PC Brazier & PC Motlib

Suffolk Constabulary Misconduct Hearing

Officers: Police Constable 1227 BRAZIER and Police Constable 1073 MOTLIB

Dates: Monday 27^th – Friday 31^st January 2025 and Thursday 6^th – Friday 7^th February 2025

Location: Suffolk Constabulary, Landmark House, Ipswich

Panel: Chair - Ms Sujata SHARMA, Independent Panel Member Mr Kevin ROGERS and Police Panel Member Superintendent Jonathan Chapman

 

Panel finds and outcome document.

1. Summary of Allegation

PC Brazier

The AA maintains that there has been a breach of the following Standards of Professional Behaviour by PC Brazier. The following is set out by the AA in the Reg 30 Notice, from which we quote: -

1 Honesty and Integrity

In that you acted dishonestly and/or without integrity, in that:

1. You failed to record any information and/or the connection between Male A and Male B as set out at paragraph 22.
2. Together with PC Motlib, either directly or indirectly, you caused Male B to feel threatened, shocked and afraid as set out at paragraphs 37, 38, 40, 43, 45 and 49.
3. You failed to alert a supervisor to your conduct as set out at 1 (b) in the Particulars of Conduct.
4. Having viewed the crime report on 17 August 2021, as set out at paragraph 51, you failed to inform any officer that the report potentially related to your mobile telephone and the actions of yourself and/or PC Motlib.

2 Authority, Respect and Courtesy

 In that the language directed to Male B and as set out at paragraph 38 could reasonably be perceived to be abusive or offensive by the public or your policing colleagues.

3 Confidentiality

Your behaviour as set out in paragraphs 24, 25 and 51 has breached this Standard. You used police systems to search for and/or access crime reports when there was no policing purpose so to do and/or for personal reasons.

4 Discreditable Conduct

In that your behaviour as set out in paragraphs 22, 30, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45 and 49 and (1) - (3) and (5) of the Particulars of Misconduct have discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence in it.

5 Failure to Challenge

In that you failed:

1. 2021. To challenge your policing colleague PC Motlib and his conduct on 10 August 2021.
   2022. To report your policing colleague PC Motlib for his conduct on 10 August 2021.
   2023. To alert a line manager or supervisor to the conduct of PC Motlib on 10 August 2021.
   2024. Having viewed the crime report on 17 August 2021, as set out at paragraph 51, to inform any officer that the report potentially related to your mobile telephone and the actions of yourself and/or PC Motlib.”

PC Brazier accepts a breach of Standard 5 (a), (b) and (c) above (Failure to Challenge) but does not accept he breached the other Standards.

PC Motlib

The AA maintains that there has been a breach of the following Standards of Professional Behaviour by PC Motlib. The following is set out by the AA in the Reg 30 Notice from which we quote: -

1 Honesty and Integrity

In that you acted dishonestly and/or without integrity, in that:

1. Together with PC Brazier, either directly or indirectly, you caused Male B to feel threatened, shocked and afraid as set out at paragraphs 37, 38, 40, 43, 45 and 49.
2. You failed to alert a supervisor to your conduct as set out at 1 in the Particulars of Conduct.

2 Authority, Respect and Courtesy

In that the language directed to Male B and as set out at paragraph 38 could reasonably be perceived to be abusive or offensive by the public or your policing colleagues.

3 Discreditable Conduct

 In that your behaviour as set out in paragraphs 37, 38, 40, 43, 45 and 49 and (1) - (2) and (4) of the Particulars of Misconduct have discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence in it.

4 Failure to Challenge

In that you failed:

1. to challenge your policing colleague PC Brazier and his conduct on 10 August 2021
2. To report your policing colleague PC Brazier for his conduct on 10 August 2021”

2. Regulation 41 (5) : Officer’s Acceptance of Conduct Amounting to Misconduct/ Gross Misconduct.

At the commencement of this hearing, the Panel asked the officers, pursuant to Regulation 41 (5) of the Police Conduct Regulations 2020 whether they accepted that their conduct amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct.

PC Brazier stated that he accepted the following as amounting to misconduct; his failure to challenge (Particulars of Misconduct 5, (a), (b) and (c) but he did not accept the others.

PC Motlib did not accept any of the Particulars of Misconduct amounting to either misconduct or gross misconduct.

3. This Hearing:

This hearing took place from 27^th January to 31 January 2025. The panel retired to deliberate on 6^th February 2025 and then read out this decision in open court on 7^th February 2025.

4. Documents Reviewed

The Panel were presented with a bundle of documents comprising 877 pages, together with several videos.  In this decision, where relevant, we refer to the relevant pages of the bundle of documents.

We considered all the evidence before us in making our decision. Any matters we were asked to put out of our minds in reaching our decision as a result of our preliminary rulings, we did so. Such matters were not considered at all in our decision-making process.

5. Burden of Proof

The burden of proof falls on the AA to prove the allegations to the requisite standard. In determining issues of fact, the Panel is required to apply the civil standard of proof namely, that of the balance of probabilities. That is the standard which we applied. This test requires us to consider whether it is more likely than not that the conduct occurred.

6. Law, Guidance and Code

The Panel considered and applied all areas of relevant law including the following: -

6.1 The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (“PCR”) – the Standards of Professional Behaviour are set out in the Schedule 2.

Para 4(9),PCR was considered, namely: “Where an appropriate authority is considering more than one allegation in relation to the same police officer, or person in relation to whom these Regulations apply by virtue of paragraph (2), the allegations may be taken together and treated as a single allegation for the purposes of any provision of these Regulations which requires a person to make an assessment, finding, determination or decision in connection with conduct which is the subject matter of an allegation.”

6.2 The Statutory Guidance on Professional Standards, Performance and Integrity in Policing Issued by the Home Office (“the 2020 HOG”) – particularly Sections 1 to 3 which detail the Standards, and the procedures expected to be followed.

6.3 The Code of Ethics.

6.4 The College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) provides that, ‘Every police officer, member of police staff, police community support officer, special constable, volunteer, processor, contractor and approved persons working for or on behalf of the police who have access to personal data are required to comply  with the requirements of the DPA and UK GDPR, and any supporting local policy or procedure designed to help establish compliance.’

