Current timestamp: 20/03/2025 08:42:51
AgeAlertAnonymousAppealsApplicationsApply Or RegisterArea OutlineArrow DownArrow LeftArrow RightArrow UpAutomatic DoorsBack ArrowBusinessCalendarCashArrow DownArrow LeftArrow RightArrow Down[Missing text '/SvgIcons/Symbols/Titles/icon-chrome' for 'English (United Kingdom)']ClockCloseContactDirectionsDocumentDownloadDrawDrugExpandExternal LinkFacebookFb CommentFb LikeFiletype DefaultFiletype DocFiletype PdfFiletype PptFiletype XlsFinance[Missing text '/SvgIcons/Symbols/Titles/icon-firefox' for 'English (United Kingdom)']First AidFlickrFraudGive FeedbackGlobeGuide DogHealthHearing ImpairedInduction LoopInfoInstagramIntercom[Missing text '/SvgIcons/Symbols/Titles/icon-internet-explorer' for 'English (United Kingdom)']LaptopLiftLinkedinLocal ActivityLoudspeakerLow CounterMailMapMap PinMembershipMenuMenu 2[Missing text '/SvgIcons/Symbols/Titles/icon-microsoft-edge' for 'English (United Kingdom)']Missing PeopleMobility ImpairmentNationalityNorth PointerOne Mile RadiusOverviewPagesPaper PlaneParkingPdfPhonePinterestPlayPushchairRefreshReportRequestRestart[Missing text '/SvgIcons/Symbols/Titles/icon-rotate-clockwise' for 'English (United Kingdom)']Rss[Missing text '/SvgIcons/Symbols/Titles/icon-safari' for 'English (United Kingdom)']SearchShareSign LanguageSnapchatStart AgainStatsStats And Prevention AdviceStopSubscribeTargetTattosTell Us AboutTickTumblrTwenty Four HoursTwitter LikeTwitter ReplyTwitter RetweetUploadVisually ImpairedWhatsappWheelchairWheelchair AssistedWheelchair ParkingWheelchair RampWheelchair WcYoutubeZoom InZoom Out

Leave this site

Skip to main content

Skip to main navigation

Welcome

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.

PC Anthony Orr

SUFFOLK CONSTABULARY

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE ACT 1996

AND

 THE POLICE CONDUCT REGULATIONS 2020

AS AMENDED BY

THE POLICE (CONDUCT)(AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2024

NOTIFICATION OF FINDINGS AND OUTCOME: REGULATION 43 REPORT

PC 1576 ANTHONY ORR

Hearing

18-20 February 2025

In person hearing at Landmark House, Ipswich, Suffolk

Panel

Chair: ACC Nicholas Davison

Independent panel member:  Anne Gibson

Independent panel member: Debbie Wootton.

Legally Qualified Person/Advisor: Jane Jones

Representatives

Counsel for Appropriate Authority: Andrew Waters

Counsel for Officer: Rina-Marie Hill

Police Federation: PC Helen Staff

 

Decisions Summary

The decision of the panel is that the facts as set out in the Alleged Conduct part of the Regulation 30 Notice are proved.

This conduct comprised giving a lift to a heavily intoxicated female and deliberately touching her breasts on several occasions. The conduct was sexual. 

The Standards of Professional Behaviour breached are

  • Authority, Respect and Courtesy
  • Discreditable Conduct

 

The conduct amounts to Gross Misconduct.

The outcome is that the Officer was dismissed without notice.

 

A. Introduction

(ii) This is a record of the decision of a Police Misconduct Panel held under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, as amended in 2024, in relation to PC 1576 Anthony (Tony) Orr. He is referred to in this document as the Officer. The Officer was present throughout almost all of the proceedings.

(ii) There may be slight differences between this written document as compared to any full transcript of the hearing. If that is the case, this written document should be regarded as the definitive version.

