Forer Officer X

A Former Officer
CM/238/23
BEFORE
Assistant Chief Constable Vaughan Lukey
Ms Jennie Mattin
Mr Jeremy Webster
Heard on 2 June 2026
Introduction
This case is brought by the Professional Standards Department on behalf of Hertfordshire Police Force, the Appropriate Authority (“The AA”). Former Officer is the respondent to these proceedings.
The Allegations
1. A Notice pursuant to Regulation 30 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 was served on the Former Officer. He is no longer a serving police officer, and for ease of reference he is referred to throughout this decision as “Former Officer.”
2. The notice contained allegations which set out the background and the former officer’s actions in 3-18.
3. The former officer and Ms A were in a sexual and emotional relationship between 2019 and 2021.
4. The former officer was aware that Ms A had suggested that she may self-harm and/or attempt to kill herself. Accordingly, he was aware that she was vulnerable. Despite being aware of this fact and despite the fact that he attended at her address he took no safeguarding measures to protect Ms A and did not report the matter to any line manager or supervisor.
5. During their relationship they engaged in activities that necessitated a safe word. They chose ‘Clementine.’ No other person was aware of the safe word.
6. On 4 September 2021, the former officer asked to borrow a colleague’s phone. He dishonestly stated that he needed to use it as his mother had fallen over.
7. At about 21.04 on 4 September 2021, the former officer used the phone to send messages to Ms B. The former officer dishonestly pretended that the message originated from his colleague. The former officer dishonestly stated that: (a) The message was from the colleague(b)The colleague had gone on the trip to the Lake District with Ms A and the former officer. (c) Ms A and the former officer had stayed in separate rooms whilst in the Lake District. (d)The colleague had gone to Scotland with Ms A and the former officer.

8.The former officer dishonestly sent a similar message via Instagram purporting to be from the same colleague.9.The former officer then dishonesty copied the text of the message that he had sent to Ms B and sent it to himself again pretending to be his colleague. The former officer added to the copied message ‘Sent that to [Ms B] mate because I can’t bear to see you like this anymore.’10.The former officer then deleted the messages from his colleagues’ phone. However, he did not delete them from his colleague’s linked iPad.11.The former officer phoned Ms B that evening from a withheld number.12.On 23 May 2023, the former officer attended Ms A’s flat. Ms A was in the flat with another male. The former officer banged on the door of Ms A’s flat. Ms A was in the flat with another male. The former officer banged on the door of Ms A’s flat and shouted at the male inside it. He attempted to use his foot to wedge the door open.13.The former officer also followed Ms A to the address of a male that she was seeing. He stood outside the male’s flat. He took photographs of the male’s vehicle. He then spoke to that male about the state of the male’s relationship with Ms A.14.On 23 February 2024, a group celebrated an officer’s birthday at Pop World in Milton Keynes. The former officer approached Ms A’s new partner. The former officer was angry and frustrated, in particular, (a) He clenched his fists. (b) He paced about (c) He threatened Ms A’s new partner. (d) On multiple occasions he told Ms A’s new partner that he would like to punch him.15.On 25 February 2024, Ms A blocked the former officer from contacting her.16.On 26 February 2024, the former officer met Ms A’s new partner at the gym. The former officer showed the new partner messages from Ms A that suggested that she wished to be in a relationship with the former officer. The former officer dishonestly implied that these were new or recent messages. The messages were neither new or recent and did not represent Ms A’s feeling at the time.17.The former officer was arrested and given bail conditions that included not to contact Ms A either directly or indirectly.18.At 13:54 on 22 May 2024, the former officer rang Ms A from a new number Ms A did not answer the call. The former officer then sent Ms A, a message that read‘Clementine. Can we talk before things get even messier…”19.The particulars of Standards of Professional Behaviour which are alleged to have been breached are -:Honesty and Integrity - In that your behaviour in paragraphs 6,7,8, 9, 10 and 16 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity.Authority Respect and Courtesy - Your behaviour and language as set in paragraphs 12,13, 14, 16 and 18 could reasonably be perceived to be abusive, oppressive, harassing, bullying or victimising by the public and or police colleagues