7. Preliminary Issues

7.1: Admissibility of Male B’s Evidence

The Panel considered the preliminary issue of whether to admit Male B’s evidence on the basis that he would not be attending this hearing to give evidence.

In making its determination on whether Male B’s evidence should be admitted, the Panel took account of all the helpful oral and written submissions which Mr Holdcroft (for the AA) , Mr Parham (for PC Brazier) and Ms Felix ( for PC Motlib)  made (although the Panel do not refer to all of their  submissions in our reasoning).  

The Panel determined that Male B’s evidence should not be admitted as hearsay. To admit it would be unfair and not in the interest of justice.

If it was to be admitted, it would carry low weight. Considering a breach of a standard based on evidence with low weight would lead the panel to dismiss this.

Applying the principles established in the case of Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council (2014) EWHC 1565, the Panel performed a careful balancing exercise when determining whether to admit Male B’s witness statement as hearsay evidence.

(i) The Panel considered whether his statement was the sole or decisive evidence in support of the charges. For the allegation set out in the Standard of Professional Behaviour 2 for each officer, para 38 (b), regulation 30 Notice, was the sole evidence

(ii) The Panel considered the extent and nature of the challenge to the contents of Male B’s witness statement. Both PC Brazier and PC Motlib challenged what was said by Male B.  Further, Male B’s evidence was also challenged in the Crown Court case, albeit the challenge was for a different reason. By not having Male B present as a witness, the words cannot be challenged in relation to this purpose.

(iii) The Panel considered the seriousness of the charges. The charges against both officers are serious as if they are upheld, the officers could be dismissed.

(iv) The Panel considered whether there was a good reason for Male B’s non -attendance. Male B said that he was [redacted], he had said all he needed to in the Crown Court case, he could not go through the process again and recently had a [redacted]. We sympathized with Male B’s situation. We found however, that measures could have been taken had the Panel known earlier that Male B would not be attending.

(v) Did the AA take reasonable steps to secure Male B’s attendance? On 7 Aug 2024, the Chair determined, applying para 32 (5) of the 2020 Regulations that it was in the interest of justice for Male B to attend. All parties agreed. Had the Chair and defence counsel been informed on 23 Sept 2024 that Male B was minded not to attend, then steps for the obtaining of a witness summons may have been taken. The Chair was not however informed of Male B’s non- attendance until 20th January 2025, just a week before this hearing was due to commence.

 

Applying  the case of Dr SS v Knowsley NHS Primary Care Trust (2006) EWHC 26 ( Adin) where it was held that it could only add to the decision making process  to hear the witness first hand where it  was one party’s word against another, the Panel found that for the words which Male B stated were spoken by the officers, it was one person’s word against another’s .It was key for us to see the witness first hand and hear the  cross examination, therefore.

 The Panel applied the case of Nursing and Midwifery Council v Ogbonna [2010] EWCA Civ 1216, where the Court of Appeal drew a distinction between admissibility and weight; the criterion of fairness is to be applied in considering the admissibility of a statement. The Panel decided that admitting Male B’s evidence would be unfair because: -

(1) There are grave consequences for the officers if it was admitted and there was no opportunity for the defence to cross examine Male B. This could affect their future careers.

(2) In relation to what words were said, Male B’s evidence in some instances was the sole evidence.

(3) It would have been fair had Male B been cross examined to test his evidence.

Therefore, in relation to Male B’s evidence, the Panel determined that this was not admissible. In relation to the effect these had on the Particulars of Misconduct, the Panel determined that where such Particulars expressly referred to the words alleged to have been spoken by Male B (as set out in Paragraph 38 of the Regulation 30 Notice), this will not be determined by the Panel.

7.2: Preliminary Issue:

On the third day of this hearing, after the AA’s had closed its case, an application was made by Ms Felix on behalf of PC Motlib that   PC Brazier’s evidence as to what the content of Male B’s call was, must be excluded on the ground that, to include it, would be unfair. Mr Parham on behalf of PC Brazier, supported the application but the ground for his application was relevance rather than fairness.

The Panel denied both Ms Felix ‘s and Mr Parham’s application and determine that PC Brazier’s evidence as to the content of the call would not be excluded. This determination has been made for the following reasons: -

(1) To include it was neither unfair nor irrelevant.

(2) The issues before the panel were whether there have been breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour. To decide on whether such Standards have been breached, PC Brazier’s evidence was relevant and fair for the Panel to consider in determining matters like, for example, whether the alleged behaviours of the two officers amounted to discreditable conduct. PC Brazier’s evidence was relevant to enable the Panel to assess whether the Standards have been breached and if they have been breached, how seriously have they been breached.

(3) Our earlier determination made clear that Male B’s evidence and specifically, the words he alleged were said by the officers during the call, would not be included for the reasons we gave in relation to the first preliminary matter.

(4) The evidence which defence counsel are seeking to exclude may be relevant for the matters which the panel need to determine like, for example, whether the calls made discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence in it.

(5) During cross examination, if there was any evidence which counsel collectively and /or individually believed to be inadmissible based on our earlier ruling that Male B’s evidence was inadmissible, then we  the Panel had every confidence in  all 3 counsel that this would be drawn to our attention.

8. AA’s case

We now summarise the AA’s case.

The AA’s case is, put simply, as follows; the reason for the calls made on the night of 10 August 2021, was for personal reasons, (namely a love triangle as Mr Holdcroft put it) rather than the calls being made for police purposes.

8.1 PC Brazier had received training in relation to (a). Integrity Matters on 30 May 2020, (b)Data Protection, GDPR and MOPI on 29 and 30 May 2020 (c). National Crime Recording Standards on 13 July 2020 and (d). Stalking or Harassment on 13 May 2020. 

8.2 PC Motlib had received training in relation to (a) Data Protection, GDPR and MOPI on 5 and 6 April 2020 (b) National Crime Recording Standards on 14 May 2020 and (c). Stalking or Harassment on 17 April 2020.

8.3 PC Motlib joined the Suffolk Police on 15 March 2020.  PC Brazier joined the Suffolk Police on 26th May 2020.

8.4 Male A was a missing person. He had previously been arrested for a serious offence and there were concerns about his welfare. Both officers were involved in the inquiry into Male A’s whereabouts.