(iii) This report has been drafted by the LQP but has been adopted by the Panel who have had the opportunity to amend it. The panel members understand that they are ultimately responsible for both the decisions they have made and the explanation of those decisions. The Panel have considered this case in detail and with great care, including taking an active role in questioning the complainant and the Officer.

(iv) The hearing was conducted in person from Landmark House in Ipswich, Suffolk.

(v) A public notice giving details of the hearing was published on the Suffolk Constabulary website in the usual way and for the requisite period. Members of the general public, including the media, were permitted to have access to the proceedings in person and did so throughout.

(vi) At the pre-hearing the Chair asked both parties to confirm whether there were any Equality Act matters to be raised, either for reasonable adjustments in respect of the hearing, or relating to protected characteristics to be considered by the panel in terms of conduct or mitigation. No such matters were raised at the pre-hearing or during the full hearing of this case. There has been no submission suggesting that any aspect of these proceedings amounts to unlawful discrimination.

 

B.   The Regime

The police misconduct regime was applied as follows:

(i) The proceedings were conducted under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, the matter in question having come to the attention of the relevant Appropriate Authority after February 2020.

(ii) The first tranche of the 2024 Police (Conduct) (Amendments) Regulations, principally affecting the constitution of the panel, is now in force. These proceedings were therefore chaired by a senior police officer because the Regulation 30 Notice was served after 7th May 2024.

(iii) Other changes to the regime are anticipated but the second tranche of proposed amendments has not yet come into force.

(iv) The relevant Home Office Guidance is the February 2020 version.

(v) The relevant Guidance on Outcomes is the August 2022 version, but as this is identical to the March 2023 version, which also has paragraph numbers, the latter was used for ease of reference.

(vi) The College of Policing’s Code of Practice for Ethical Policing came into effect on 6th December 2023. This is guidance for senior officers and post-dates the relevant conduct.

(vii) The College of Policing’s Guidance for Ethical Policing and Professional Behaviour in Policing and its Ethical Policing Principles were both published on 24th January 2024. These documents together in effect replace the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics in relation to conduct, but they were not available to officers in January 2023, which is the time of the relevant conduct in this case. The Panel therefore held the Officer accountable for his conduct in accordance with the ‘old’ Code of Ethics, the only document that would have been available to him.

 

C.  Background

(i) In January 2023 the Officer had been a police officer for 17 years. For the preceding three years he has been part of a Safer Neighbourhood Team, and his role entailed dealing with non-urgent calls from the public. A marked pool vehicle was provided to him for this role.

(ii) During the late evening of [redacted] January 2023 the Officer, who was single crewed, gave a lift home to heavily intoxicated female, Miss A. The journey lasted just 18 minutes. Immediately after she got out of his vehicle, she reported that he had repeatedly touched her breasts under the guise of attempting to check her seatbelt. The Officer did not inform anyone within the police that he was going to take Miss A home, nor create any record of the journey.

(iii) The ‘facts’ as outlined in the statements of several witnesses who observed Miss A at various stages of the evening are not rehearsed in detail in this report but are largely uncontroversial. Where there have been differences between these accounts, they have not been considered germane to the issues in dispute. There is a general consensus about how much Miss A drank and her general behaviour before getting into the police vehicle.

(iv) The Findings part of this report reflects those matters on which the Panel was obliged to make a judgement according to the relevant legal principles.

 

D.  Allegations; The Appropriate Authority’s position

(i) The Appropriate Authority served a Regulation 30 Notice on the Officer on 23.09.24. This sets out a single allegation against the Officer, which is set out in full in paragraph K below.

(ii) The Appropriate Authority submitted that if the conduct described was found proved it would engage the Standards of Professional Conduct in respect of

  • Authority, Respect and Courtesy
  • Discreditable Conduct

The Standards of Professional Behaviour are all set out in Schedule 2 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. Details of how to meet the Standards are set out in the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics. This provides, so far as is relevant to this case:

 

Authority, Respect and Courtesy

Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence, whether on or off duty.

(iii) The Appropriate Authority said that if the allegations were proved, the conduct would amount to gross misconduct.

