Former Special Constable

POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020

As amended by the Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations

CONCERNING:

Officer: Former Special Constable [Redacted]

Suffolk Constabulary

Case: CM 63/22

_________________________________________________________________________________

Final Written Report

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Introduction

1.0 This is the record of findings made by the Chair at an accelerated misconduct proceeding brought under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 as amended (the Regulations) against former Suffolk Constabulary Special Constable (SC) [Redacted] held on Wednesday 16^th 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 Mrs Speed.

1.4 The former special constable 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 Landmark House, Suffolk Constabulary, Ipswich.

1.6 The former special constable was named publicly for the record in the hearing, however, having received an application and submission from the media a reporting restriction order was put in place by the Chair (Appendix A).

 

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 There were two preliminary matters.             

3.1 The first related to the former special constable’s application for matters relating to medical information to be held in private session and that he be given anonymity.

3.2 I ruled that if it were necessary to introduce evidence or information concerning his private sensitive medical information it would be in closed session.

3.3 I further ruled, having considered the application and undertaking a balancing exercise between ECHR Article 8 and Article 10 rights, that he would not be granted anonymity but that I would impose a reporting restriction preventing any information that would lead to his true identity being published by the media or any member of the public. The reporting restriction order is set out at Appendix A.

3.4 i then 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 and set out a timeline of contact and correspondence. This was confirmed by the police federation representative present. I considered 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].

3.5 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:

You are hereby given notice pursuant to Regulation 51 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (as amended) that it has been determined that you have a case to answer for alleged gross misconduct and the matter has been referred to a misconduct hearing

Allegation 1 - Conduct

CHILD ABUSE IMAGES

In 2022 you accessed pornographic websites that resulted in the following child abuse images being cached on your device:

1 X Category B pseudo image

Naked adult male[Redacted] male child aged 13-15 years [Redacted].

10 X Category C images

This includes 1x CAID known image that has been previously categorised C by separate graders and is described as: A 15- to 17-year-old male [Redacted]

The 9 X other Category C images: These images are all of naked or wearing only pants, male children of ages ranging from 12 to 16 years [Redacted].

Whilst it is accepted that images may be cached without being viewed, these images on your device occurred during a period in which you were searching / viewing pornography that specifically referenced “boy”, “boys” and “young boy”:

The  [Redacted] boys porn tube - Page 61 - GayBoysTube 2022-07-25 07:18

Boys [Redacted] boys porn tube | GayBoysTube 2022-07-25 07:24

Ginger teen boy [Redacted]  | GayBoysTube 2022-08-04 05:27

Beautiful boys [Redacted] porn | GayBoysTube 2022-08-20 07:47

4 boys go [Redacted] porn tube | GayBoysTube 2022-08-24 08:28

[Redacted]  Gay Porn Tube | GayBoysTube 2022-08-25 07:36

Two [Redacted] MagLovers Gay Porn | GayBoysTube 2022-08-25 07:51

Boys [Redacted] boys porn  | GayBoysTube 2022-08-27 09:13

Young boy [Redacted]  webcam porn | GayBoysTube 2022-08-28 08:42

Hot boy [Redacted]  | GayBoysTube 2022-09-03 08:26

Such inappropriate search / viewing terms were obviously more likely to relate to images of young male children.

 

Allegation 2 - Conduct

RECORDING OF CCTV OF A YOUNG MALE CHANGING

In 2024 you made and kept a video recording taken from a CCTV camera in a [Redacted] which showed a young male getting changed, removing clothes down to his underpants, and dressing again. You had placed the recording in a secure folder named “[Redacted] CCTV”.

During the investigation you stated that you had made the recording, intending to report the incident as a safeguarding issue.

However, (1) there was no need for you to make the recording in order to report a safeguarding issue, (2) you never did report a safeguarding issue and (3) you nevertheless failed to delete the recording and kept it on your device.

 

Allegation 3 - Conduct

UNLAWFULL ACCESSING AND COPYING OF CUSTODY RECORD

On 24 October 2018 you accessed the custody image of an adult detainee from the Athena custody record and copied it on your personal device; capturing the detainee’s photograph, name and custody reference number. You were not involved with the detainee’s case and you had no lawful purpose for viewing or copying this material.