9^th August 2021

8.5 PC Brazier was in a relationship with Ms S (a member of police staff).  On the evening of 9^th August 2021, they were together. Whilst together that evening, Male B called Ms S (they had met on Tinder and had previously kissed and engaged in flirtation with each other). Male B’s name showed on Ms S’s phone with his name. PC Brazier saw the name on the phone.  During their conversation Male B told Ms S that:

a. His friend, Male A, was missing; and

b. He did not feel that the police were doing enough to locate Male A.

8.6. After the call, PC Brazier asked Ms S why Male B was talking to her like that and if she was alright. She told him to “leave it”. At 20:15:48 Male B rang the Suffolk Police in connection with Male A. PC Brazier did not file an intelligence report in relation to Male B nor did he suggest Male B should be spoken to or asked what information, if any, he had about Male A. 

8.7 PC Brazier and PC Motlib were on a night shift (23:00 – 07:00 on 10 August 2021). PC Brazier used Athena at 23:12:40. At 23:15:49, he searched for Male B and recorded the reason for the search as ‘suspect’. At 23:16:14, PC Brazier opened Male B’s person record, followed by an investigation record. The overview tab for this record showed Male B’s address. The overview tab was closed approximately two minutes later and thereafter the address would not be visible on PC Brazier’s screen. In an entry timed and dated as 23:37 on 9 August 2021, PC Brazier recorded Male B’s details (namely, his name, address and mobile number) in his pocket notebook.

[Sentence redacted]  

8.8 The two officers were crewed together in a marked police vehicle index [redacted].

10 August 2021

8.9. In the course of their duties, the officers discussed Male B’s telephone conversation with Ms S. PC Brazier indicated that he intended to speak to Male B about his interaction with Ms S. He stated that he was going to make telephone contact with Male B.

8.10 The officers were initially deployed to an incident at [address 1] at 23.34 and to an incident at the [address 2] at 01:29.  Between 01:40:03 and 01.46:37, there is ‘dashcam’ footage from the vehicle. The vehicle was turned off sometime between 01:45:28 and 01:46:27. At 01:46:42 a radio transmission started on Channel PSUFFIP1.  PC Brazier had an iPhone. It was protected by a six-digit PIN code. He used 141 to stop his phone displaying his phone number to the recipient of the call.  At 01:46:54 PC Brazier’s phone was used to call a number that ended 4199 (this number was connected to an incident at [address 1]). The call lasted 15 seconds.

8.11. PC Brazier’s phone was used to call Male B four times, with the first call going through and the three further other calls going to voicemail. 

17 August 2021

8.12 At 22:20.06, PC Brazier viewed the report in relation to Male B’s allegation of malicious communications.

9. PC Brazier’s Case

We now summarise PC Brazier’s case.

9.1 Put simply, it is PC Brazier’s case that, at all times, he was acting in his capacity as a PC and not for personal reasons. In other words, Mr Holdcroft’s suggestion that the calls were made because of a love triangle are flatly denied. The calls were made for policing purposes. The policing purpose related to the case he was assigned to on 6^th August 2021, relating to a missing male, Male A.

9.2 PC Brazier denies that he threatened Male B. It was PC Motlib and not PC Brazier who made the 4 calls. He said he reported PC Motlib’s calls to SC Harman, the most senior officer. He said that he had only used the police database for a lawful purpose.

9.3 PC Brazier accepted that he did not challenge PC Motlib’s conduct on 10 August 2021, accepting this as misconduct only.

9.4 That the call to Ms S took place before PC Brazier started his late shift on 9 August is accepted.

9.5 On arrival at the station, PC Brazier states that he attended a shift briefing, attended also by his duty sergeant and possibly by Inspector Breeze and PC Mason Blanchard. Having heard Ms S talk to Male B (when they were at home), he researched Male A on Athena to see how Male B was an associate. He there noticed that Male B had a connection with [address 3]. Male A and Male B shared an address at [address 3].

9.6 PC Brazier spoke to PC Blanchard about Male B’s call to Ms S. PC Blanchard asked him to conduct further research and to go to the locality to advise Male B not to call members of the police.

9.7 PC Brazier’s case is that the reason why he called Male B was to ask about Male A i.e. for policing purposes and further to provide advice about calling members of police staff to discuss live policing matters.

9.8 PC Brazier was content to speak with Male B about Male A. However, he was not comfortable with addressing the sub-issue (namely, calling members of police staff to discuss live policing matters). He communicated this to PC Motlib. PC Motlib then stated, ‘Pass it here’. PC Brazier therefore passed PC Motlib the phone.

9.9. PC Motlib dialled Male B. There was a short pause. PC Motlib then stated words to the effect of “I know this is Male B, Leave the girls alone and don’t go round calling members of police staff slagging off the police. Leave the girls alone. We are in a police car outside your address next to a silver [redacted].” PC Motlib could also be heard stating ‘yes’ and ‘no’, apparently in response to things said by Male B. The call appeared to end abruptly. PC Motlib’s tone was slightly rude, however was not threatening.

9.10 Three further calls were made to Male B, to bring matters back to Male A, calls made by PC Motlib. Audits show that the third call was made whilst PC Brazier was driving, and the last one ended the second before the police vehicle moved off from stationary. Given this timing, the defence submit that it would have been incredibly unlikely for PC Brazier to have made this last call.

9.11 On 17 August 2021, PC Brazier was working a late shift. PC Brazier was keen to understand any elucidation on Male A and Male B’s connection, so searched Male B on Athena. Upon viewing Male B’s nominal record, PC Brazier could see a new entry. PC Brazier saw the date, and a summary of the circumstances, namely a malicious communication crime report. PC Brazier did not believe this could be connected to PC Motlib’s call due to the threat detailed.

9.12 As a precautionary measure, PC Brazier asked the most senior officer on NRT 2, SC Harman, for some advice about this on 18 August 2021. PC Brazier explained everything to SC Harman. SC Harman advised PC Brazier to leave the matter, as he did not feel PC Brazier nor PC Motlib had done anything wrong. PC Brazier gave the matter no further thought. Any suggestion that on 18 August PC Brazier stood behind Mr Harman, whilst Mr Harman viewed the CAD in relation to this incident is denied. Audits show PC Brazier logging into another police system around the same time and therefore could not be standing behind SC Harman.