 

E.  The Officer’s position

(i) The Officer attended a criminal interview as part of the formal investigation on 23 February 2023. He submitted a prepared written statement on legal advice and answered “no comment” to all questions put to him.

(ii) A conduct interview took place on 12 March 2023 and again the Officer provided a written response and answered “no comment” to all questions put to him.

(iii) The Officer submitted further detailed written submissions on 6 April 2023.

(iv) In his Regulation 31 Response he adopted the prepared statements previously submitted and went on to give a summary of his account of events. He accepted that he was on duty on the relevant dates and in the circumstances described. He accepted that he gave a lift to Miss A. The Officer did not accept that he deliberately touched Miss A in the manner she described. He said that he assisted her in fastening her seatbelt, but if there had been any subsequent touching it was accidental, and he was unaware of it. He denied any sexual contact or that he conducted himself improperly in any way.

 

F.  Pre-hearing

(i) There was a pre-hearing on 21 November 2024 and a summary of the decisions made by the Chair then has been circulated to the parties. The matter was subsequently set down for a contested hearing.

(ii) Prior to the full public hearing the Chair dealt with one matter that had not been resolved at the pre-hearing. This was a contested application to admit ‘similar fact’ evidence, relating to a previous finding of sexual misconduct against the Officer in 2009. At the pre-hearing the Chair directed that both Counsel provide him with written submissions, which they did. He then received written advice from the LQP, which was circulated to both Counsel. On the first morning of the hearing the Chair heard further oral submissions from both Counsel and made a decision that the facts of the previous finding should be admitted as evidence in these proceedings. In the interests of fairness to both parties an agreed form of wording was prepared in respect of the salient facts, and this was read out into the record of the hearing.

 

G.  Evidence considered

(i) During the course of this hearing the Panel has considered the whole bundle of written evidence presented in this case, all of which had been read in advance of the hearing. This includes witness statements from the friends/colleagues of Miss A who witnessed her and the Officer on the evening in question.

(ii) The Panel also viewed, both individually and as a Panel, the various CCTV /video evidence served in advance and presented by the AA. This included body worn video (BWV) evidence of the attendance of officers on Miss A on [redacted] January 2023, which had not been served in advance of the hearing.

(iii) The Panel was also able to hear the recording of the 999 call made by Miss A.

(iv) The Panel heard live evidence from Ms A, given via video link and with the provision of screens.

(v) The Panel considered the detailed prepared statements submitted by the Officer during the investigation. He also gave live evidence on his own behalf during the proceedings. The jacket he was wearing on the night was produced and he demonstrated the way the cuffs fitted over his hands.

(vi) The Panel did not draw any inferences from the Officer’s no comment responses in interview and was not asked to do so.

(vii) The Panel also considered ten character witness statements submitted on behalf of the Officer during the fact-finding part of their deliberations. These were regarded as having only very limited weight in the circumstances.

(viii) The Panel was also cognisant of the previous finding of misconduct against the Officer, the nature of which was significant, and prevented the Office being considered as a person of good character.

 

H.  Approach to decision making

These proceedings were held to determine whether the conduct of the Officer breached any Standards of Professional Behaviour, whether such conduct amounted to misconduct, gross misconduct or indeed neither, and whether disciplinary action should be imposed.

The approach taken by the panel was to:

(i) Firstly, ascertain the facts, bearing in mind what was and what was not in dispute

(ii) Determine, on the basis of those facts, whether any Standards of Professional Behaviour had been breached

(iii) Then to decide whether any breach as found amounted to Misconduct, Gross Misconduct or indeed neither.

(iv) As appropriate, to decide what the outcome should be.

 

I.  Burden and Standard of Proof

(i) In making decisions the Panel was mindful of the fact that the burden of proving the case was on the Appropriate Authority.