(i) You subjected Ms A, directly and indirectly, to unwanted conduct; (ii) You subjected Ms A to unwanted verbal conduct (iii) you made Ms A feel uncomfortable. Your behaviour amounted to conduct which had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile and humiliating environment for Ms A. You failed to treat Ms A with respect and you demonstrated a failure to act with self-control and respect towards your colleagues.
Discreditable Conduct - It was alleged that the former officer’s behaviour as set out in paragraphs 4-18 and (1) – (2) of the particulars of Misconduct, amounted to conduct which discredited the police service and/ or undermined public confidence.
The Background
20. The Background is set out in the Investigation Report prepared by the Professional Standards Department dated 26 June 2025 which comprises a 27-page report. The report was prepared by the Lead Investigator DC 1973 Dixon.
21. The report provided details of the allegations and the investigation which had been carried out. It was alleged that the former officer was involved in conduct which amounted breaches of the standard of professional behaviour.
22. The report set out that the former officer had been involved in a relationship with Ms A. The relationship had initially been consensual although at the insistence of the former officer, it is alleged that Ms A, was told to keep the relationship private from their colleagues. It was alleged that the relationship came to an end in 2021, as Ms A found out that the former officer had “cheated on her.”
23. The report detailed allegations that once Ms A formed a relationship with someone else, the former officer had turned up at her property unannounced and had shouted at her. Had on occasions contacted her whilst she was at her property and had male visitors causing her to believe that she was being observed by the former officer.
24. Ms A had felt pressured to continue in the relationship and had taken a trip with the former officer and had gone on holiday with him. However, she had ended the relationship when she found out that he was continuing to see other people.
25. The former officer was alleged to have threatened to harm her new partner and was alleged to have shown him messages which were allegedly from Ms A. The allegations had occurred at Ms A home address, during a group celebration and whilst Ms A’s new partner was at the gym.
26. The former officer had asked to borrow the mobile phone of a colleague and had written messages which were purported to be from the owner of the phone. These messages were written to a female acquaintance of the Former officer. The messages were written as if sent by the former officer’s colleague. The messages set out that the former officer, Ms A, and the colleague (the phone owner) had been to the Lake District and Manchester and Scotland. The messages were sent to reassure the female acquaintance that the former officer’s contact with Ms A had been platonic. This was untrue, the colleague had also not written the messages or taken trips with Ms A and the former officer. The colleague was only aware of the

messages, because although they were deleted on the phone, they were on the colleagues linked iPad.
27. The report set out that the former officer was arrested on 27 February 2024 regarding the alleged offenses which were denied.
28. The report stated that following the former officer being bailed in relation to the alleged offense, and that subsequently, Ms A reported receiving messages via her Instagram from an unknown account. The messages were believed to have been from the former officer as they referred to her as Clementine the report set out that no other person called her by that name. Ms A believed that the former officer had been logging into her iCloud to send messages from his phone using her WhatsApp account. This would also give him access to her messages and all her apps etc.
29. The report set out that the former officer regularly made threats to end his life if Ms A stopped speaking to him and as a result of this, she felt too guilty to stop speaking to him and / or end the relationship.
30. An ABE interview was conducted with Ms A, she told the interviewer that at the insistence of the former officer the relationship was kept secret, and she was also encouraged to move out of her family home as the former officer told her that he would be unable to have a relationship with her if she remained at her family home.
31. The ABE interview was referred to, in the report, and Ms A provided details of the on off nature of the relationship with the former officer and how he had reacted when she attempted to end the relationship and to establish relationships with others. The report also set out that Ms A had been struggling with her mental health at that time, and that the former officer had known that she was vulnerable and had not disclosed this to a senior officer.
32. The report also detailed interviews with 4 other officers who had witnessed aspects of the officer’s behaviour.
33. The report set out the other evidence which had been considered in support of the allegation which included screen shots of WhatsApp and other messages.
34. A Regulation 17 Notice dated 5 March 2024, and Terms of Reference were served on the former officer.
35. On the 17 September 2025, the former officer, served a regulation 31 response which in substance denied the allegations. However, the former officer resigned on 16th February 2026.
36. On 22 January 2026 he served an addendum Regulation 31 notice in which he admitted the substance of some of the allegations and that by reason of his admissions his conduct amounted to gross misconduct.