10. PC Motlib’s Case

We now summarise PC Motlib’s case.

Put simply, it is PC Motlib’s case that PC Brazier made the calls. PC Motlib had absolutely no reason to make the calls, whereas PC Brazier did.

10.1 It is PC Motlib’s case that he only knew of Male B’s calls to Ms S just a few minutes before they entered [address 3 vicinity].

10.2 When they got to [address 3 vicinity], PC Brazier made his first call to Male B. PC Motlib was not focussed on this as he was zoned out.

10.3 PC Brazier ‘s tone was rising whilst on the call to Male B so PC Motlib gestured for PC Brazier to pass him the phone which he did.

10.4 PC Motlib told the person on the phone, in an assertive (but not threatening or aggressive) tone, that he should not contact police staff members directly, and should make any complaints through the proper channels. The man at the other end was speaking over him, loudly and angrily. The call then disconnected whilst PC Motlib was speaking.

10.5 PC Motlib did not threaten the man on the phone in any way. His only purpose in taking over the call was to prevent the phone call from escalating into an argument. As soon as the call disconnected, PC Motlib gave the phone back to PC Brazier, in whose possession it then remained. He advised PC Brazier to report any real concerns about Ms S to their sergeant.

10.6 On 17^th August 2021, PC Motlib was asked to carry out enquiries into Male A. He accessed Compact (a system used for missing persons) and he accessed the missing person file for Male A. To fulfil these assigned enquiries, he attended [address 3 vicinity], Male A’s last recorded address.  He visited Male B’s s [address], not knowing that this was the person he spoke to on 10 August 2021.He recorded on Compact that he had spoken to Male B.

10.7 On 17 Aug 2021, PC Motlib denies that he spoke with PC Brazier after his visit to [address 3 vicinity]. 

10.8 On 18 Aug 2021, he said he was not aware that a conversation had taken place between PC Brazier and SC Harman.  He was not in the building at the time, and this is supported by an audit trail of his access card of 18 August 2021 as set out in the agreed facts (523).

11. Accepted Matters

What is accepted by all parties are those agreed facts set out in the summary prepared for the Crown Court case (pp518-524). This includes 4 calls being made and the time of each of the four calls.

12.Disputed Matter

The Panel finds that there were several disputes between the officers and the AA. We have, however, identified and focussed on the following key matters of dispute: -

1. The alleged advice provided to PC Brazier by SC Harman on 9 Aug 2021.
2. What PC Blanchard said to PC Brazier as advice.
3. Whether PC Blanchard apologised to PC Brazier.
4. Who made the calls?
5. Whether PC Brazier informed SC Blanchard of the malicious communications report on 17 August which he believed could be related to the four calls made on 10 August 2021.

13.Findings of Fact

6^th August 2021

13.1 In the Case Defence Statement for the Crown Court hearing (para v) (728), PC Brazier was assigned tasks in relation to a missing male, Male A on 6 August 2021. Further at para (xi) of the defence statement (728), it was clear that this was the first time PC Brazier had heard of Male B. As Nina Terry’s statement confirms, PC Brazier completed an Athena audit on Male A on 6 Aug 21. Further, he went onto Compact (the police system for missing persons) and viewed Male A’s record on 6 Aug 2021 on 7 occasions.

Search on Athena

13.2 When Male B called Ms S on 9 Aug 2021 in the evening, PC Brazier was in the room with Ms S and he was aware that Male B was asking questions about Male A.

13.3 In his investigation interview of 19 Oct 2021 (123), PC Brazier told DC Davey that he could hear both sides of the conversation, although he could not say what the exact details were. He stated in the investigation that Male B informed Ms S that his friend Male A was missing and words to the effect as to why Suffolk Police were not doing enough. When the call ended Ms S told PC Brazier that Male B had been funny with her since she had joined the police. PC Brazier asked if Male B was causing her an issue and whether this was something “we” needed to be aware of. Ms S asked PC Brazier to “Just leave it”.

13.4 When he started his shift on that same day at 23 00 on 9 Aug 2021, he first attended a briefing attended by a sergeant and possibly an inspector.

13.5 At 23.12 he searched for Male B on Athena. He viewed his nominal record and his premises record. He searched under “suspect” as opposed to “missing person” or “intelligence.” In cross examination by Mr Holdcroft, he was asked why in the investigation of 19 October 2021, PC Brazier said that he had chosen the intel option as he wanted to see how Male B was associated with Male A. He had in fact chosen the “suspect “option. At this hearing, however he said the “suspect” option was indeed the correct one to choose because “suspect” was used in the context of Male B being investigated. The Panel notes however, that Male B was not being investigated at this time.

13.6 On the basis that PC Brazier was working on the missing person of Male A, we find that PC Brazier should have filed an intelligence report in relation to Male B rather than doing a check on Athena. Further, when he heard Male B speaking to Ms S, he came across a new line of enquiry in relation to Male A, yet he did not record this officially. The normal course of action would have been to search on Compact and not Athena. In his submissions, Mr Parham submitted that PC Brazier was somewhat misguided by searching on the wrong system. Yet on 6 August, before Male B’s call to Ms S, he searched correctly on Compact 7 times. We find that this was more than misguided. This was a breach of the standard of confidentiality because PC Brazier was not carrying out the normal kind of search for a missing person.

 

13.7 We further find that he had not chosen the “intel “option on Athena because it was more likely than not that he was not investigating a missing person. The Panel notes that “missing person” features on the drop-down tab, yet this was not selected by PC Brazier. We find that he was using police systems to access records when there was no policing purpose. We make this finding based on a number of key factors:-

1. The only investigation relevant at that time was the on-going missing person enquiry relating to Male A and his overarching associated vulnerabilities. Therefore, if his search was for a proper policing purpose, he would have been on Compact, which he had correctly used on 6^th August 2021.
2. The on-going investigations into serious offences allegedly carried out by Male A were in hand. There was no investigation into Male B. Therefore, there was no reason for him to choose the “suspect” option.