(ii) The standard of proof applied by the Panel was the balance of probabilities, the civil standard. Conduct will be proved on the balance of probabilities if the Panel is satisfied by the evidence that it is more likely than not that the conduct occurred. The balance of probabilities is a single unvarying standard. The Panel understood that the seriousness of the allegations and/or the seriousness of the consequences for the Officer do not require a different standard of proof, merely careful consideration by the Panel before it is satisfied of the matters which have to be established. The inherent probability or improbability of the conduct occurring is itself a matter to be taken into account when deciding whether, on the balance of probabilities, the conduct occurred. (as per section 9.10 HOG)

 

J.  General Panel Comments

(i) The Panel bore in mind that an allegation can be found proved by an admission. Although there were broad areas of consensus regarding the fact that the Officer did give Miss A a lift and dropped her off close to her home address, there were no admissions from the Officer as to the nub of the allegations, and so admissions were not relied on by the Panel in this case.

(ii) The Defence case was put on the basis that the complainant may have believed that she was telling the truth, but she was in fact mistaken, due to her intoxication. It was suggested that she was not a reliable witness.

(iii) The Panel had no criticism of the mere fact that the Officer offered a lift to Miss A, or that he drove her home, given her state of intoxication and the general circumstances. Such an act, if motivated by a genuine concern for her welfare and conducted professionally, was not in any way inconsistent with the Officer’s duties.

 

K.  Findings

The Panel’s findings in respect of the facts are as follows:

Allegation:

On [redacted] January 2023, whilst on duty in a marked police vehicle in Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, you gave a lift to a heavily intoxicated female to her home address [redacted], Suffolk. During the journey you deliberately touched her breasts on several occasions.

(i) The point is not taken, nor it is urged by either party, that the lift did not quite reach the destination of the complainant’s home address. She was in fact dropped close to [redacted], near to her home address, apparently at her request. The difference is of no consequence.

(ii) It was accepted by the Officer that he was on duty in a marked police vehicle in Bury St. Edmunds, in Suffolk and that he gave a lift to Miss A. It is also common ground, and abundantly clear from multiple sources of evidence, that Miss A was heavily intoxicated. That much is not in contention. The nub of the case was whether, during the journey, the Officer deliberately touched her breasts on several occasions. There were only two people present and there is no other contemporaneous evidence for those most vital 18 minutes. The Panel therefore first examined carefully the evidence of those two people.

(iii) The evidence of Miss A is seen in the context of the various contemporaneous evidence. Immediately after getting out of the police car, she rang her work friend and boss [Person X], who was still in the pub. This witness was sober and a [redacted]. She described the phone call from Miss A, saying she was hysterical, that she had run away, she said that he “kept touching her" when he was putting on her seatbelt. The friend challenged her by asking whether he was not just making sure she was safe. She said Miss A got angry and shouted at the top of her voice that he was not just checking. Miss A had instinctively and strongly rebuffed that suggestion.

(iv) Whilst still walking home Miss A called the police. This was unprompted. The Panel had the advantage of hearing the recording of this 999 call. Miss A said to the operator that she “was brought home by a police officer tonight and felt that he was touching me inappropriately”. There is great emotion in her voice. She apologised and said that they (the police) are trying to help. She went on to say, “he kept touching my seatbelt and saying ‘is it tight?’, and it was round against my boobs”. Also, she stated “I felt like he was touching me across the boobs”. She clarified this several times to the operator.

(v) Another witness [Person Y], a former [redacted], says she knew of the phone conversation with the [Person X] in the pub and was concerned enough to immediately attend, together with her husband, at Miss A’s home There Miss A, unsolicited, told her that “he was groping me, pretending to see if my seat belt was done up. He kept touching me”. It was the view of this witness that Miss A had sobered up considerably by this point.

(vi) So, the Panel had evidence of three contemporaneous complaints. They also had the evidence of Miss A’s partner when she arrived home, and the recording of the call he made to the police which demonstrated his concern for her welfare. All of this evidence is consistent, both with regards to content and demeanour.