 

Allegation 4 - Conduct

ILLEGALLY DOWNLOADING PIRATED FILMS

You illegally downloaded the following pirated films on the following dates, thereby infringing copyright laws:

10 Cloverfield Lane 2016 1080p HDRip x264 AAC-JYK.torrent 2017-04-11

The.Walking.Dead.S07E02.WEB-DL.x264-FUM[ettv].torrent 2016-12-27

Passengers.2016.HC.HDRip.XViD.AC3-ETRG.torrent 2017-07-03

The.Office.US.Complete.Series.+Extras.720p.BrRip.EN-SUB.x264-

[MULVA coded].torrent 2018-06-01

Utopia Season 1 Complete 720p.BRrip.sujaidr (pimprg).torrent 2018-08-05

Lost.S01.Season.1.720p.5.1Ch.BluRay.ReEnc-DeeJayAhmed.torrent 2018-11-24

The.End.of.the.Fucking.World.S02.COMPLETE.720p.NF.WEBRip.x264-

GalaxyTV [TGx].torrent 2019-11-30

South.Park.S14E05.200.UNCENSORED.HDRIP.XviD-DEMENTA.torrent 2020-01-05

Jojo Rabbit (2019) [1080p] [WEBRip] [5.1] [YTS.MX].torrent 2020-03-06

 

Standards of Professional Behaviour

Your behaviour as set out above failed to meet the standards expected of police officers and breached the following Standards of Professional Behaviour:

Allegation 1

Honesty and integrity (integrity only)

Discreditable conduct

Whilst you were entitled to view pornography in your own private life, your searching, accessing and /or viewing pornography websites with the terms “boy”, “boys” and “young boy” was obviously more likely to relate to images of young male children. Such behaviour demonstrates a lack of integrity and brings discredit upon the police service.

Allegation 2

Honesty and integrity (integrity only)

Discreditable conduct

Your copying of CCTV of a young male changing down to their underpants was not necessary in order to report a safeguarding issue; you failed to report a safeguarding issue; you failed to delete the recording and kept it on your device. Such behaviour demonstrates a lack of integrity and brings discredit upon the police service.

Allegation 3

Honesty and integrity (integrity only)

Confidentiality

Discreditable conduct

Your accessing and copying of material on the police Athena system had no policing purpose. In doing so you accessed and copied personal data relating to the detainee, thereby breaching the Data Protection Act. Such behaviour demonstrates a lack of integrity, brings discredit upon the police service and was a clear breach of confidence.

It has been determined that the allegations should be heard at an accelerated misconduct hearing because the special conditions are satisfied.  The special conditions are that:

• • There is sufficient evidence, in the form of written statements or other documents, to establish on the balance of probabilities that your conduct constitutes gross misconduct and
  • It is in the public interest for you to cease to be a member of a police force without delay.

 Allegation 4

Honesty and integrity

Discreditable conduct

Your unlawful downloading of pirated films dishonestly deprived the producers / owners of the films of proper payment. Such behaviour demonstrates both dishonesty and a lack of integrity and brings discredit upon the police service.

Your behaviour and your breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour as set out above evidence a pattern of behaviour, over an extended period of time, lacking the integrity expected of police officers and amounts to gross misconduct.

 

Former Special Constables’ response

5.0 The former special constable made a regulation 54 response but did not enter a plea. He referred to his criminal investigation interviews and regulation 18 response and correspondence with the AA as his evidence.

 

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 special 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 In my determinations I have read the case file bundle (164 pages), Regulation 51 notice; viewed the digital PACE interviews and read AA opening note as well as listened to the AAs oral presentation. I have read the former Special Constables regulation 54 notice and the Regulation 18 response he provided. I reminded myself whilst relevant to ensure I recognised that the regulation 18 content specifically responded to earlier regulation 17 notices and that I should ensure any content considered in my analysis aligned with the actual allegations as set out in the regulation 51 notice as there were slight differences in the final allegations from the earlier regulation 17 notices to the former officer concerning the investigation. I have not had the benefit of hearing from the former special constable as he has declined to engage with the proceedings as is his right.

Materials also included not exclusively:

• Investigating Officer (IO) reports and account.
• IIOC investigating detectives report.
• Glossary of computer terms.
• ATHENA investigation Report x 2.
• DFU Computer examination Forensic Report.
• Data Breach report.
• PACE interview Transcripts.
• Witness statements.
• Supplementary bundle: Data Protection and System access and use constabulary policies.

 

Summary position of former special constable

8.0 Former SC [Redacted] response to allegation 1 is that he was accessing, in good faith a US hosted adult content platforms in a belief it was lawful. His position was that he never intended to seek illegal content and that he was not aware he had viewed such material. He also set out that the alleged images found on his device were of such quality that it would not have been possible to accurately determine age. The former special constable also set out that the platform used to access the website automatically cached images without a person realising it had been done and that this could also happen automatically from hot linked websites associated with the website accessed. The SC went on to state he has no sexual interest in children.