The Panel concludes therefore, that he was carrying out these searches for his own personal reasons connected to Ms S.  

SPB 3 (Confidentiality), paragraph 24 (his check of Athena) and paragraph 25 (obtaining Male B’s address) have been breached.

13.8 Further, we note that in PC Brazier witness evidence provided to the Crown Court on 10 October 23 (43), he stated in the investigation that the mobile number was in his pocket notebook.  By failing to record matters on Compact, PC Brazier, acted, more likely than not, dishonestly because recording Male B’s number in his pocket notebook does not go far enough, in the Panel’s view, to constitute an auditable record, as Compact is. Furthermore, PC Brazier’s pocket notebook entries (500) made no record of him going to [address 3 vicinity] and contacting Male B in relation to the missing person investigation. The Panel finds that the failure to record his visit to [address 3 vicinity] was because it was not for a policing purpose.

13.9 Based on our findings therefore, we find that on a balance of probabilities, his search of Athena and use of information which he obtained from Athena was for personal reasons and not for policing purposes. Based on the training he had, he would have known that Athena was not the correct database for ascertaining details on a missing person. Compact was and PC Brazier knew this because he had used Compact correctly on 6^th August 2021, 7 times.

SPB 3 (Confidentiality) (using police systems for no policing purpose) has been breached.

PC Blanchard Advice

13.10 We acknowledge that PC Brazier said in the Crown Court case (729) that PC Blanchard advised him to conduct further research, and to advise Male B not to call members of the police control room to ask about live investigations. PC Blanchard denied saying this. It was PC Brazier’s case that he was acting on the advice of a more experienced officer, namely, PC Blanchard. In relation to PC Blanchard advising PC Brazier that Male B should be spoken to, we find PC Blanchard’s evidence more credible.

13.11 This is because it was PC Brazier’s evidence in cross examination that a few months later, he met with PC Blanchard who apologised for giving him the advice he did. Such an apology was not referred to in the Crown Court. In relation to the apology, the Panel finds that, on the balance of probabilities, such an apology did not take place. We make this finding because such an apology was not mentioned at the Crown Court. Such a matter would have been important in his Crown Court case, yet he did not mention it. 

13.12 In any event, the Panels find that irrespective of the advice which PC Blanchard may have given, PC Brazier was responsible for his own actions. Even if PC Blanchard had said this, PC Brazier should himself have known that an intel report should have been filed. Formal reporting should have taken place, whether he had informed PC Blanchard or not.

13.13 The Panel considered the point that PC Brazier was working on a missing person investigation since 6^th August 2021. When he heard that Male B was connected to Male A through Male B’s call with Ms S, he should have raised this with his supervisors, yet he failed to do so. He attended a briefing at 2300 on 9 Aug (728), with a supervisor and quite possibly an inspector present. During the briefing, NR2 was shown the Male A bulletin, created by PC Brazier himself, which in bold at the top of the page stated, “missing from [address 3].” Yet he did not mention the conversation between Male B’s and to Ms S.

13.14 Because he did not mention the phone call between Ms S and Male B at the briefing of 9^th August 2021, we find that this showed a lack of honesty and integrity on his part. Such a call only took place a few hours before the briefing. He was involved in the investigation, and he had just come across a new lead. To raise it at the briefing, where there were sergeants and inspectors present (as he confirmed was indeed the case when asked the question by the Panel) would have been the obvious thing to do. By not mentioning it at the briefing, we find that SPB 1 (Honesty and Integrity) paragraph 22 (failure to file an intel report) has been breached.

13.15 In passing the Panel notes that had he reported this, then given his connection to Ms S, other officers are likely to have been tasked with this missing person case.

13.16 Therefore, we find that he failed to record any information and/or the connection between Male A and Male B as set out at paragraph 22, Regulation 30 notice. SPB 1 (Honesty and Integrity) and SPB 4 (Discreditable Conduct) have been breached.

 

High Risk/Medium Risk Missing Person

13.17 The Panel acknowledges that throughout this hearing Male A was referred to as a high-risk missing person, however the Panel noted that the bulletin prepared. By PC Brazier graded the missing person as medium risk.

13.18 In responding to questions from this Panel on this point, PC Brazier confirmed that it was medium on the 9th August 2021 but potentially moving to high.

13.19 The Panel finds that on the basis that PC Brazier believed this to be a high-risk missing person case as at the 9th August 2021, then more proactive steps should have been taken to locate the missing person and deal with the ongoing immediacy of that threat and the need to locate the vulnerable missing person.

13.20 The Panel finds that if it was indeed the fact that the risk was graded at medium, however, then the contact made through the four phone calls at the early hours of the morning was not proportionate or necessary. Because it was not proportionate for a medium risk missing person case, the Panel find that calling 4 times at that time was discreditable conduct, undermining confidence in the police. SPB 4 (Discreditable Conduct), paragraphs 37,43, 45 and 47 relating to the 4 phone calls has been breached.

13.21 Regardless of whether the Male A case was high or medium risk, however, the Panel finds that contact with Male B was not necessary through the four phone calls. Well audited enquiries and actions had already been conducted on Male B prior to the 9th August and contained within the appropriate system to manage missing people, namely Compact. Because the phone calls were made and indeed at the time they were made, when the Male B lead had already been exhausted by another police officer, who had recorded Male B’s details on Compact, the very act of making the calls was discreditable conduct and therefore SPB 4 (Discreditable Conduct) has been breached.

 

Phone Calls to Male B Whilst Car Parked at [address 3 vicinity]

13.22 It is undisputed that both PC Brazier and PC Motlib went to [address 3 vicinity] on 10 August in the early hours of the morning. It was PC Brazier’s case that PC Blanchard had advised that he could attend this location for patrolling purposes, and he could contact the caller to ask him to not contact members of the police whilst off duty.  We have already made findings of fact in relation to the alleged advice provided by PC Blanchard.

13.23 It is not disputed that four calls were made to Male B’s mobile number. The question is, who made the calls and spoke with Male B and for what purpose were such calls made.