(vii) At approximately 23.41hrs police Sergeants F and G attended Miss A’s home address. The whole of their interaction with Miss A is recorded on both of their BWV all of which the panel viewed. Again, there was a marked consistency in the evidence and demeanour of Miss A. “He kept touching my boobs and he kept saying ‘is your seatbelt tight?’.” This occurred both before and after the stop [redacted]. She demonstrated to the officers how she was touched. She made various “classic victim self-blaming” statements. Her obvious emotional state did not detract from the fact that her descriptions were consistent with those given to her two colleagues and the 999 operator. Whilst she had clearly been in drink, the BWV shows that she was coherent and in charge of what she was saying.

(viii) The following day, Miss A was seen again by two other officers, Sgt H and another officer, and again the whole of this meeting was also captured by BWV. The account she gave to those officers became her main statement. Again, with regards to the issue in question her account is consistent with the numerous accounts given the previous evening.

(ix) Finally, Miss A gave evidence via video in the hearing. She maintained that she was touched across the breast area, that his hand slid up the seatbelt, from the clip to her chest, in a slow brushed motion. She was adamant that this was “skin on skin” and that she was not mistaken about the contact not being with the cuff of the Officer’s jacket. She said that “skin is very different to jacket material”. She did not accept that she had been fiddling with her seatbelt during the journey. She dismissed the suggestion that the touching might have been accidental. She pointed out that the contact was unnecessary to secure the seatbelt, which the Officer had checked in the “clicker” at the start of the journey, and that there was no indication from the “bleeper” that it had become undone. She maintained that the touching occurred on more than one occasion, although was reluctant to put a specific number on this.

(x)There is no escaping the fact that Miss A was intoxicated on the night. The Panel acknowledge the effects of alcohol, not least on the memory. However, the way she engaged with the 999 operator was coherent, self-critical, and consistent. Her demeanour an hour later is a matter of record, and the Panel can see that she was coherent, able to engage with the officers at her home address, and able to demonstrate what had happened to her. The Panel acknowledge that there is an important difference between not being able to have a full recollection of events because of the consumption of alcohol, and alcohol leading to the hallucinatory effect of false memories. Miss Hill has submitted on behalf of the Officer that intoxication can impact on perception and judgement. The Defence did not suggest that Miss A was lying but mistaken because of the impact of intoxication. The Panel was not persuaded by this. The Panel did accept that there were inconsistencies in her account on some details, principally with regards to locations, but there are no inconsistencies in relation to her account of the touching. She had remembered the event that was remarkable. That had remained the case over two years.

(xi) Miss A had an opportunity to embellish her evidence in the hearing, but she did not take it. Overall, the Panel considered the evidence given by Miss A to be believable and consistent in respect of the core allegation. She was a very credible witness. Her initial disbelief that he could be a real police officer arose purely from an innate faith that a real officer could not have acted in this way.

(xii) The Panel did not doubt that the evidence given by Miss A is what she honestly believed to have happened. The Defence, in submissions, also accepted as much. The Panel recognised that this was not the same as whether what she said was in fact the truth. Nevertheless, the Panel considered on the balance of probabilities that it was indeed the truth. The Panel found that the touching did occur as described, that it did take place on more than one occasion and that it was deliberate.

(xiii) It is apparent that in accepting the evidence of Miss A, the Panel has rejected the explanations put forward by the Officer. The Panel has not considered each witness in isolation. The consistency between the accounts of Miss A and the Officer are remarkable, but of course they differ on the central matter. To some extent this alignment adds to the credibility of both witnesses.

(xiv) The Officer’s evidence was largely contained within his pre-prepared statements, but the Panel also had the opportunity to assess him giving live evidence in the course of these proceeding. His position has been consistent to the extent that he maintains any touching during the journey, if it happened at all, was accidental. The Panel considered that there may be a minor inconsistency in his accounts concerning the direction of his movements when testing the seatbelt, but it is of little consequence. There was no possibility in the Officer’s version of his hand arriving in the position on Miss A’s chest area that she described. His explanation about one possible time when he checked her seatbelt by pulling it forward and/or upwards, does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the multiple touching described by Miss A.