The Directions
37. Prior to the hearing the chair received a request for the former officer and Ms A to be anonymised. On 26 May 2026, the chair sent directions to the parties in his direction he stated as follows-: “…1.2 I have received an application for cyphers to be applied in the public notice, in the hearing itself and in any publication of outcome notice: (1) “The Complainant” / “Witness A” (2) “The Former Officer” / “The Officer”
2) Legal Framework 2.1 Presumption of openness. The Police Conduct Regulations establishes a presumption in favour of transparency. The chair may depart from that position in the interests of justice or the proper conduct of proceedings. Home Office Guidance emphasises that openness is the default, and integral to maintaining public confidence in police accountability. 2.2 Public notice. The Police Conduct Regulations specify required content within public notices, including the former officer’s name, unless restricted by direction. 2.3 Convention and equality rights. Considering Articles 6 and 8 ECHR, and the Equality Act 2010. Any departure from openness must be justified as necessary and proportionate.”
38. The chair set out the submissions received and also stated as follows-: 4) Balance 4.1 I have considered Home Office Guidance, relevant jurisprudence, and the statutory framework governing transparency in police misconduct hearings. 4.2 I must balance the strong public interest in ensuring allegations of misconduct, particularly those capable of affecting public confidence, are transparent. Whilst the alleged misconduct in this case legitimately engages public confidence, I am asked to consider anonymity for both parties, in the interests of justice and maintaining trust and confidence. There are no submissions or representations on behalf of the former officer.”
39. The chair made the following decision “Having carefully considered the application, legal principles, and the information presented, I make the following directions: 1 - Public Notice In the interests of justice, to prevent identification, the Appropriate Authority will give advanced public notice of the hearing, using cyphers described above at 1.2 2 – Public hearing In the interests of justice and transparency, the hearing will be held in public and in the hearing, cyphers will be used, as described at 1.2 3 – Publication of outcome Following the hearing, the Appropriate Authority will publish any outcome, with the use of cyphers, as described at 1.2…”
The Hearing
40. At the hearing, the case presenter for the Appropriate Authority (“The AA”) was Ms Catherine Hinton, counsel. Also attending on behalf of the Appropriate Authority was Dawn Coates. Both attended the hearing remotely. The former officer was not present. However, he was represented by Mr Hynes, Counsel. Also, in attendance on behalf of the former officer were PC Therese Holden, Federation Friend. (Both attended in person, although Mr Hynes attended remotely for the reading of the outcome on sanctions).
41. Ms M Daley Campbell, attended as the Legally Qualified Person, assisting the panel, in accordance with regulation 28 (6) (of the Police Conduct Regulations as amended) although she remained with the panel throughout the hearing, she took no part in the decision making.