8.1 In respect to allegation 2 and the CCTV recording of the young male changing in a [Redacted], the former SC indicated he had legitimate access to the CCTV system feed as part of his [Redacted] with that establishment, as did others, and that he noticed, the person changing in a storeroom, just off the [Redacted], doing so quickly, in the open doorway. He stated he was unaware of the person being under 18 years of age. He stated that he recorded the CCTV on his phone in order to address what he perceived to be a safeguarding issue and bring it to the attention of the [Redacted] but that he then thought better of it and did not report it. He believed he had deleted it from his phone.

8.2 In respect to allegation 3, the former SC stated that he captured it, whilst at the police station, in order to compare it with an image on his home CCTV system as he had been the victim of a crime that was similar in nature to why the person had been arrested and he wanted to compare the two images.

8.3 The SC, in respect to allegation 4, accepted he had downloaded the films and that it was for personal use and viewing only.

 

Determination of Facts (Stage 1)

9.0 On the balance of probabilities, I find all facts proven.

Allegation 1 - Conduct

9.1 I find that SC [Redacted] accessed, in 2022, the identified pornographic website set out, that resulted in 1 x CAT B pseudo image involving a child aged 13-15 years of age and 10 x CAT C images which involved children in the age range set out in the regulation 51 notice namely 12 – 17 years of age found in the cache of his device. I reject the former special constable’s response to the allegations that the images are of low quality, and it is impossible to accurately assess them. I make this finding based on the DC Williams report dated 18/17/2024 [bundle p115] where it sets out the description of the cached CAT B and CAT C (CAID assessed) and 9 other CAT C images describing the image content as set out in allegation 1.

9.2 Additionally, the Digital Forensic Unit (DFU) Examination Report sets out the location of the cached CAT C images located within internet browser of exhibit JP/270922/0740 (SC[Redacted]  phone) that have been graded illegal.

9.3 Further the ATHENA crime investigation report (37/60740/22) confirms the images in the allegation and clarifies the rationale for no further action in respect to criminal proceedings citing that the images were cached on his devices via twitter and that accessing the site prompted the cache of images. The investigating officer states that the evidence is such that, against the criminal threshold test, it cannot be proven at the required criminal standard such that he would be charged with criminal offences, that SC [Redacted] would have known of the ‘cached’ images definitively.

9.4 The Athena record also indicates intelligence concerning the accessed website such that the website accessed in 2019 has an explicit focus on male children below the age of 18 years, which is set up specifically for indecent images of children (IIOC) and for obtaining information about accessing, sharing and distributing IIOC and the abuse of children [bundle page 17/66].

9.5 I find, on the balance of probabilities, the AAs acceptance that images may have been cached without being viewed occurred during a period in which the SC [Redacted] was searching / viewing pornography that specifically referenced the terms ‘boy’, ‘boys’ and ‘young boys’. I do so based on the evidence provided in the ATHENA record [bundle page 59-71].

9.6 I find proven that the former special constable was accessing the websites set out in allegation 1 which contained the alleged search terms. I do so from the evidence I have read in the DFU examination report [bundle p 140 – 143] which sets out exhibits examined and confirms internet browser records showing website was visited on dates and times in allegation 1. The DFU report also indicates the phrases in the allegation are referenced in the web page titles viewed. Additionally, SC [Redacted]  regulation 18 response confirms his use of websites including the one central to the allegation. Further the DFU report indicates that members profiles of the internet website visited were accessed and that examination of two accessible members accounts saw the DFU analyst indicate that these accounts contained images that could be graded as illegal and that some of the accessing of the membership profiles occurred around the same time the illegal imagery was created within the Internet Browser cache [Bundle page 141]. Finally in respect to allegation 1 and the facts alleged the DFU examination report states that those files graded as illegal were located within the application cache of applications within a secure folder. A secure folder can be made a by a device (phone) user. The report states that a secure folder is like a second user profile within the main profile but requires a password or PIN to gain access. The DFU report states that the browser records set out in the allegation were located in that secure folder in SC [Redacted] phone.

9.7 I note the former special constable’s response to the allegation concerning search terms and that such terminology is common and used to describe younger adults not under 18-year-olds. Whilst I do not know what was in the former officers mind at the time he made these searches, whether deliberately seeking images of young male children or careless at best to the risk of coming across such images, I find proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the AAs allegation that such accessing / searching / viewings terms were inappropriate and obviously more likely to relate to images of young male children. I do so based on the collective evidence referenced above contained within the bundle and applying the everyday meaning of such terms. In addition, I draw an inference from the NCA intelligence report from 2019 that indicated the accessing of a child pornography website specialising in indecent images of male children [bundle page 17/66] and DFU evidence indicating illegal images that were found is such that it strengthens my finding that it is more likely than not that such accessing/ searching and / or viewings were inappropriate and more likely than not to relate to images of young male children.