(xv) The jacket, the Panel believed, was largely a red herring, although the Panel did appreciate that the cuffs might make contact when the hands did not. The Panel did not think that this accounted for the contact described by Miss A.

(xvi) In cross-examination the AA took the Officer through all occasions when there was any possibility of physical contact. This is a matter of record and not replicated in here but is at the heart of the matter. None of these potential contacts leads to a touching on the breast area. Given that the Officer checked the seatbelt was securely fastened at the start of the journey, that Miss A had confirmed as much, and the “beeper” never sounded, the actions that the Officer described were simply unnecessary. His explanation lacked logic.

(xvii) The Panel preferred the evidence of Miss A to that of the Officer and was able to find this allegation proved purely on this evidence.

(xviii) The evidence relating to character and the previous finding against the Officer only added to the weight of evidence against the Officer.

(xix) Miss A was be regarded as a person of good character as far as these proceedings were concerned. It was not suggested that she was motivated by mischief or malice. She was not accused of lying, even by the Defence.

(xx) The Defence introduced evidence of the Officer’s general good character in ten witness statements from his friends and colleagues. These speak of a man who is always willing to help, supportive of colleagues and very experienced. Colleagues say that he has a caring nature and a common-sense approach to problem solving. These character witness statements were taken into account by the Panel in considering propensity at this decision-making stage. They have however been given limited weight in the circumstances. There are comments within some of these statements which are simply inconsistent with the Officer’s previous conduct as admitted.

(xxi) The Officer cannot enjoy the benefit of a good character direction, given the finding of sexual misconduct recorded against him in 2009. This was relevant because it impacted on propensity; it was a matter of agreed fact that on a previous occasion he was prepared, whilst on duty, to cross a professional boundary with a vulnerable member of the public for the purpose of sexual gratification.

(xxii) The 2009 misconduct finding is also relevant because of the way in which this might reasonably have been expected to impact on his future conduct. The Officer accepted in evidence that giving a lift to an intoxicated woman at night, whilst he was single crewed, made him vulnerable to a false allegation of this very nature. It is reasonable, given the impact on his life that he described following the previous finding, that he would take steps to mitigate this vulnerability. This might have been achieved in various ways, not all of which the Officer can properly counter. He has said that he did not ask for back-up from other officers because of a belief that none was available. A simple check would have only taken a minute or two and would at least have alerted others to his situation. There was no plausible explanation as to why he did not, at the very least, notify his control room. This is significant. He made no entry in a pocket notebook, despite having one with him. He did nothing to ensure that there was any police record whatsoever of Miss A getting into his vehicle. It is notable that one of Miss A’s friends gave his phone number to the Officer, but the Officer did not give his details to anyone. He also actively discouraged Miss A from speaking on her phone during the journey. Taken individually these factors may be inconsequential; taken together the Panel considered they suggested an element of opportunism which was difficult to resist.

(xxiii) Sexual nature of the touching: The final point to be addressed at this fact-finding stage was whether the touching found proved should be regarded as sexual. The Panel concluded that the touching was unwanted, non-consensual, deliberate and sexual. Neither party sought to dissuade the Panel that if a finding of deliberate touching was proved the matter should not be regarded as sexual. The Panel was reminded of the comments of Mr Justice Jay in The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v A Police Misconduct Panel (Javeed) [2003] EWHC 2693(KB) where he made some salient observations about whether a given set of facts should be regarded as sexual in nature: “…section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applies by analogy. Some actions are inherently or by their very nature sexual: see section 78(a); others may be sexual, depending on all the circumstances, including the inferences to be drawn from any explanation, or the lack of it, given by the individual in question.”

 

L.  Standards of Professional Behaviour

Having found this allegation proved the Panel went on to consider whether this conduct has engaged any of the suggested Standards of Professional Behaviour.

(xxiv) The Panel considered that the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of Authority, Respect and Courtesy, and Discreditable Conduct are both engaged. This is because the sexual touching of Miss A was disrespectful to her, and the conduct would undermine public confidence.

