Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Hearing finding and Outcome – ‘Former Officer’
The accelerated misconduct hearing in respect of the Former officer took place on Friday 10th January 2025 at Suffolk Constabulary, Landmark House, Ipswich.
Summary of conduct alleged:
It was alleged that the former officer, whilst off duty, assaulted a female - Miss B, and was subsequently convicted of common assault.
It was alleged that this conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of:
It was determined that the allegations should be heard at an accelerated misconduct hearing.
The accelerated misconduct hearing was chaired by Assistant Chief Constable Nicholas Davison.
Summary of Facts and Conduct
Introduction
For the hearing now I outline a summary of my approach and decision:
Particulars of Misconduct
It is alleged that the Former Officer has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
In particular he has breached the standards relating to:
In that his behaviour as set out in the regulation 51 notice, namely paragraph 4 (During the course of this argument, Miss B stood in the Officer’s way. The Officer pushed Miss B to one side), has discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence in it.
And
Paragraph 7 that the officer was charged with an offence of assault and pleaded guilty at Norwich Magistrates Court and sentenced [redacted].
It is alleged that this matter amounts to gross misconduct, namely a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that, if proved, is so serious as to justify dismissal.
Findings on Facts (Balance of Probability)
I have received and considered the written evidence and exhibits secured by the Appropriate Authority (AA).
The investigating officer has presented to me original body worn video recordings from the accounts provided on the night in question (in Jan 2023) from Miss A, Miss B and from Miss A’s son. I have watched and listened to these recordings very carefully. They represent accounts that were fresh in the memory of the witnesses and were obtained only a few hours after the events in question.
I have read the statements secured by the investigating officer from all parties involved. I am satisfied that they are coherent and reflective of the Body Worn Video accounts I have seen.
Whilst the behaviour identified by the AA as being a breach of the standards of professional behaviour relating to discreditable conduct relates to the single event known only to the former officer and Miss B, namely pushing past Miss B at the bottom of the stairs when no other persons were present; I am satisfied in the honesty of the account and statement provided by Miss B and by the acknowledgement of the former officer in his regulation 54 response and in the hearing today, as represented by his police federation friends, that he admits to one single assault at the bottom of the stairs on Miss B.
I also take into account in my findings on facts the fact that the former officer has plead guilty at Norwich Magistrates Court [redacted] to an offence of assault by beating. Here I note the extent of his acceptance of his behaviour in the notice of plea provided to the court and referenced here today in the hearing. It was accepted by the court as an admission of a criminal offence and I accept it as such along with his regulation 54 admission in this tribunal.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence before me I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the matters presented by the AA and held within the hearing bundle have been proven. The former officer did assault Miss B by pushing past her on the bottom of the stairs.
The former officer was convicted of a criminal offence at court.
Breach of the Standard
Combining all the facts together, I find that the facts above satisfy all the charge of a breach of the Standard of Professional Behaviour relating to discreditable conduct.
Assessment of Misconduct
I have had regard to regulations 2(1) which states:
Misconduct means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action;
Gross misconduct means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal.
I have further regard to regulation 41(15) of the Conduct regulations which provides that the person conducting the misconduct proceedings must:
In the case of a misconduct hearing review the facts of the case and decide whether the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct or neither.
That each breach or the culmination of the breaches can amount to Gross misconduct.
In respect to the breach of the Professional Standard I find that the Former Officer breached the standard relating to discreditable conduct in that, he has brought discredit on the police service and undermined public confidence in policing and that it amounts to gross misconduct.
I am satisfied that the breach to these standards is so serious that dismissal would be justified and I also come to that decision, additionally as the Former Officer has admitted that his conduct amounts to gross misconduct. As such on my own assessment and that of the admission by the Former Officer, I find gross misconduct.
Summary of decision on outcome
Introduction
In determining the appropriate outcome in relation to the proven allegation I have had regard to the College of Policing’s Guidance on Outcomes, in particular accelerated hearings – former officers, the Home Office Guidance and the approaches drawn from Fulger LLP v Solicitors’ Regulation Authority 2014, which at a high level, sees the required approach as:
In following these stages I have also taken into account personal mitigation and had in mind, at all times, the need for proportionality, weighing the interests of the public with those of the Former Officer.
Regardless that this is a former officer accelerated case this process must be followed and applied as though the former officer were still serving.
I have also reminded myself of the need to take care and avoid double counting factors in my assessment.
Assessing the seriousness
Culpability
Culpability denotes the persons blameworthiness or responsibility for their actions. The more culpable or blameworthy the behaviour in question, the more serious the misconduct and the more severe the likely outcome. Here, I have determined the Former Officers culpability as high.
I consider that the Former Officers actions in respect to the breach, whilst spontaneous and in the moment was deliberate. He knew he was going to push past Miss B and she, herself in BWV verbal account, intimated she sensed he was going to.
I accept the former officer’s submission that any harm was unintentional but have considered the evidence before me. As a serving police officer [redacted] I consider the former officer could have seen and should have reasonably foreseen the risk of harm. [Further sections redacted]
The former officer’s culpability is further strengthened through being convicted at court of an offence of assault by beating. One which he plead guilty to. The reality here, in terms of the purpose of the conduct regulations is that it is unacceptable for police officers who are responsible for enforcing the law to break the law themselves.