Allegation 2

9.8 I find proven on the balance of probabilities that SC [Redacted]  made and kept a video recording from a CCTV camera in a [Redacted] as described in the allegation and; that it was in a secure folder named “[Redacted] CCTV”. I find this proven following my analysis of the bundle and the evidence within the ATHENA crime report 37/5554/24 which sets out the investigation and updates [bundle p103-110]. Additionally, DC Williams’s, officer report dated 18/07/2024, which sets out that recovered from the SC’s device is, video footage supplied in a folder, as a VLC media file named ‘[Redacted] CCTV – 40 second video’, located in his mobile phone in the camera DCIM indicating the video was recorded using the device. The report also states the footage has a filename in a secure folder [bundle page 119]. Further the statement of the Professional Standards Investigating officer which describes the content of the CCTV recording [bundle page 159] as well as the statement from the young male who confirms it was him changing as ‘he had a [Redacted] and that it was a quick change of shirt and trousers’. He confirmed he did not close the door and knew people would be in the area. [bundle page 112]. Finally, SC [Redacted] account in interview where he sets out his explanation for recording the CCTV image [bundle page 128-129] and his regulation 18 response confirming his interview account [bundle page 151-153].

9.9 I also found that the SC did state he made the recording, intending to report the incident as a safeguarding incident. His account in interview and regulation 18 notice confirmed this.

9.10 I also found that he had failed to delete the recording, that he did not report a safeguarding issue. His account in interview and regulation 18 notice confirmed this.

9.11 Thinking about the facts of this allegation such that it turned out 17-year-old male, who did in fact, as part of a [Redacted], quickly changed in an open room just off a public [Redacted] with the public in attendance, I determine that such action by the 17-year-old was ill advised and certainly worthy of feedback about the inappropriateness and of doing so in such a location especially when he did not close the door. Given his age it would fall as a safeguarding matter.

9.12 Turning to the issue of there being no need to make the recording in order to safeguard as alleged by the AA. There is no reference in the bundle to specific safeguarding policy or approaches however I note the former officers training record concerning public protection CAID grading of images of children and victim identification, his courses on managing information and data protection legislation. Combining this knowledge, which he had accumulated before the CCTV recording incident; with, as invited by the AA, my own professional knowledge of safeguarding as a former assistant chief constable, I find proven that it was not necessary to make the recording in order to report a safeguarding issue. I accept that there can be circumstances when it is helpful and provides supporting information to such a report, but I find in this specific instance proven, against the required standard, that it was not. It would have been sufficient to report in writing or verbally what he had seen in his capacity as a [Redacted] with the [Redacted].

9.13 In respect to what was in the former officer’s mind, I note he is of good character and that goes to propensity and credibility in this specific allegation I give that some limited weight. I cannot, however, speculate as to what was in his mind at the time. He states he had safeguarding concerns and that was his thinking for his actions and behaviour in recording. However, he failed to report it and failed to delete it.

9.14 On balance I accept, in the absence of clear evidence in the alternative that his original intention, however poorly executed was related to a safeguarding concern. However, set against the AAs allegations that, given that he then failed to report it as a safeguarding matter and further kept the recording; that is, I determine, contrary to his responsibilities as a special constable and he did not do the right thing. A holder of the office of constable, if they believed they had a safeguarding issue would be expected by the police service and the public to act upon it. To not do so is negligent and not the right thing to do.

Allegation 3

9.15 I find proven that the former special constable accessed the custody image on 24^th October 2018 capturing the image on his own device including the name and custody reference of the detainee. I find this proven from my analysis of DC Williams report dated 18/07/2024 [bundle page 116]. Also, from his regulation 18 response [bundle page 154].

9.16 I find he had no lawful purpose for viewing or copying the photograph. PSD report ATHENA custody photograph and linked STORM CAD records and linked ATHENA records set out refer. There is no record of SC attached or engaged in these legitimately [bundle page 145-146]. Additionally on examination of the supplementary bundle showing the force data protection policy [bundle p4-21]and the acceptable use of information systems and assets policy [bundle page 23-36] and the Electronic Information security policy [bundle page 38] set out the policy and guidance the SC has to follow and by taking a picture on his own personal phone and retaining it he breached policy.