M.  Misconduct or Gross Misconduct

(i) The Panel was then obliged under Regulation 41(15) (b) of the 2020 Conduct Regulations to decide whether the conduct as found amounts to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.

Under Regulation 2(1) ‘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.

The AA have submitted that the conduct as alleged amounts to gross misconduct and the Officer conceded that if the allegation was proved the conduct would amount to gross misconduct.

 

(ii) The Panel determined that the conduct overall does amounts to gross misconduct. This was because it involved an on-duty uniformed officer abusing his position to touch a female member of the public, who was in a vulnerable position by virtue of her intoxication. That is not to say that had the Officer not been in uniform or on duty the classification of this event would have been otherwise, but in this instance these factors identified him as someone who the complainant should have been justified in trusting, and who should not have abused that trust.

 

N.  Approach to Outcome

(i) The Officer chose to absent himself from the Outcome stage of the proceedings but continued to be ably represented by his Counsel. The Panel was invited to proceed in the Officer’s absence and was content to do so.

(ii) The approach taken by the Panel when considering sanction was that identified by Mr Popplewell J in Fuglers LLP v SRA [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin) which is in these terms:

“There are three stages to the approach which should be adopted (by a solicitor’s disciplinary tribunal) in determining sanction. The first stage is to assess the seriousness of the misconduct. The second stage is to keep in mind the purpose for which sanctions are imposed by such a tribunal. The third stage is to choose the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.”

(iii) Seriousness

So, firstly, the Panel assessed the seriousness of the conduct, having regard to the general framework of the Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings issued by the College of Policing (The Guidance).

It was appreciated that this is a guide and does not override the Panel’s discretion. The Panel had regard to the four categories or reference points outlined in the Guidance.  The Guidance invites a Panel to assess the seriousness of the proven conduct by reference to the Officer’s culpability, any harm caused, and the existence of any aggravating and mitigating factors. There is some overlap between these and the Panel was careful not to “double count”.

(iv) Culpability

This denotes an officer’s blameworthiness or responsibility for his actions.

  • The Officer here must take full responsibility for his conduct. The Panel considered that the conduct was intentional and deliberate, although opportunistic rather than pre-planned.
  • The Officer was in a position of trust and responsibility. He made a decision to take care of Miss A because of her temporary vulnerability, but then he abused the trust she placed in him.
  • There is a relevant previous finding against him of serious conduct also concerning a vulnerable victim and sexual conduct.
  • The Officer was on duty, in unform, in marked police vehicle; the absolute personification of the police service. It involves a fundamental breach of the public’s trust in police officers and inevitably brings the profession in disrepute.
  • This was a sexual matter and a serious impropriety which would significantly undermine public trust in the profession.
  • This conduct is a form of violence against women and as such para 4.61 reminds the Panel of the need to make it clear that conduct of this nature is wholly unacceptable. The Panel understands the importance of setting clear expectations within the service and the public as to the seriousness with which such matters are to be treated.

Not surprisingly, the Panel assessed culpability as high.

(v) Harm

  • There was here a high degree of harm to Miss A. She became very distressed, and this incident made her question her faith in the police.
  • The reputational harm in this case is very significant. The impact on public confidence should not be underestimated.
  • For an on-duty Officer to engage in this conduct of a sexual nature against a member of the public who had looked to him for protection is reprehensible. This impacts not only locally on the communities that rely on Suffolk Constabulary but has national impact.

The level of harm is therefore high.

(vi) Aggravating factors

The Panel identified taking deliberate steps for sexual gratification, but there were no novel features here beyond those already noted above.

(vii) Mitigating factors

Apart from acknowledging that this was a single episode of relatively brief duration, there was nothing identified by the Panel as amounting to mitigation of this matter.

Overall, the Panel’s assessment of seriousness is that it is high.