Preliminary issues
The decision to proceed in the absence of The Former Officer.
42. The panel noted that although the former officer was not present and had indicated that he did not wish to attend, he was represented. As he was not in attendance the panel had to decide whether it should proceed with the hearing in the absence of the former officer.
43. Ms Hinton on behalf of the appropriate authority set out that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the former officer. Mr Hynes did not oppose this application. He was instructed that the former officer was aware that the hearing could proceed in his absence and had not objected to this. The former officer had indicated that he did not intend to attend the hearing.
44. The Panel heard from Ms Daley-Campbell, who outlined the procedure and the law. (i)The Panel has a discretion as to whether a hearing should take place or continue in the absence of the former officer. She also referred to the fact that he was represented. However, notwithstanding this, the panel were reminded that the discretion to proceed in the absence must be exercised with great care and it is only in rare and exceptional cases that it should be exercised in favour of a hearing taking place or continuing.
45. The panel needed to be satisfied that the former officer had voluntarily waived his right to attend, and that in his absence it was still possible to deal with this matter without any injustice to him. The panel accepted the submission made on behalf of the AA. The Panel considered that the former officer had voluntarily absented himself (or chosen not to come to the hearing). The panel was aware of the need to apply caution to the decision to proceed in his absence. However, the panel decided that any disadvantage to the officer, would be minimal as the former officer was represented and had made admissions to some of the more serious allegations.
46. The Panel reminded itself not to draw any adverse inference purely from his non-attendance.
The Appropriate Authority’s Case
47. The panel had in advance of the hearing, been provided with a hearing bundle which included witness statements and exhibits, and interviews with both the Former officer and the complainant Ms A.
48. The panel was also provided with an opening note from Counsel Ms Hinton on behalf of the appropriate authority. In her opening note counsel set out as follows-: The proceedings are governed by Regulation 41 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, as amended for Former Officers, in accordance with Schedule 1. There are three key issues for the Panel to determine:
Whether the evidence relies upon by the AA (the hearing bundle) proves the Standards of Professional Behaviour have been breached.

“(15) The person or persons conducting the misconduct proceedings must review the facts of the case and decide whether the conduct of the former officer concerned amounts—
(a)in the case of a misconduct meeting, to misconduct or not, or
(b)in the case of a misconduct hearing, to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.
(16) The person or persons conducting the misconduct proceedings must not find that the conduct of the former officer concerned amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct unless—
(a)they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this is the case, or
(b)the former officer admits it is the case.”
49. Ms Hinton submitted, that on the allegations which were admitted by the former officer in his amended regulation 31 notice, the panel could find allegations, 3, 5,6,8, 9, 10, 11,15. 17 and 18 were proved by way of admission. This was in accordance with regulation 42(16) b of the Police Conduct Regulations 2020.
50. She submitted on behalf of the Appropriate Authority (“The AA”), that the allegations which were admitted were sufficiently serious so that the panel could find that the officer’s actions amounted to gross misconduct.
51. Given this, Ms Hinton told the panel that the AA were not intending to present evidence on the allegations which were not admitted. The approach that the AA, invited the panel to adopt was to consider whether the admitted allegations amounted to gross misconduct.
52. Ms Hinton submitted that the allegations which were not admitted could be considered as background to the charges and that the panel could use the information in these allegations in its assessment of whether the admitted allegations amounted to gross misconduct.
53. Mr Hynes on behalf of the officer, submitted that the former officer accepted gross misconduct. He submitted that this had come about as a result of the former officer standing back and considering what had occurred. The former officer had gained insight into his actions and had gained a realisation that his actions amounted to misconduct which was sufficiently serious to mean that he was not suitable to be a police officer. However, he submitted that where the former officer had not admitted allegations, this was because the former officer denied that they had occurred as alleged. The appropriate authority bore the burden of proof, and given this, he submitted that the panel should make findings of gross misconduct only on the charges which were admitted.

