Former PC Askew
POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020
As amended by the Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations
CONCERNING:
Officer: Former PC 1990 Robert Askew
Suffolk Constabulary
Case: CM 93/24
_________________________________________________________________________________
Final Written Report
_________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
1.0 This is the record of determinations and finding made by the Chair at an accelerated misconduct proceeding brought under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 as amended (the Regulations) against former Suffolk Constabulary Police Constable 1990 Robert Askew held on Tuesday 15th September 2026.
1.1 Suffolk Constabulary had issued a special conditions certificate in accordance with Regulation 49(4) Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 indicating that there was sufficient evidence, in the form of written statements or other documents, to establish on the balance of probabilities that his conduct constitutes gross misconduct and that it was in the public interest for him to be included on the police barred list.
1.2 The Chair, sitting alone, was Assistant Chief Officer Nicholas Davison (Former Assistant Chief Constable).
1.3 The Appropriate Authority (AA) was represented by DCI Nightingale.
1.4 The former officer was not in attendance having declined to engage. He had resigned before the hearing date.
1.5 The Hearing was a public hearing and was held at Suffolk Constabulary headquarters, Martlesham Health, Ipswich.
The role of the Chair
2.0 The person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing must review the facts of the case and decide whether or not the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to gross misconduct. The person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing must not find that the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to gross misconduct unless:
(a) they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this is the case, or
(b) the officer admits it is the case.
Preliminary Matters
3.0 I first addressed whether it was right to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the former special constable. The AA applied to continue the hearing in the former officer’s absence, citing the authorities R v Hayward [2001] QB 862; R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 and GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 at [13],[17] and [18]. Additionally, I considered the Home Office guidance (2020) to the regulations paragraph 11.106 [p137] and paragraph 12.16 [p148].
3.1 In support of this the AA presented a written timeline of contact with the former officer.
3.2 i find that, the former officer had the opportunity to attend but had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing; was aware of the case against him, had been informed of his right to legal representation and that nothing would be gained by adjourning proceedings. Therefore, I determine that the hearing would proceed in his absence.
Allegation
4.0 I was referred to a Regulation 51 notice in respect of the former constable containing the allegations and that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct, namely:
BACKGROUND FACTS
- On 12th September 2022, Former Police Constable 371990 Robert Askew (‘the Officer’) joined the Suffolk Police.
- The Suffolk Police received information from the National Crime Agency that a KIK account associated with the Officer’s email address had uploaded indecent images of children to the internet. A communications data application confirmed that the Internet Protocol address connected with the upload related to the Officer’s home address.
- On 13 August 2024, the Officer’s home address was searched. An iphone 13 was seized (‘the phone’). The Officer admitted that the phone was his.
- The phone was found to contain at least one indecent image of a child (two indecent images and one indecent movie file (one Category A, One Category B and One Category C)).
- On 27 May 2026, the Officer was convicted, by guilty plea, of making an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of children.
- On 13 July 2026, the Officer was sentenced to a community order until 12 January 2028. He was ordered to pay a fine of £200, costs of £200 and a victim surcharge of £114. He was placed on the sex offenders’ register for five years. The phone was confiscated.
Particulars of Misconduct
Police Constable Askew it is alleged that you have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, and in particular the standards relating to:
Discreditable Conduct
In that your behaviour as set out in paragraphs as set out at paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 above have discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence in it, in particular:
-
- Your home IP address had been utilised to upload an indecent image of a child,
- Your phone was found to contain at least one indecent image of a child,
- You have been convicted of a criminal offence relating to indecent images of children,
You have been added to the sex offenders’ register.
It is alleged that these matters individually and/or collectively amount to gross misconduct, namely a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that, if proved, is so serious that your dismissal would be justified.
Former Officers response
5.0 The former officer did not provide a formal regulation 54 response to the allegations. I therefore proceeded on the basis that the allegations and facts alleged needed to be proved by the AA.
Approach taken by the Chair
6.0 I reminded myself that the burden of proof lies with the AA and is discharged on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). I reminded myself of the Home Office guidance (2020) concerning the burden and standard of proof at paragraph 9.10 and 9.11.
6.1 I considered all the evidence I heard. The findings have been based on the evidence, including inferences properly drawn from the evidence. I did not have the benefit of hearing oral evidence from the former constable.
6.2 I approached my decision on the following basis: -
(i) First, to ascertain the facts whether admitted or found proven.
(ii) Second to determine whether based on those facts the officer breached the Standard of Professional Behaviour (“the Standards”) as set out in Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
(iii) Third, if yes, to decide whether such breaches constituted gross misconduct or not.
