how he came to have his phone.
A Surrey Police spokeswoman said the material was passed to the Met to investigate when the case collapsed: ‘During an investigation into Mr Steer and his co-defendant, two laptops and a number of phones were seized from the two defendants.
‘During these examinations, material that was not related to Mr Steer and his co-defendant’s case was discovered on a device seized during our investigation.
‘The information held on the phone was not relevant to the Surrey Police investigation. Therefore Surrey Police did not investigate how the phone came to be in the possession of the suspect we seized it from.
‘Surrey Police acknowledge that the legal teams were given the wrong drive and apologise for this mistake. We have made our Corporate Information Management Team aware of this issue and an investigation is underway to review the Data Protection breaches.