Allegation 4

9.17 I find proven that the former special constable illegally downloaded pirated films as set out in the regulation 51 notice. I do so from my analysis and assessment of the evidence available against the balance of probabilities standard, namely Examination summary for DFU case reference 22 0705: Shows downloaded files on SC [Redacted]  device exhibits JP/270922/0805 and JP/270922/0916: indicating peer to peer software torrents and peer to peer media torrents with creation dates for the films set out in the facts alleged [bundle page 142 -143]. In his interview he states, he ‘used Bit Torrent in the past but not for a while’ [bundle page 92 at time stamp 1:03:34.84]. That his regulation 18 response [bundle pages 153-154] states he ‘accepts allegation without hesitation’ stating, between 2016 and 2020 he made use of torrent software to access copy righted material. He clarifies that he only downloads the films and did not upload or distribute the material.

 

Determination of whether the facts proven amount to a breach of the Standard of Professional Behaviour (Stage 2)

10.0 Alleged breaches of the standards

The AA has alleged:

Allegation 1

Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only)

Discreditable Conduct

Allegation 2

Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only)

Allegation 3

Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only)

Confidentiality

Discreditable conduct

Allegation 4

Honesty and Integrity

Discreditable conduct

 

10.1 I have reminded myself of the available legal authorities / stated cases that deal with the term ‘integrity’ in the context of professions.

10.2 I have remined myself that the High Court in R(Williams) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2016] explicitly established that honesty and integrity are separate legal concepts. Stating that:

• • The Objective Test: While dishonesty involves a person's subjective state of mind, the legal test for a lack of integrity is purely objective.
  • The Standard: Lack of integrity is defined as a failure to adhere to the high professional standards expected of a person in that specific public office. An officer can act without integrity even if they did not subjectively intend to be deceitful or "dishonest”.

10.3 That in Wingate v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2018] EWCA Civ 366, the Court of Appeal, in joined appeals, reversed the decision of the High Court in Malins v SRA [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin), and found that integrity was a broader concept than honesty and expresses the higher standards society and professions expect from professionals. I have read LJ Jackson’s review of the authorities on the term ‘integrity’ [95] to [103] inclusive refers.

10.4 In addition, whilst clear that I am determining whether there are breaches to the Police Conduct Regulations Standards of Professional Behaviour as defined in schedule 2 of the regulations. I looked to the Police Code of Ethics relevant at the time to assist in my assessment for each allegation.

 

Allegation 1

Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only)

10.5 The 2014 Code of Ethics guiding officer’s behaviour states:  I will be honest and act with integrity at all times and will not compromise or abuse my position.

It goes on to state:

In abiding by this standard, you gain and maintain the trust of the public, your leaders, your colleagues and your team. You are dependable and a role model.

In considering this and the legal authorities describing integrity express the higher standards which society expects from professional persons and which the professions expect from their own members and that Integrity connotes adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession.

The former officer has failed to abide by this standard. He has in his behaviour of visiting these sites associated with the terms ‘boy’ ‘boys’ and ‘young boys’ does not show himself as a role model and not maintained the trust of anyone particularly in the content of the facts I ave found proven surrounding this allegation. He has failed to display integrity and behave in the right way as required of his own police profession.

Turning to the definition of honesty and integrity in the police conduct regulations: Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position. I find that the standard is engaged and breached (integrity only).

Discreditable conduct

10.6 The code of ethics states: I will behave in a manor, whether on or off duty, which does not bring discredit on the police service or undermine public confidence in policing.

It goes on to guide officers that:

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.

And states that examples of meeting this standard are:

• Avoid any activity (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.
• Avoid any activity that may compromise your or any colleague’s position in policing

The searching, accessing and / or   viewing of pornography websites with the term ‘boy’, ‘boys’ and ‘young boys’ against the facts I have found proven compromises his position and damages the relationship of trust and confidence between public and the police. It has the ability to bring the service into disrepute.

Turning to the definition in the conduct regulations 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. I find this standard engaged and breached.

 

Allegation 2

Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only)

10.7 The 2014 Code of Ethics guiding officer’s behaviour states:  I will be honest and act with integrity at all times and will not compromise or abuse my position.

It goes on to state:

In abiding by this standard, you gain and maintain the trust of the public, your leaders, your colleagues and your team. You are dependable and a role model.

In considering this and the legal authorities describing integrity express the higher standards which society expects from professional persons and which the professions expect from their own members and that Integrity connotes adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession.