(iv) Fourth, dependent on the findings under (ii) and (iii), to decide on the appropriate outcome, within the constraints of the former officer provisions.
Evidence
7.0 The AA set out the evidence in the opening note and in the hearings case bundle consisting of 44 pages.
Findings of Facts (Stage one)
8.0 On the balance of probabilities, I find all facts proven.
Fact 1
8.1 I find proven. The AA opening note sets out the former officers’ commencement of his role as a police officer.
Fact 2
8.2 I find proven. The MG5 document criminal case file 37/CJ/17335/24 [bundle page 23-26] sets out the facts as written.
Fact 3
8.4 I find proven. The MG5 document criminal case file 37/CJ/17335/24 [bundle page 23-26] sets out the facts concerning the search seizure of the phone and admission concerning ownership. This is further supported by the Streamline forensic evidence report linking the former officer to the device through a financial link to his credit card [bundle page 28-34].
Fact 4
8.5 I find this proven. The streamline forensic evidence report [bundle page 28-34] sets out the evidence of the indecent images of children found on the former officer’s phone including their categorisation as to the level of the indecent imagery.
Fact 5
8.6 I find this proven. The Norwich Magistrates Court Record sets out the guilty plea and verdict with the officer convicted of 1 x CAT C making offence [bundle page 40].
Fact 6
8.7 I find proven. The NMC trial record sets out the conviction, sex offender registration requirement and phone confiscation [ bundle page 42]. This further supported in the case overview summary in the record [bundle page 44].
Particulars of Conduct: Discreditable Conduct
8.8 In respect to the facts contained within the particulars of the misconduct alleged relating to discreditable conduct I find proven that the former officers home IP address was used to upload image. This is set out in the MG5 bundle page 23-26 and the Streamline Forensic report [bundle page 28-34].
8.9 Facts b, c and d being found as above.
Determination of whether the facts proven amount to a breach of the Standard of Professional Behaviour of Discreditable Conduct (Stage 2)
9.0 Whilst clear that I am determining whether there are breaches to the Police Conduct Regulations Standards of Professional Behaviour and its definition I looked to the Police Code of Ethics relevant at the time to assist in my assessment.
9.1 The 2014 code of ethics set expectations for officers and guidance. In respect to conduct it states:
‘…behave in a manner, whether on or off duty, which does not bring discredit on the police service or undermine public confidence in policing’.
It guides such that:
‘9.1 As a police officer, member of police staff or other person working for the police service, you must keep in mind at all times that the public expect you to maintain the highest standards of behaviour. You must, therefore, always think about how a member of the public may regard your behaviour, whether on or off duty.’
Examples of meeting this standard are when you:
‘Avoid any activities (work- related or otherwise) that may bring the police service into disrepute and damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the police and the public.’
‘Avoids any activities that compromise your or any colleague’s position in policing or compromise a police operation.’
9.2 The work of the police is crucial to maintaining a just and fair society. It also requires the public’s cooperation to succeed. The people of England and Wales expect the police to safeguard the rule of law, act fairly and impartially and provide a professional and selfless service. By engaging in indecent images of children and being convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence, including being required to register with the sex offenders register for 5 years, the former officer has failed to avoid activity that brings the service into disrepute and his behaviour, as a result, damages the trust and confidence between the police and the public. He has failed to maintain the highest standards of behaviour. Through his behaviour and criminal conviction, he has compromised his own position in policing.
9.3 Turning to the definition of discreditable conduct under schedule 2 of the police conduct regulations 2020 which states:
‘Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.’
‘Police officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any conditions imposed on them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice.’
9.4 Considering this definition, I find that the proven facts see the standard of professional behaviour to be engaged and breached.
Does the proven breach of the standard of professional behaviour amount to gross misconduct (Stage3)?
10.0 As an accelerated former officer hearing my role is to examine whether the allegation sees the former officer’s behaviour amounts to gross misconduct or not. Having found the facts proven and the standard engaged and breached I have reminded myself of the definition of gross misconduct as set out in police conduct regulations.
This being:
“Gross misconduct” means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal had the former officer remained in service.”
10.1 I find the former officer’s behaviour is so serious, given its nature and his conviction, as to justify dismissal and therefore I find gross misconduct.
Assessment of Seriousness and Outcome (Stage 4)
11.0 I have drawn upon the College of Policing guidance on outcomes in Police misconduct and I have followed the steps as required by Fuglers in my assessment of seriousness. I have taken into account the purpose of police conduct regulations.
11.1 Following the approach in Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin), as adopted in the College of Policing Outcomes Guidance, I have approached my decision on outcome in three stages to determine the appropriate sanction:
Stage 1: Assess the seriousness of the misconduct (based on (i) the officer’s culpability (ii) harm caused by the misconduct (iii) the existence of any aggravating factors (iv) the existence of any mitigating factors).