The Panel’s findings on each of the charges
54. The panel carefully considered the documentary evidence which was set out in the hearing bundle of 347 pages, together with the opening note provided by counsel. The panel noted that the burden of proof was on the AA, and that the standard of proof to be applied was the balance of probabilities.
55. The panel also considered that its role was to consider the allegations as set out by Ms Hinton and make findings in respect of them as this was the appropriate authority’s case. In this regard the panel bore in mind that there was a duty on the panel to act proportionately in considering the allegations, by balancing its role to test the case advanced by the AA, and to act in the public interest by properly considering the allegations.
56. The panel considered that very serious allegations had been admitted, and that notwithstanding this, it had to decide whether it was in the interest of justice and in the public interest for it to consider the unproven allegations which were denied by the former officer.
57. In reaching its decision, the panel noted that where allegations were denied, this was because the facts were disputed by the former officer, and that as such it remained for the appropriate authority to prove these allegations if they wished to rely upon them. The panel decided that as these allegations were not proved they could not be considered as background to be taken into account.
58. The panel asked itself whether it was in the public interest to hear and test the evidence on the allegations which were denied. The panel acknowledged that this would require the attendance of witnesses to give evidence with the resulting delay and increasing costs of the hearing.
59. The panel balanced this against whether this would make a material difference to the outcome if these charges were not considered by the panel and no findings were made. The panel had regard to the allegations which had been admitted. The panel asked itself whether the admitted allegations taken at their highest were sufficiently serious to prove misconduct/ or gross misconduct.
60. The panel also had to decide whether it was in the public interest for it to make no finding on charges, 4,12, 13, 14 and 16, given the duty on the panel to consider with appropriate seriousness, allegations of violence against women and girls. It noted that whilst there was no actual violence, the allegations included behaviour which could be considered harassing and intimidating.
61. It noted that although there was a serious allegation which was denied (allegation 4) there were very serious allegations which had been admitted, one of which related to breach of a bail condition,
62. The panel carefully considered allegation 4, which of the denied charges was a very serious allegation. It asked itself whether it could reach a determination on this charge. The panel noted that there were conflicting accounts given by Ms A and the former officer, concerning what he knew about Ms A’s vulnerability, and whether she had told

him that this was known about by Senior officers. The panel would need to determine in all the circumstances whether there was an obligation on him to take safeguarding measures.
63. Given this, the panel asked itself whether, if more evidence was presented, it could make a finding on a balance of probabilities. The panel was of the view that in order to do so, it would need to test the evidence and that this would cause distress to Ms A, who was not expecting to give evidence, given the admissions which had been made by the former officer.
64. The panel considered the admissions which had been made, and Mr Hynes submissions that these admissions had arisen from the former officer’s developing insight. The panel notwithstanding the denied allegations was satisfied that the matters admitted which included dishonesty and in particular allegation 18, which included breaching bail conditions were very serious. Given this, the panel was satisfied that even if it made no findings on allegations 4, 12,13,14,15 and 16, the allegations found proved by way of admission were sufficiently serious than even if it made no findings on the allegations listed above, it would still be necessary to consider misconduct.
65. Taking all of the matters into account the panel decided that it was appropriate and proportionate to make no findings on allegations 4, 12,13,14,15 and 16.
Whether the allegations amounted to a breach of the standards of professional behaviour
66. The panel then considered whether the admitted allegations amounted to a breach of the standards of professional behaviour.
67. The panel was satisfied that the officer’s actions in allegations 6-11 amounted to a breach of the standard of Honesty and Integrity.
68. In respect of allegation 17 which was factual, this involved the former officer being given bail conditions, which he accepted had been breached. The panel was satisfied that having then contacted Ms A (allegation 18) when bail conditions were given, on its own amounted to a breach of the standard in respect of Authority Respect and Courtesy.

69. Having found that the standards of professional behaviour in respect of Honesty and Integrity and Authority Respect and Courtesy were breached the panel found that totally and cumulatively the matters admitted amounted to Discreditable Conduct.
Findings on Misconduct and Gross Misconduct.
70. The panel next considered whether the former officer’s proven breaches of the standards of professional behaviour amounted to Misconduct / and or Gross Misconduct.
71. The panel noted that Gross Misconduct was a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that was so serious, that had the former officer been employed they would have justified his dismissal. The panel noted that the former officer had accepted that his actions amounted to gross misconduct.
72. However, the panel did not substitute its own judgment for that of the former officer, and as such, went on to make its own findings on misconduct by undertaking its own assessment of seriousness.
73. When assessing the severity of the breaches the panel referred to the Guidance on Outcomes from the College of Policing, in particular chapter 4, Assessing Seriousness.
74. The panel considered, Culpability and Harm caused by the conduct. It noted in reference to harm caused by the breaches may encompasses both harm to an individual but also harm done to the standing and reputation of the policing profession as a whole.
The panel’s findings in respect of Misconduct and Gross Misconduct
79. The panel considered “Gross misconduct” as defined in Regulation 2(1) as a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour “that is so serious that dismissal would be. justified.” “Misconduct” is defined as a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is “so serious as to justify disciplinary action.” It noted that there was no burden and standard of proof and as such used its own professional judgement.
80. The panel noted that by his own admissions the former officer, had persisted in behaviour towards Ms A, which was unwanted, and that he had been dishonest in obtaining a colleague’s mobile phone and had used it in such a way as to misrepresent the relationship between himself and Ms A.
81. The panel reminded itself that whilst the former officer’s actions were being investigated, and he had been bailed, with instructions not to contact Ms A. He had nevertheless sought to contact her with a view to influencing her in the complaints that she had made. Further, his actions could be viewed as intimidating as they had been found to be by Ms A this had caused her harm. The panel found that if the actions of the former officer where known this would diminish the reputation of the police force.