13.24 The Panel finds on a balance of probabilities, the phone calls made were for non-policing purposes. We make this finding because if the calls were for genuine policing purpose for the missing person case, then four calls would have been followed up with more proactive policing efforts, for example, knocking on the door to further this enquiry. The fact that this was not done adds weight to our finding that PC Brazier was at [address 3 vicinity] for a non – policing purpose. Furthermore, PC Brazier himself said that he decided not to call Male B because it was not in line with the Code of Ethics. (138)  suggesting that the calls, had he made them, which he denies, would have been for non- policing purposes. 

13.25 We note (137) in PC Brazier’s interview  dated 19 Oct 2021, by the PSD, that he stated ( 139)  that he was going to offer advice to Male B in relation to how to properly make complaints about the police and to follow the correct complaint procedures, not  to call off-duty members of staff, and to  call 101 and making a complaint that way . The Panel finds that this intention showed this was not for a policing purpose.  On the basis of this finding, we determine that there has been a breach of SPB 1(Honesty and Integrity) and SPB 4 (Discreditable Conduct), paras 37,43,45 and 49, in that the very fact that the calls were made caused Male B to feel threatened, shocked and afraid.

 

Who Made the Calls?

Pc Brazier’s Account of Who Made the Calls

13.26 It was accepted by all parties that PC Brazier drove the car that night, with PC Motlib in the passenger seat. When asked in cross examination as to who decided where to go, he confirmed that it was him, but he said it was a shared perspective in that both decided to go to [address 3 vicinity].

13.27 PC Brazier’s account of who made the calls is set out in his investigation interview of 19 October 2021. PC Brazier said that he asked PC Motlib (137) when they got to [address 3 vicinity] if he should give Male B a call to check the connection with Male A. He said that in his mind, he was thinking about offering advice to follow the correct complaints’ procedures. But he then decided not to call him because it was not in line with the Code of Conduct (138). He said he informed PC Motlib (139) that he had decided not to call Male B. This, he said, frustrated PC Motlib, who asked him to pass the phone. PC Motlib took the phone from him and then, according to PC Brazier, made the calls.

13.28 We find PC Brazier’s evidence to be internally inconsistent because in his first investigation interview of 19^th October 2021, he said that he had no intention of communicating with Male B (159). In his second investigation interview on 22 November 2021, he said (192) that he never denied that he went there to speak to him. When cross examined on this point by Mr Holdcroft, PC Brazier said that both statements made in the two interviews were consistent.  It is the Panel’s determination that the two statements were clearly contradictory. On this basis, the Panel has found PC Brazier to lack credibility.

13.29 In PC Brazier ‘s investigation interview of 19 October 2021, (136), he stated that whilst they were driving towards [address 3 vicinity], he told PC Motlib about the call and mentioned Male B’s name. In cross examination by Ms Felix, PC Brazier denied that he had told PC Motlib (and indeed PC Blanchard) that there was more than one call, and he denied that he had ever told them that the calls were abusive, which is the manner in which both PC Blanchard and PC Motlib had described the calls.

13.30 PC Brazier said (140) the phone was not locked, and he had already typed the number in. He said that he had typed it in before he decided not to call Male B. PC Motlib then spoke to Male B and the first call was made at 1.47.48 am, lasting 24 seconds). According to PC Brazier, PC Motlib asked Male B to leave the girls alone. PC Motlib’s voice rose and then he mentioned something along the lines of don’t slate the police”. PC Brazier said PC Motlib did not identify himself when speaking with Male B’s .

13.31 The first call then ended, and PC Brazier said (143) he was shocked, asked for the phone back and said thereafter there was no conversation between the two of them.

13.32 PC Brazier’s account is that they then left the area.

13.33 When asked by DC Davey in the investigation interview of 19 October 2021 about the other three calls in the investigation interview, PC Brazier said that PC Motlib was trying to call Male B back. When asked how PC Motlib got the phone back, PC Brazier said PC Motlib was holding onto it. PC Brazier clarified that PC Motlib did not give his phone back after the first call but only after making further attempts to contact Male B (145).

13.34 The second call was at 01.52.32, the third call was at 01.52.56, and the fourth call was at 01.57.04.

13.35 It was PC Brazier’s evidence that PC Motlib had his phone for a 10-minute period, and he did not try to get his phone back. He could not explain the purpose of PC Motlib calling. The Panel considered the issue of how PC Motlib would have unlocked this phone which was not his but PC Brazier’s and then made the three other calls.

13.36 PC Brazier said (146) that he did not try to stop PC Motlib making further calls because he felt intimidated because of PC Motlib being 10 years older than him.

13.37 After the first call PC Brazier said (146) that they drove around [address 3 vicinity] to do some patrols because (147) there is a lot of intel connected to the area. They did this even though [address 3 vicinity] was not on PC Brazier’s briefing system.

13.38 PC Brazier stated that after the 4^th call, there was no conversation between them (147). The calls were not even mentioned (148).

Video footage of car staying on green light.

13.39 During Mr Holdcroft’s cross examination of PC Brazier, the Panel were shown dash cam footage at 1.56.14 am. This showed how, when the lights changed to green, PC Brazier did not move for quite some time. The third call was 01.52.56, and the fourth call was 01.57.04. Just before the fourth call, the car was slow to move when the lights changed green.

13.40 Dash cam footage taken before the call namely at 1.42.40 seconds showed the car moving straight away when the lights changed to green.  Three other dash cams of 10 Aug 2021 showed how PC Brazier drove immediately away when the traffic lights changed to green.

13.41 In cross examination, Mr Holdcroft asked PC Brazier why he paused at the green lights. PC Brazier responded that this was because he was trying to bring the enquiry back to Male A.

 

PC Motlib’s Account of Who made the Calls

13.42 When PC Motlib was interviewed on 9^th November 2021, he said “no comment” to most of the questions, saying that he had said all that he needed to in his prepared statement (252), following legal advice which he had received. Ms Felix submitted that an adverse inference should not be drawn because he had given a prepared statement which had covered the points, and he was acting on legal advice. The Panel acknowledges that PC Motlib was acting on legal advice and therefore, the Panel draws no adverse inferences from his “no comment” response.