Whilst I accept the point raised by the Former Officer’s Federation representatives about the low-level nature of the criminal conviction [redacted] in the context of the policing profession it is a conviction for the use of unlawful force, however minor. Nationally the police use of force is understood to be a significant public confidence matter. This is compounded even though there is no injury, by the fact that the admitted conduct and conviction for assault by beating was in respect to a female. Here, policing has come under national scrutiny through high profile cases where there have been failings to protect or prevent women and girls from abuse of violence. For policing, misconduct of this nature is wholly unacceptable, and the service has set a clear expectation to all officers as to the seriousness to which these matters are treated.
Harm
The harm caused by an officer’s actions can be considered in various ways including reputational harm and harm to the wider community’s public health. Harm to individuals. It also includes an act, whether on duty or off duty where an officer commits an act that would harm public confidence if the circumstances of it were known to the public. Within this definition of harm it is also applicable to consider the scale and depth of local or national concern about the behaviour in question. Here, whilst I accept it is minor the former officer is convicted of an assault against a female. This has an impact on the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole.
Regarding harm resulting from the Former officers conduct, I acknowledge that there is no specific physical injury to any person involved. However, from the evidence provided Miss B stated that she knew she had to release her grip of the stairs banister otherwise, with the former officers’ actions, had she sought to hold on and resist his weight with determination it may have resulted in injury. Here I consider the likelihood of harm through injury occurring if Miss B had not let go to be real.
Overall, I assess the harm occasioned as reputational and community public confidence in policing.
Aggravating factors
I considered the following to be present:
Vulnerability of the victim – by reason of age. At 17 years old she is a child in law.
There are other aggravating factors present but I am conscious of double counting as I have already referenced them elsewhere in my assessment.
Mitigating factors
Mitigating factors are those that tend to reduce the seriousness of the misconduct. Some factors may indicate that an officer’s culpability is lower or the harm caused by the misconduct is less serious than it might otherwise have been.
The Former Officer has accepted in part his conduct amounted to Gross misconduct and provided an account within his Regulation 54 response relying upon the basis of his plea at Norwich Magistrates Court to the charge of common assault (S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988), that he came into physical contact with Ms B’s arm using unlawful force beyond generally accepted standards of behaviour.
The misconduct was confined to a single event and was of brief duration. It was whilst off duty.
[Further sections redacted]
Assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct
From my considerations set out in summary above and balancing the aspects of the case I consider this to be a matter of gross misconduct involving a criminal offence and conviction, impact on the reputation and standing of the police service coupled with clear culpability of behalf of the Former Officer.
Personal Mitigation
Having decided on seriousness of the misconduct I turn to any personal mitigation. In doing so, however I recognising the constraints placed upon personal mitigation by the legal authorities and cases: Salter and Williams.
In line with the law and due to the nature and purpose of disciplinary proceedings the weight of them is necessarily limited in my considerations.
[Paragraph redacted].
I also note he remains in a relationship with Miss A at the time of this hearing.
Outcome
Having earlier found the matter is one of gross misconduct, regulations concerning former officers requires me to consider only two possible outcomes: namely disciplinary action or no disciplinary action.
My decision is that the outcome is disciplinary action based on the assessment of the matter before me and the reasoning I have undertaken against the College of Policing guidance on outcomes and that a former serving police officer has been found to have breached the standard of professional behaviour relating to discreditable conduct. He is culpable, he has by his behaviour and criminal conviction harmed the police service and public confidence in it and Miss B was a female child.
I have reminded myself of the purpose of imposing sanctions under these regulations and I turn to my considerations on those available, as required by regulations and the accelerated cases guidance in the College of Policing guidance on outcomes should the Former Officer have been a serving officer.
I am in no doubt that (had the Former Officer still been in service) Management Advice and a Written Warning would have failed to adequately deal with the misconduct and could not address the issue of his conviction for the offence assault by beating and the breach of professional standards let alone protect the public interest and purpose of the police conduct regulations.
I then turned to consider whether this is a case where the appropriate disciplinary action would (notionally) have been a Final Written Warning.
In all the circumstances, I have determined that a Final Written warning would not (had the Former Officer still been in service) have been appropriate due to the assessed serious nature of the misconduct in particular the breaches of the standards of professional behaviour and the impact that has on the public confidence in the police service and therefore the damage such behaviour has in bringing discredit to the reputation of the service. Therefore, the only reasonable, proportionate and appropriate disciplinary action in this case, as an accelerated former officer hearing, is as is set out in the Home Office guidance at Para 20.66 (e) which indicates only one possible outcome in that the Former Officer would have been dismissed. Such a sanction is also necessary to ensure serving officers understand the importance of the standards of professional behaviour in their decisions, actions and behaviours and serving to prevent future similar behaviours from occurring within the service.
My decision on outcomes is that the Former Officer, had he remained a serving officer would have been dismissed.
College of Policing Barring List
I also make a recommendation for publication of the dismissal and the officers name to be placed on the police disclosure and barring list pursuant to Regulation 3(2) of the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017.
[Further sections redacted]
Nick Davison
Assistant Chief Constable
Chair
10/01/2025