 

O.  Personal Mitigation

(i) The 2020 Home Office Guidance says that the purpose of misconduct proceedings is to be “fair to the individual who is subject to the process, as well as all parties involved” in order to arrive “at a correct assessment of the matter in question and [provide] public and policing confidence in the system.” The Panel therefore considered carefully the scope for personal mitigation in this case.

(ii) The Panel considered the personal mitigation put forward on behalf of the Officer, such as it was, only after forming an assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct, as recommended by para 6.2 of the Guidance on Outcomes.

(iii) The personal mitigation in this case arose only from the contents of the character references. These speak of a longstanding officer who is well regarded by colleagues, has a common-sense approach to problem solving and policing and is often found helping others. The Panel were given no other details of the Officer’s personal circumstances.

(iv) The Panel noted the Officer’s Record of Service, in particular the letter of commendation in 2009 for an investigation that led to arrest and admissions in respect of over 50 offences across 5 counties.

(v) A long line of caselaw confirms that the protection of the public and the interests of the profession should be given greater weight than personal mitigation. In Williams (The Queen (on the application of Williams) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2016] EWHC 2708(QB) Holroyde J made the following remarks:

 “In my judgement, the importance of maintaining public confidence in and respect for the police service is constant, regardless of the nature of the gross misconduct under consideration. What may vary will be the extent to which the particular gross misconduct threatens the preservation of such confidence and respect. The more it does so, the less weight can be given to personal mitigation…

 “This does not mean, of course, that personal mitigation is to be ignored. Nothing in the Salter principle suggests it must be ignored. On the contrary, it must always be taken into account. I therefore reject the submission that the effect of the Salter principle is that dismissal will invariably be the sanction whenever gross misconduct is proved. But where the gross misconduct threatens the maintenance of public confidence and respect in the police….”

(iv) The Panel understood that due to the purpose of disciplinary proceedings the impact of personal mitigation would necessarily be limited, and that less weight could be attached to personal mitigation where serious misconduct of this nature was found.

 

P.  Purpose of Misconduct Proceedings

(i) In determining outcome, the Panel kept in mind the threefold purpose for which outcomes are imposed in police misconduct proceedings; these are

(ii) To maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service

(iii) To uphold the high standards in policing and deter misconduct

(iv) To protect the public.

(v) The first of these is the most important purpose and takes precedence over the specific impact that a sanction has on the individual whose misconduct is being sanctioned.

(vi) The Panel took account of the comments of Lord Carswell in the decision of the House of Lords in R (Green) v Police Complaints Authority [2004] UKHL 6 at paragraph 78:

 “Public confidence in the police is a factor of great importance in the maintenance of law and order in the manner which we regard as appropriate in our polity. If citizens feel that improper behaviour on the part of police officers is left unchecked and they are not held accountable for it in a suitable manner that confidence will be eroded.”

Q.  Outcome

(i) Before determining outcome the Panel had regard to

  • The Officer’s record of police service
  • The character references submitted
  • The representations made on behalf of the Officer
  • Representations made by the Appropriate Authority

(ii) The Panel went on to choose the outcome which most appropriately fulfilled the purpose of the proceedings, given the level of seriousness.

Gross misconduct is by definition conduct, which is so serious as to justify dismissal, but it does not necessarily follow that in every case of gross misconduct dismissal will occur.

(iii) The only outcomes that were available in this case were a final written warning, or dismissal without notice. The Panel considered the less serious outcome first.

(iv) The Panel understood that the outcome was not designed to be punitive but appreciated that it may have that effect.

(v)Given that this conduct involves the deliberate and repeated sexual touching of a vulnerable female by an officer on duty, the Panel was not satisfied that a final written warning would suffice to maintain public confidence.

(vi) The only available outcome that the Panel considered would be sufficient to satisfy the stated purposes was that of dismissal without notice. A clear message was required to the public and other officers that conduct of this nature is not compatible with the status of a serving police officer.

(vii) The outcome imposed by the Panel was therefore dismissal without notice.

 

ACC Davison

Panel Chair

Date 25 February 2025