Stage 2: Keep in mind the purposes for which an outcome is imposed.
Stage 3: Choose the outcome which most appropriately fulfils those purposes given the seriousness of the conduct.
11.2 I have been careful not to double count.
11.3 I have read the former officer record of service and considered it.
11.4 I have listened to the AAs submissions on outcome.
Assessment
Culpability
11.5 Culpability denotes the officer’s 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.
I find the following present in this case:
4.17 It is unacceptable for police officers, who are responsible for enforcing the law, to break the law themselves.
The college of policing outcomes guidance indicates at 4.18 that ‘The level of culpability depends on the seriousness of the offence. The sentence imposed by the criminal court is not necessarily a reliable guide to seriousness in misconduct proceedings, which are principally directed towards maintaining public confidence in the profession. A relatively minor criminal offence may be of the utmost gravity in the professional context.’ Here from the police services professional standpoint being convicted in an offence relating to child sex abuse imagery as a police officer has the upmost gravity and is abhorrent. In considering this I consider it adds gravity to this case in regard to culpability.
I also find present paragraph 4.20 Offences of dishonesty, sexual offences (including possession of indecent images of children) and violent crime are particularly serious and likely to terminate an officer’s career. Such offending involves a fundamental breach of the public’s trust in police officers and inevitably brings the profession into disrepute, and this guides my decision making.
Finally, I find present paragraph 4.62 present. Violence against women and girls perpetrated by a police officer, whether on-duty or off-duty, will always have a high degree of culpability, with the likely outcome being severe. As a consumer of indecent images of children this, in my view, is a form of violence against girls.
Overall, in respect to culpability, the former officer’s behaviour is completely at odds with and contrary to the values of policing and the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Harm
11.7 The types of harm caused or risked by different types of police misconduct are diverse.
I find present the following in this case:
Para 4.64 The persons in the imagery are underage and exploited. It is sexual abuse.
Para 4.66 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. An officer behaving in this way causes significant and serious harm to the police service, to its standing and reputation as a whole and to that of Suffolk Constabulary locally. Subsequent conviction of a criminal offence compound this further.
Para 4.70 There is rightly abhorrence in society to indecent images of children by any right-minded person and the scale and depth of public concern about such behaviour is significant.
Aggravating Factors
11.8 Aggravating factors are those tending to worsen the circumstances of the case, in relation to either the officer’s culpability or the harm caused.
11.9 Here, I have been careful not to double count but in addition to those factors I have already identified I find the following present:
-
- Malign intent – sexual gratification
- Significant deviation from instructions
Mitigating Factors
11.10 Mitigating factors are those tending to reduce the seriousness of the misconduct. Some factors may indicate that an officer’s culpability is lower, or that the harm caused by the misconduct is less serious than it might otherwise have been.
I find none present.
Seriousness Assessment
11.11 I find culpability to be high and harm to be high. This is serious gross misconduct.
Personal mitigation
12.0 Personal mitigation should always be considered but due to nature of conduct regime it is of limited weight. I have not received any personal mitigation from or on behalf of the former officer. Had I, I would have considered it.
Outcome
13.0 I reminded myself of the threefold propose of the police misconduct regime, namely:
-
- to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service.
- to uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct.
- to protect the public.
13.1 Given that this is a former officer case, I am aware that I can only consider two possible outcomes - disciplinary action or no disciplinary action.
13.2 Given the seriousness and nature of the misconduct I determine that concludes that the only appropriate action would be disciplinary action.
13.3 Having done so I have gone on to considered less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes as required.
13.4 I considered whether a final written warning, of any duration, would meet the regimes purposes given the assessment and seriousness of the gross misconduct I have found.
13.4 In my determination it would not. The matter is so serious; the conviction for a criminal offence as an officer, the nature of that conviction, the role and position of police officers in society and the importance of the trust and confidence both the police and the public need in officers being so intrinsic to our way of policing that nothing short of dismissal without notice, had he remained a serving officer, would be required following the breach of the standard of professional behaviour I have found.
13.5 The outcome is, had he been a serving officer, he would have been dismissed without notice.
Policing Barring List
14.0 The AA is to comply with the requirements set out in the Home Office guidance 2020 concerning the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List regulations 2017. Namely, apply to have the former officer placed on the policing barring list.
Publication
15.0 I direct the AA to publish the final report and name the former officer.
Appeal
16.0 The former officer has a right to Appeal and he will be written to in respect to the outcome and that process and I direct the hearings manager to assist the former officer in the understanding of that.
ACO Nicholas Davison
Chair
15/09/2026