82. The panel for all of these reasons, considered, that the former officer’s actions amounted to gross misconduct.
The Appropriate Authority’s Submissions on Sanction
83. The panel was a given a copy of the Former officer’s record of service and invited to consider this in reaching its decision on sanction.
84. The panel considered the written and oral submissions made by Ms Hinton.
85. Ms Hinton reminded the panel of Regulation 42 of the Police Conduct Regulations 2020 as modified. She reminded the panel that were a finding of gross misconduct had been made there was a presumption of dismissal for findings of gross misconduct barring exception circumstances.
86. She reminded the panel of the stages to apply in reaching this decision and that the Panel should have regard to the College of Policing’s Guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings (2023) (“the Guidance”) including the need to assess the seriousness of the misconduct by reference to:
(i) the officer’s culpability for the misconduct.
(ii) the harm caused by the misconduct.
(iii) the existence of any aggravating factors.
(iv) the existence of any mitigating factors.
87. She set out the factors which she considered the panel should take into account, in respect of culpability, this included the fact that the officer’s actions had been deliberate and involved more than one incident over a period of time. That psychological harm had been caused to Ms A, and that the former officer’s actions had caused damage to the reputation of the police force.
88. She submitted that an aggravating factor was that the former officer had persisted with his actions even after he recognised that they were wrong.
89. In respect of mitigation, she acknowledged that the former officer had made admissions however this was at a late stage.
90. She stated that the panel should when considering mitigation apply limited weight to personal mitigation.
Submissions on behalf of the Former Officer.
91. On behalf of the former officer Mr Hynes accepted that Ms Hinton had correctly stated the legal position. He referred to the officer’s record of service in particular two certificates one of good work and another a commendation in which he had provided lifesaving CPR.

92. He also reminded the panel that the former officer had gained insight and accepted that his actions were incompatible with his continued service as a police officer and had accordingly resigned from the force.
93. The panel also heard and accepted the legal advice from the Legally Qualified Person Ms Daley-Campbell.
The Panel’s decision on Sanction
94. In reaching its decision the panel took account of the former officer’s record and noted his service, the training that he had completed and his conduct as a police officer.
95. . The panel considered the factors in assessing seriousness, as set out in The Guidance.
96. Paragraph 2.4 of The Guidance required the panel to assess the seriousness of the misconduct and in imposing sanctions, choose the sanction that most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.
97. The panel reminded itself of the case of Bolton -v- Law Society and the cases which Ms Hinton had referred to in her opening note where she set out the law concerning outcomes. It also took account of the Guidance.
98. The panel noted that whilst a sanction might have a punitive effect, the purpose was to (i) maintain public confidence, (ii) declare and uphold standards of behaviour and (iii) Protect members of the public. It reminded itself that it should make an assessment of seriousness, and in doing so it applied the guidance given by the college of Policing.
99. It considered Culpability, Harm, and Aggravating and Mitigating factors as set out in the guidance.
100. The panel found the following paragraphs to be engaged
Culpability
101. paragraph 4.9, 4.10 where it found that his conduct was intentional and deliberate, further, even if the harm was unintentional the former officer could reasonably have foreseen the risk of harm.
102. It further found dishonesty as set out in paragraph 4.20, para 4.30, & 4.31 and that further 4.26, Honesty and integrity are fundamental requirements for any police officer.