It was not right that the former special constable recorded the person changing with his mobile telephone from the CCTV system. From his own policing experience, he would have an understanding of safeguarding and what is and is not necessary. Additionally, as recognised in his regulation 18 response he subsequently became concerned as to how it would have looked. Compounding this he then went on not to report a safeguarding issue, and he retained the image in a separate secure folder on his device. He has not been dependable or a role model. If he genuinely recorded for a safeguarding reason, although not necessary to do so, but then went on not to report it formally he has not acted in a way that would maintain the trust of the public, his colleagues or his leaders. This being compounded by retaining the recording.

Turning to the definition of honesty and integrity in the police conduct regulations: Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position. His behaviour has seen him fail to do the right thing. In finding the facts proven and examining the definition with the help of the code of ethics I find that the standard is engaged and breached (integrity only).

Discreditable conduct

10.8 I applied the same observations concerning the code of ethics as in allegation 1. Taking a recording, failing to take the safeguarding forward and then keeping the recording damages his position in policing and breaches the trust and confidence with the public. If a special constable with all the powers of a regular police constable identifies a safeguarding issue but then does not act upon it and then behaviours such that he retains that image, taken without the other persons knowledge I do not see how the public can have trust in him and that goes to damage trust and confidence between the police and public and bring the service into disrepute.

Turing to the definition in the conduct regulations 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. I find this standard engaged and breached.

 

Allegation 3

Confidentiality

10.9 The police code of ethics states: I will treat information with respect and access or disclose it only in the proper course of my duties.

It goes on to state and guide officers:

According to this standard you must:

• be familiar with and abide by the data protection principles described in the Data Protection Act 1998.
• access police-held information for a legitimate or authorised policing purpose only.
• understand that by accessing personal data without authorisation you could be committing a criminal offence, regardless of whether you then disclose that personal data.

By taking a picture of the custody image photo from the police system on his own phone he has not abided by the data protection principles or done it for an authorised purpose. Whilst he considered it legitimate in his mind due to the crime he suffered. He went about it completely the wrong way and should have raised a concern with the investigating officer. It was not a legitimate way in behaving.

Turing to the definition in regulations confidentiality states: Police officers treat information with respect and access or disclose it only in the proper course of police duties. In considering the proven facts and examining the definition with the help of the code of ethics I find this standard engaged and breached.

Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only)

10.10 i applied the same approach as earlier allegations. The officer failed to do the right thing. He had no policing purpose given he was the victim and not the investigating officer and breached the Data Protection Act.

Turing to the definition in regulations I find the standard engaged and breached (integrity only)

Discreditable conduct

10.11  I applied the same approach as earlier allegations. Failing to comply with the requirements concerning data and police systems breached public police trust and confidence and brings the service into disrepute. The public understand that police systems hold extremely sensitive and personal information including images of when citizens are arrested. This is highly confidential and regulated.

Turing to the definition in regulations I find the standard engaged and breached.

 

Allegation 4

Honesty and Integrity

10.12  I have considered the AAs allegation that honesty is engaged in respect to the standards of professional behaviour. Here I reminded myself of the legal authority as set out in IVY. Namely that:

The test the tribunal needs to apply is as follows:

Firstly, the Tribunal must ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the officer’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief may evidence whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held.

Secondly, once that has been established the Tribunal must determine whether his conduct was dishonest by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. It is not necessary for the individual to appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

Here, the former special constable knew the films were subject to copy right law and that his downloading was illegal. His account in the regulation 18 response sets that out. Against the second part of the IVY test, I determine that the standards of ordinary decent people would, armed with the same facts and knowledge conclude that downloading the films in the way he did represent an infringement of copy right law and therefore broke that law and was dishonest.

The proven facts that he unlawfully downloaded pirated films thus depriving the producers and owners of those films with proper payment does not see the former special constable do the right thing. As set out above, against the IVY test, I assess that his conduct on the proven facts meets that test and that he was dishonest.

Turing to the definition in the regulations find it engaged and breached. The former special constable was both dishonest and demonstrated a lack of integrity in his actions and behaviour.

Discreditable conduct

10.13 Having found his behaviour in breach of honesty and integrity and having considered the guidance the code of ethics such that police officers are expected to be trustworthy, behave lawfully and do the right thing, in downloading the pirated films he has breached the trust and confidence between the police and public and brought the service into disrepute.

Examining the proven facts against the definition in regulations I find it engaged and breached.

10.14 All allegations and alleged breaches of the standards are found proven.

 

Does the proven breach of the standard of professional behaviour amount to gross misconduct (Stage3)?

11.0 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 should he continue to serve”.

