A stranger known as me late at evening and mentioned probably the most soiled, revolting factor doable. I spent two years making an attempt to carry him to justice – then found a really unbelievable twist: LUCY MANNING

It started with a phone call. Late at night in October 2022, my mobile lit up from a withheld number. There was a man at the other end of the call, a voice – and then he started making noises. Without a doubt, this stranger was masturbating down the phone.

The noises got louder. My heart raced, struggling to believe what I’d just heard. I hung up. But the phone rang again and again.

At this point, I switched into journalist mode.

I knew this man needed to be reported and I was sure the police could trace the call – but they’d need evidence.

So I ran upstairs and grabbed my work phone. On his third or fourth attempt to call back I picked up the call, put it on speakerphone, and recorded him.

For five minutes I listened as he masturbated, calling out my first name, using vulgar language to say ‘suck my [penis]’ and making obscene comments about my genitalia. I wondered when he would have had enough and when I would have enough evidence.

I was scared. As I recorded the call – in total disbelief that this was actually happening – my mind was racing. My phone number isn’t available online so how did he get it? I thought about the WhatsApp groups I was on. Could it be someone on the road I lived in or someone I worked with? Was it someone I’d interviewed for the BBC? Did he know where I lived?

I started thinking about the men I knew and if the man making these disgusting comments sounded like any of them. I felt extremely vulnerable. He had an accent I didn’t recognise, maybe Midlands. I dialled 999 to report the crime.

The following day I went to my local police station to give a statement and was asked to upload the recording onto the Metropolitan Police system. I was naively hopeful they could use it to quickly trace the caller.

I’ve worked on too many stories of violence against women, including the rape and murder of Sarah Everard in 2021. Police had failed to investigate fellow officer Wayne Couzens for at least three indecent exposure offences before he murdered her.

Experts say those offences may have been a ‘red flag’ that someone could go on to more serious offending.

So I had two concerns: my own safety and ensuring this man couldn’t go on to commit more serious sexual offences.

The whole ordeal would turn out to be an eye-opening experience, showing just how slow the police and justice system move and how women are still being failed, due to police incompetence. The man who called me was eventually charged – but he wouldn’t have been if I hadn’t taken control.

The police have admitted their handling of the case ‘clearly fell short’. Here’s how it unfolded…

October 2022: The first misstep

Two days after making my statement, a police officer told me to ask my phone provider to investigate the withheld number. But EE was clear this request should come from the Met – not the victim.

After returning from leave, the officer replied: ‘Apologies, I was obviously working on old information regarding withheld numbers. Sorry to have wasted your time on that.’

But the Met request needed to go through ‘a few levels of authorisation’, which ‘can be slow as it is prioritised according to risk and offence’.

Two days on, the local officer emailed to say tracing the phone number was proving too time-consuming. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) was going to take over. CID told me there was ‘very little reasonable line of enquiry to pursue considering the number used was withheld’.

They asked me if I’d sent in the recording. Despite the fact I’d sent it, CID had failed to find it on their system.

They also said they’d check with the original officer if they’d approached EE to identify the withheld number – they hadn’t.

Meanwhile, I was trying to think who could have got my number. It was making me suspicious of everyone.

December 2022: A breakthrough

Two months after the incident there was positive news – they’d managed to identify the withheld number and were now seeing if they could track down the person connected to it.

And then a breakthrough: the officer identified the suspect through the Police National Computer. He was in the Lancashire area – so Lancashire Police took over the case.

January 2023: ‘No need to arrest’

I emailed Lancashire Police saying I supported a prosecution – but they didn’t answer.

Eventually an officer did reply saying he had no information about the case other than the crime reference number and a basic description.

Why hadn’t the Met passed on the information? They told me it was the Lancashire officer’s job to request it. I relayed that information to him.

A week later there seemed to be some progress. The officer had visited the home of the suspect, who hadn’t opened the door. I was told there was no need to arrest him at the moment as he didn’t meet the custody threshold.

February 2023: Arrested and bailed

In court I watched as Wayne Couzens pleaded guilty to three offences of indecent exposure, one just days before he raped and murdered Sarah Everard.

The police were heavily criticised for their failure to deal with these incidents, which could have identified him as a sex offender. It gave me renewed drive to pursue my case.

It had been two months since a suspect had been identified – but I’d heard nothing from Lancashire Police. So I pushed them.

A few days later, the officer apologised for the delay, saying he’d been on leave and then had Covid.

He said another attempt to contact the suspect has been unsuccessful, but they still planned to request a voluntary interview, rather than make an arrest.

I asked why – and said I was concerned this kind of crime could be a ‘gateway crime’ to more serious offences.

This appeared to have an effect. Two days later I was told they’d now try to arrest the suspect due to his non-compliance to be interviewed.

A day later what felt like a breakthrough text arrived: ‘We have forced entry and he has now been arrested.’ Finally, I thought, they’d interview him and go through his phone records.

Although the police said the arrested man sounded exactly like the man I’d recorded on the phone, he’d denied calling me and said he’d lost his phone.

The officer believed the suspect was lying – but that his defence would make it hard to charge him. He was bailed on condition he didn’t contact me. Deeply frustrated, I asked for a call with a senior officer.

I was worried that, because of the number of times the police had been to his house, telling neighbours they were looking

for him, he would have had time to get rid of the phone –

and without the phone, the sergeant told me they’d struggle to make progress.