13.43 It was PC Motlib’s evidence given at the Crown Court and at this hearing that whilst in the car on 10 August 2021, he asked PC Brazier how his relationship with Ms S was going. PC Brazier told him that Ms S had been receiving multiple calls from a male that she knew from school, and he used the word ‘harassing’ as well to PC Motlib, when he explained the circumstances of the calls (48). 

13.44 During that conversation, PC Motlib stated that PC Brazier did not mention Male B’s name and nor was there any discussion in relation to the connection between Male A and Male B.

13.45 PC Motlib’s account is internally inconsistent in that in the Crown Court case he said that he heard PC Brazier mentioning Ms S’s name on the call. There was no mention of Ms S’s being named being mentioned on the call in PC Motlib’s initial statement. On this basis, the Panel has found PC Motlib to lack credibility.

13.46 In cross examination by Mr Parham, it was PC Motlib’s case that PC Brazier made the calls. He did not hear what PC Brazier was saying because he was zoned out. In re- examination, he explained that when he was on general patrol, he would usually be occupied by his own phone, close his eyes for a few minutes and in effect, be distracted. This, Mr Parham submitted, was something he came up with because he knew his evidence would not stack up.

13.47 PC Motlib said in cross examination by Mr Holdcroft that PC Brazier’s conversation with Male B was a private matter and not for the police.

13.48 It was PC Motlib’s case that PC Brazier made the calls and when he got heated, he gestured for PC Brazier to give him the phone. Then in a firm voice, he said something along the lines of (253) of  “ stop calling police staff members” and that if “he had any complaints or concerns then he should raise them through the proper channels. “

13.49 It was PC Motlib’s case that he was unaware of the further calls being made.

13.50 Further in relation to PC Brazier sitting at the green light, PC Motlib said there may be a reasonable explanation for this. He did not, however provide any such explanation.

13.51 PC Motlib said in the Crown Court (658) that when PC Brazier informed him that he was going to call Male B and advise him not to call off-duty members of police staff, he was not concerned at all. PC Brazier made it clear that he just intended to give this man advice – words of advice around calling off-duty staff, and particularly Ms S. Based on that and the limited information that he was given by PC Brazier, PC Motlib did not think anything of it and just left him to it.

13.52 It was also PC Motlib’s case that after the calls, both officers did not speak to each other.

13.53 At the start of this hearing, when the Panel asked PC Motlib if he accepted that there had been any breaches of the standard, he said no. During cross examination by Mr Holdcroft, he accepted that he should have challenged PC Brazier’s conduct and should have reported it. The Panel therefore asked PC Motlib after such cross examination, if he wished to change his position on this breach. He repeated that he did not and did not accept that there had been a breach of the standard of failure to challenge.

13.54 The Panel took account of the agreed chronology of 10 August 2021 (527 /528) presented to the Crown Court.

13.55 We now make our findings in relation to who made the calls, PC Brazier or PC Motlib?

13.56 We find that it was more likely than not that PC Brazier made the calls because of the following reasons: -

(a) The Panel find that when PC Brazier carried out a search on Athena on 9th August 2021, this was not for a policing purpose. This is because PC Brazier did a search on Male A initially on “suspect”. PC Brazier’s involvement, however, was in relation to Male A as a missing person. He then did a search on Male B as a “suspect” who, was not being investigated for any crime at that time. The Panel therefore concludes that PC Brazier’s searches were being carried out for a non – policing purpose.

(b) When PC Brazier heard Male B speaking to Ms S, he came across a new line of enquiry in relation to Male A, yet he did not record this officially. The normal course of action would have been to search on Compact and not Athena. We find that he did not act honestly and with integrity because he failed to record any information in relation to the connection between Male A and Male B in an audited record. PC Brazier did not do the correct audited record because he was using this information for a non- policing purpose.

(c) PC Brazier had a reason to make the calls (namely Male B had called Ms S, with whom PC Brazier was having a relationship). Therefore, PC Brazier had a motive. He asked Ms S if Male B was bothering her. PC Motlib had no reason to make the calls.

(d) It was both PC Blanchard and PC Motlib’s evidence that they were told by PC Brazier that there were several calls of a harassing nature.  Given that they both said the same thing, it is more likely than not that this is what PC Brazier said to them both.

(e) By his own admission, it was PC Brazier who decided to go to [address 3 vicinity], even though he confirmed that [address 3 vicinity] was not specifically tasked to him by his sergeant or inspector. Yet he still went there. We do not accept that the reason why he went was because [address 3 vicinity] was known for high crime. In any event, no specific evidence was presented to us that [address 3 vicinity] has a high crime rate. We acknowledge that [location 4] Park was mentioned but [address 3 vicinity], although nearby, is not in [location 4] Park. The Panel does not accept that proactive patrols of [address 3 vicinity] would in any way detect or deter crime in [location 4] Park.

(f) We find that PC Brazier’s evidence to be internally inconsistent as to whether he intended to call Male B or not. In the first investigation interview, he said he had no intention of calling, but in the second he said he had never denied intending to call him. Because of this inconsistency, he lacks credibility. We find that it is more likely than not, that he intended to call him.

(g) His evidence that he had already typed Male B’s number in and then handed the phone to PC Motlib is not credible. It is more likely than not that his phone was locked, and he then unlocked the phone to dial the number. Further, we find that if he had no intention of calling Male B, why did he have Male B’s number already punched in? 

(h) PC Brazier’s evidence was internally inconsistent in that he said that after the first call, PC Motlib passed the phone back to him straight away. He then changed his position and said the phone was passed back to him 10 minutes later. Because he changed his evidence, we find that it is more likely than not that PC Motlib passed the phone back to PC Brazier after the first phone call. Furthermore, we find it inconceivable that PC Motlib would have been able to have made three further calls on a phone which was not his because the phone would have needed to have been unlocked. PC Brazier then changed his evidence to say the phone passed between them. The Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the phone was not passing between them, but PC Brazier always had his phone in his hand (after the first call) and he made the three further phone calls.

(i) No reason was provided by PC Brazier as to why PC Motlib became frustrated when PC Brazier said he was not making the call to Male B.