To assist me in my assessment of each allegation I have drawn upon the college of Policing guidance on outcomes to provide me with a framework to make my assessment against the gross misconduct definition.

I have also reminded myself of the Home Office guidance at para 11.132 Where more than one allegation of misconduct against the officer concerned has been found proven, it is for the panel / chair to decide whether, taken together, the misconduct may amount to gross misconduct.

In considering whether the facts and breaches of the standards of professional behaviour I have found amount to gross misconduct or not, I find the former officer’s behaviour so serious as to justify dismissal had he remined serving and therefore I find Gross misconduct.

 

Assessment of seriousness and outcome (Stage 4)

12.0 I have drawn upon the College of Policing guidance on outcomes in Police misconduct (CoP) and I have followed the steps as required by Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin) in my assessment of seriousness. I have taken into account the purpose of police conduct regulations.

12.1 I am aware that the CoP guidance does not override the discretion of the person(s) conducting the meeting or hearing, whose function is to determine the appropriate outcome. Each case will depend on its particular facts and circumstances. Guidance cannot and should not prescribe the outcome suitable for every case.

12.2 I have been careful not to double count.

12.3 I have read the former officer record of service and considered it.

12.4 I have listened to and considered the AAs submissions on outcome.

Culpability

12.5 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.

12.6 I find present the following he deliberately viewed the search terms set out in allegation 1. As he did in not reporting the safeguarding concern in allegation 2 and not deleting the recording in allegation 2. This again is present in allegation 3 when he intentionally took the photo of the custody image on his own phone. Finally, the intentional conduct of downloading the films in breach of copyright also sees paragraph 4.10 (CoP) engaged there.

12.7 CoP Paragraph 4.23 The downloading of the films (allegation 4) is against copyright legislation and whilst there are no formal criminal convictions apparent in this case this behaviour is criminal in nature and given my finding of a reach of honesty is significant. Whilst this behaviour was off duty, I determine it has the ability to bring the police service into disrepute. In essence with it being criminal in nature it is not right that holders of the office of constable, who are meant to uphold the law break the law, in this case copyright legislation. The public have a right to expect officers and special constables to abide by the law and be honest this proven behaviour by SC  [Redacted] has the propensity to affect the reputation of the service and the public’s confidence in it.

12.8 Allegation 3 sees the misuse of police computer systems and the misuse of confidential police information (CoP 4.34). Police computer and manual systems hold a significant amount of information about members of the public. Most of this is sensitive, and it is both a public expectation and a legal requirement that information obtained during the course of policing duties should be treated in strictest confidence, properly protected and used only for legitimate policing purposes. Whilst on the lower scale he had no legitimate policing purpose against his explanation. In that he was a victim and not an investigator, therefore no legitimate policing purpose. He should have reported his concerns to the investigating officer and provided the home CCTV image of the suspect in the crime against his property.

Harm

12.9 The types of harm caused or risked by different types of police misconduct are diverse.

Here I find present:

12.10 CoP 4.66 Harm that likely undermines public confidence in policing. I have found him dishonest and that he lacks integrity in respect to his actions and behaviour. Whilst the specific allegations made by the AA in allegation 1 relate to his accessing / searching and viewing of material on a pornographic site that focuses on the integrity of doing so as it relates to the terms ‘boy’ ‘boys’ and ‘young boys’ it is a proven fact that categorised indecent images of children were found on his device, whether he was aware or not in the evidence presented about how device ‘caches’ work. In this context and with the NCA intelligence report from 2019 leading to an inference in what was being sought online I determine that the scale and depth of local and national concerns about such behaviour in a police officer would see any ordinary persons equipped with the facts highly concerned about this behaviour and the officer’s integrity when seeking out material against these terms.

12.11 I determine that his breaches of the professional standards of behaviour impact on the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole.

Aggravating Factors

12.12 Aggravating factors are those tending to worsen the circumstances of the case, in relation to either the officer’s culpability or the harm caused.

12.13 Here, I have been careful not to double count but in addition to those factors I have already identified I find the following present:

• significant deviation from instructions, whether an order, force policy or national guidance (allegation 3).
• regular, repeated or sustained behaviour over a period of time (allegation 4 between 2016 and 2020).
• failure to raise concerns or seek advice from a colleague or senior officer (allegation 2 and 3).
• multiple proven allegations and/or breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour (all allegations).
• Malign intent – personal advantage (allegation 4).

Mitigating Factors

12.14 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.

• Partial acceptance of responsibility as set out in the regulation18 response.