March 2023: No further action… then a U-turn

The police told me they were going through the suspect’s current phone and, unsurprisingly, couldn’t find anything on it. They said they couldn’t charge him and were going to close the investigation with no further action.

I was furious – they had the audio recording and they’d matched the phone number to the suspect. I told them I wouldn’t accept that decision and would appeal against it, but in truth I wasn’t sure how to do that.

At the end of the month a detective sergeant called.

He said they’d effectively carried out a Victims’ Right to Review on my behalf – as I’d mentioned appealing. This gives victims the right to a review when unhappy with a police decision not to charge, after a suspect has been interviewed under caution.

He assured me there was still a prospect of charging the man.

I told him about my unsatisfactory experience so far.

‘I can totally understand and sympathise with that,’ he said. ‘All I can do is apologise on behalf of Lancashire Constabulary.’ Finally, some accountability.

As this happened, I was reporting on plans to allow crime victims to be kept informed about their cases and challenge decisions. The irony wasn’t lost on me as I noted six months had passed since my incident and I was having to continually fight to keep it on track.

April 2023: ‘Suspect was lying’

A step forward. The Lancashire constable called me and said: ‘The suspect was lying.’ New checks on his phone had found it was indeed used to make the call – but using a different SIM card, which my number was on. 

They didn’t believe he had specifically targeted me. Instead, they think he had been trying different numbers and knew my first name after hearing it on my voicemail.

June 2023: ‘No urgency’

Two months had passed with zero contact from the police. I texted: ‘This is getting a bit ridiculous now. There seems to be no urgency.’

The constable insisted there was, and that further phone checks were taking time. I requested a call with the detective sergeant.

‘You had this new evidence two months ago, you thought it was significant and yet the suspect hasn’t been brought back in,’ I said.

He promised to find out why: ‘I can only apologise… I’m frustrated… it seems to have stalled again.’

July 2023: Arrested again

At last, the suspect was rearrested and interviewed, but he still claimed he’d lost his phone and answered ‘no comment’ when the new evidence was put to him.

It took until November for it to be sent to the prosecutors.

December 2023: ‘We got there in the end’

Finally, more than a year after the crime was reported, the suspect was charged with an offence of malicious communications by sending an offensive, indecent or threatening message. ‘Apologies it’s dragged on, but we got there in the end,’ the constable said.

February 2024: Finally, a court appearance

The suspect – Amjad Khan, 48, from Blackburn – appeared at the town’s magistrates’ court and pleaded not guilty. He was sent for trial at Lancaster Magistrates’ Court in November.

November 5, 2024: No-show

The courts seemed as inefficient as the police. After nearly nine months of waiting for the hearing, Khan’s case was listed for 09:30 at Lancaster Magistrates’ Court. It was finally heard at 17:00.

He didn’t turn up.

Khan’s lawyer said his client might not have seen the letter sent two weeks earlier, which changed the date of the hearing. The magistrates agreed that ‘given the state of the postal system’, they’d give Khan the benefit of the doubt. Another trial date would be set.

November 11, 2024: Guilty

I wasn’t informed that the case had been listed at Burnley Magistrates’ Court for November 11.

I only found out because I phoned the Witness Care Unit for an update – on the 11th – and was told it would take place that very afternoon. I wouldn’t be able to make it on time, so was denied the opportunity to see justice being done.

A colleague based in Salford, Nick Garnett, went instead.

In a scarcely believable start to the trial, the prosecution and defence argued about whether the case could be heard because so much time had passed since the offence.

It was decided it could proceed and they played the vile call I had recorded, all five minutes and 41 seconds of Khan masturbating and making disgusting comments.

He told the court that he hadn’t made the calls: ‘Somebody made the calls on my phone. I don’t know who, a lot of people were there.

‘Sometimes I forget and leave my phone. And somebody’s messed about with the phone.’ The mobile phone data showed the call was made from around his address. He’d called my number nine times, the court heard.

My colleague Nick texted me from court just one word: ‘GUILTY’. At that moment I felt relief and vindication. But it will be another two months before he is sentenced.

The Met Police said: ‘Our handling of this case clearly fell short and we do not underestimate the awful impact upon Ms Manning. Such serious offences cause very real fear for victims and deserve a professional and swift response.’

Lancashire Police said their ‘initial handling of this case did not meet the standard expected but… we hope that the successful conviction gives her some sense that justice has been done.’

November 13, 2024: Unbelievable revelation

Remarkably, I discovered a Lancashire Telegraph article from 2015, headlined ‘Blackburn man made 15,000 ‘dirty’ calls in 91 days to total strangers’. It was the same man, convicted nearly a decade ago.

A Lancashire Police officer was even quoted in the article saying ‘the scale of it was quite breathtaking’.

I was incredulous.

Despite it all, I am pleased I pushed so hard to get this man convicted –again, it turns out. Some women I’ve interviewed who have reported more serious sexual offences say they wish they had never done so because the process was so brutal.

I don’t regret reporting it, but I’m dismayed it was such a monumental effort and wonder how many men go unpunished because of the inefficiency, the failures and the delays.

Getting justice shouldn’t be this hard – and getting justice shouldn’t be the victim’s struggle.

A longer version of this article appears on the BBC News website.

Additional reporting: Nick Garnett, Lorna Acquah and Phelan Chatterjee.