Harm
103. In respect of Harm, it noted Ms A witness statement and her ABE interview It found that the former officers conduct caused psychological harm to be suffered by Ms A. In her statement Ms A stated, “I am terrified to return home as I am expecting [ the former officer] to be there waiting outside.” In her ABE interview (Page 84 in the bundle) Ms A stated “It’s just ruined my life, and I am so upset .. I just wish I had said something.”
104. The panel also found that t the behaviour of the former officer had an effect on the police service and/or public confidence such that paragraphs 4.66, 4.69 and 4.70 and 4.71 was also engaged.
105. 4.66 states -: “Harm will likely undermine public confidence in policing. Harm does not need to be suffered by a defined individual or group to undermine public confidence. Where an officer commits an act that would harm public confidence if the circumstances were known to the public, take this into account. Always take misconduct seriously that undermines discipline and good order within the police service, even if it does not result in harm to individual victims. 4.68 Where no actual harm has resulted, consider the risks attached to the officer’s behaviour, including the likelihood of harm occurring and the gravity of harm that could have resulted. 4.69 How such behaviour would be, or has been, perceived by the public will be relevant, whether or not the behaviour was known about at the time. 4.70 If applicable, consider the scale and depth of local or national concern about the behaviour in question. However, a case being reported in local or national media does not necessarily mean that there is a significant level of local or national concern…”
Aggravating Factors
106. The panel also considered the aggravating factors, and in doing so was careful not to double count. It found that the misconduct found proved by admission was premeditated planned and targeted. There was a concealing of wrongdoing by deleting messages on his colleague’s mobile phone and the actions continued after he knew his behaviour was wrong.
107. The panel also found that there were multiple proven and accepted allegations which breached multiple standards of behaviour.
108. In respect of Mitigation the panel accepted the submission on behalf of the former officer, which was limited, that some insight had been shown by the former officer which had resulted in admissions being made, albeit not at an early stage.
109. The panel recognises the former officer’s contribution to policing as outlined in two certificates of good work within the record of service, However the panel noted that any personal mitigation could not outweigh the public interest as set out in The Guidance.
110. Having assessed seriousness, the panel reminded itself of the Conduct Regulations, with regards to former officers. The panel drew reference to [4.74] of the Guidance on Outcomes which states “where gross misconduct has been found and the behaviour has caused – or could have caused – serious harm to individuals, the community

and/or public confidence in the police service, dismissal is likely to follow. A factor of the greatest importance is the impact of the misconduct on the standing and reputation of the profession.”
111. The panel considered the purpose of a sanction 2.3 of the guidance which set out that the requirements of the misconduct regime are the maintenance of public confidence, upholding high standards in policing and deterring misconduct and the protection of the public.
112. The actions of the former officer were serious, and this had led to the findings of gross misconduct.
113. The panel determined that in light of its findings the only appropriate and proportionate finding was that disciplinary action would follow and the former officer would have been dismissed if he had not ceased to be a serving member of the police force.
Sanction
I. The panel’s decision is that if the former officer had not resigned, he would have been dismissed without notice.
APPEAL
1. You have the right to appeal against the finding or outcome to the Police Appeals Tribunal, should you consider that the disciplinary outcome imposed by the Chair was unreasonable, that there has been a breach of the procedures as set out in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 or that you have further evidence which has not been brought to the attention of this Tribunal.
2. Any request for an Appeal should be made within ten working days beginning with the first working day after you were supplied with the written copy of the decision of this Tribunal. It should be accompanied by the written grounds of your appeal.
3. The Presenting Officer will assist you with any Appeal and the Regulations and Home Office Guidelines will be made available to you.
Chair: ACC Vaughan Lukey
LQP: Ms Monica Daley Campbell
IPM: Ms Jennie Mattin
IPM: Mr Jeremy Webster
Date: 8 June 2026