Assessment

12.15 I find culpability to be High and harm to be High.

Personal mitigation

13.0 Personal mitigation should always be considered but due to nature of conduct regime it is of limited weight. I have not received any formal personal mitigation from or on behalf of the former officer.

Outcome

14.0 I reminded myself of the threefold propose of the police misconduct regime, namely:

1. to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service.
2. to uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct.
3. to protect the public.

14.1 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.

14.2 Given the seriousness and nature of the misconduct I determine that concludes that the only appropriate action would be disciplinary action.

14.3 Having done so I have gone on to consider less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes as required.

14.4 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. In my determination it would not. The matter is serious, firstly, there are multiple breaches of the standards of professional behaviour spanning a period of time demonstrating non-compliance with the expected standards of behaviour required of him. Such behaviour calls into question his character and proves his incompatibility with holding the office of constable.

14.5 Second, proven dishonesty and a lack of integrity that are central to the services and the publics needs and expectations of officers and special constables. Given 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 at the centre of the UK’s model of policing nothing short of dismissal without notice, had he remained a serving special constable, would be required following the breach of the standard of professional behaviour I have found.

14.6 The outcome is, had he been a serving special constable, he would have been dismissed without notice.

Policing Baring List

15.0 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.

15.1 The AA is directed to consider Home Office guidance to the regulations paragraph 21.17 as it relates to informing the College of Policing of the reporting restrictions order and the grounds for that order as remarked by me at the end of the hearing.

Publication

16.0 I direct the AA to publish the final report in redacted form so to comply with the reporting restrictions I have set out in the order from today. That reporting restriction remains in place and applies to the public and media. Breaches come under the Contempt of Court Act. The former special constable is not to be named or anything else that may see jigsaw identification is to be published.

16.1 Whilst not named today in proceedings the 17-year-old from allegation 2 ([Redacted] CCTV) is provided with anonymity.

 

Appeal

17.0 The former special constable 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. The parameters for appeal are set out in the Home Office guidance to the regulations (2020) paragraphs 26.0 to 26.112 inclusive (pages 262 – 277).

ACO Nicholas Davison

Chair

22/09/2026

 

Appendix A

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020 AS AMMENDED (“THE REGULATIONS”)

AND IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ACCELERATED POLICE MISCONDUCT PANEL

IN RESPECT Hearing: CM63/22

REPORTING RESTRICTION ORDER

 

BEFORE Assistant Chief Officer Nicholas DAVISON, sitting as the Chair on Wednesday 16^th September 2026.

1. Upon the Chair having received written representations under Regulation 53(3) (b) and inviting submissions from the parties’ respective counsel and persons and bodies set out under regulations,

2. On this date, I impose, under PCR regulations 59(2)(a), a private hearing status such that the public and representatives of the media will be excluded from the hearing for the period of time dealing with any personal sensitive medical information concerning the former officer’s health if this arises. The hearing will remain a public hearing before and after such medical information.

3. I impose a reporting restriction under PCR regulation 59(2) (c) prohibiting the publication of any medical information / evidence relating to the former officer.

4. On this date, I place a reporting restriction on the former special constable’s true identity being known in public outside of the hearing room pursuant to Regulation 59(2) (c) of the Police Conduct Regulations 2020 as amended, such that:

This order prohibits the publishing or broadcasting in any newspaper, magazine, public computer, Internet website or online platform, social media platform, live streaming platform, sound or television broadcast or cable or satellite programme, or by any other means, of:

1. 1. anything which would or might serve to identify to the general public, including jigsaw identification, the true identity and name of [Redacted].
   2. Anything relating to personal sensitive medical information concerning [Redacted].

5. This full order shall have effect from 16th September 2026 and shall remain in effect until a further order.

6. No publication of the text or a summary of this order shall include the prohibited information described in paragraph 1 above, save for the purpose of the Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary serving it upon:

1. newspaper, sound or television broadcasting or cable or satellite or programme service or Internet website and/or their respective legal departments;
2. any other person as the Chief Constable may consider appropriate.

7. This order binds all persons and all companies, whether acting by their directors, officers, employees or agents or in any other way.

8. I direct a 15-minute reporting delay restriction on the hearing so to allow matters that arise that need restricting or are a breach of other directions issued can be dealt with.

9. There are to be no private recordings to be taken in the hearing.

10. Any representation seeking to vary or discharge this order, including by any news or media organisation, shall be made in writing to the Chair and addressed to the Hearings Manager, Norfolk & Suffolk PSD, OCC, Falconers Chase, Wymondham, Norfolk, NR18 0WW.

 

ACO N Davison

Chair

16^th September 2026