(j) We reviewed the agreed chronology of 14 August 2021 showing the time the calls were made and when the car engine was switched on and off. For the first and second calls, the ignition was off. For the third call, the ignition was on, and the car was moving at about 2 miles an hour. For the fourth call, the ignition was on, and the car was stationary at traffic lights. The traffic lights went through their sequence. The car remained stationary even though the lights showed green. For the fourth call, PC Brazier took considerable time to move away when the lights turned green. As other dash cams showed of 10 August 2021, his normal style of driving was to drive immediately away. The reason why he was delayed in moving when the lights turned green on 14 August 2021 was because, on a balance of probabilities, he was making the fourth call. The answer he gave as to the reason for him pausing at the green lights (namely, to try to bring the enquiry back to Male A) simply did not make sense to the Panel.

(k) We find it simply implausible that given the nature of the call made which both officers described as heated, both officers said there was no conversation between them after the calls. We find it implausible because PC Brazier and PC Motlib both confirmed during this hearing that they were friends. If they were friends, we find it inconceivable that they would not have discussed the calls, given the nature of the calls, the context as to why the officers were there and the impact of them. We find that it was more likely than not that there was a discussion between them in relation to the call, given their friendship.

(l) The Panel find that considering the training PC Brazier had, he should have known better. So, for instance PC Brazier had training on Integrity Matters on 30 May 2020. This would have provided him with training on Police Conduct Regulations, the Code of Ethics and the overarching expectations of police behaviour and conduct. The Panel finds that the call made to Male B was not appropriate or ethical. He also received training on the Data Protection, GDPR and MOPI on 29 and 30 May 2020. This would have given him the skills and awareness regarding his responsibilities and accountability of using data for policing purposes. Further, he received training on the National Crime Recording Standards on 13 July 2020.This would have trained him on his roles and responsibilities associated with recording standards. Therefore, he should have known that where he had a potential lead like in relation to Male B, this should have been recorded in an audited, official system. His training on Stalking or Harassment on 13 May 2020 would have trained him on what constitutes these offences.

13.57 Therefore, based on our findings of fact that it was PC Brazier who made the calls (and not PC Motlib) and such calls were made for personal reasons and not for policing purposes, we determine that he has breached both SPB1 (Honesty and Integrity) and SPB 4 (Discreditable Conduct, paras 37,43,45 and 49).

13.58 We determine that he has not breached: -

(a) SPB1 (Honesty and Integrity), Ground 2, para 38; and

(b) SPB 4 (Discreditable Conduct, para 38.

13.59 In relation to Mr Motlib and the phone calls, we make the following findings: -

1. We have found that PC Brazier informed him that he intended to make a call, and this was because of Male B’s call to Ms S. We find it implausible that he would have been zoned out and unaware of what was happening whilst such a call was being made.
2. PC Motlib was told that PC Brazier was going to make a call. During the call, his evidence was inconsistent in whether Ms S ‘s name was mentioned. Given that he was told a short time before about the harassing calls to Ms S, it is implausible that he would forget such a detail.
3. PC Brazier told him he was going to make the call to Male B because of Male B’s call to Ms S, yet PC Motlib thought nothing of it. By his own admission in cross examination by Mr Holdcroft, he said knowing what he knows now, he should have challenged PC Brazier, yet he did not. When he made this admission, the Panel gave him an opportunity to change his position in relation to SPB 4 (Failure to Challenge) yet he did not.
4. We find it inconceivable that he took no action and provided no explanation whatsoever when the lights turned green, and PC Brazier did not move forward as he had done on other dash cam videos. When Mr Holdcroft cross examined PC Motlib on the reason for the delay, PC Motlib said that there may be a reasonable explanation to this. Yet he did not provide one. The Panel does not accept that PC Motlib did not know why the car remained stationary at the green lights. It is more likely than not that he did know why the car did not move.
5. There is no dispute between the parties that PC Motlib said something to Male B. It is what was said, which is in dispute. (“Leave the girls alone/ don’t slag the police” v “Use proper channels to record complaints”).  By speaking to him on the first call knowing, by his own admission, that PC Brazier was dealing with a personal and not a police matter, we find that his conduct was discreditable by taking the phone and speaking to Male B. Further, we find that PC Motlib was acting with a lack of honesty and integrity.

13.60 We therefore determine that based upon our findings of fact, PC Motlib is in breach of the following SPBs: -

(a)SPB 1(Honesty and Integrity) Ground 1(para 37)   and Ground 2 in that he did not alert a supervisor to his conduct.

(b) SPB 3(Discreditable Conduct) para 37.

(c) SPB 4 (Failure to Challenge), Grounds 1 and 2.

13.61 We determine that he has not breached the following SPBs: -

1. SPB 1 (Honesty and Integrity) para 43, 45 and 49 as we conclude he did not make calls 2-4 (but he did speak to Male B during call 1 and this is why he has breached para 37).
2. SPB 2 (Authority, Respect and Courtesy (para 38).
3. SPB 3 Discreditable Conduct para 38, 43,45 and 49.

13.62 Having made its findings on who made the calls, the Panel would like it to be noted that because of the internal inconsistencies in both officers’ evidence, both lacked credibility as witnesses for the Panel and we found both to be evasive.  

 

Effect of Calls on Mr Y and Male B

13.63 We now turn to consider the effect these calls had on Male B and Mr Y. [Male B didn’t attend himself to give evidence in terms of any fear].

13.64 In response to questions raised by this Panel, Mr Y confirmed that after receiving the calls, Male B, who is generally calm, looked shook up. Further, he stated that they did not normally keep the door chain on. However, after the calls were received by Male B, they put the chain on the door.  Further, when Mr Y looked outside the window, he saw a marked police car driving slowly around the car park. We find that based on Mr Y’s evidence, both PC Brazier and PC Motlib caused Male B to feel threatened, shocked and afraid. This is because the effect of the calls and the presence of the vehicle in the car park caused fear in Male B and was a concerning situation for Mr Y.

13.65 Based on our findings which we have made based on Mr Y’s evidence, we determine that both PC Brazier and PC Motlib have breached SPB 1(Honesty and Integrity), in that both the officers’ conversations directly or indirectly caused Male B to feel threatened, shocked and afraid.

 

17 August 2021

13.66 PC Brazier’s searched on Athena on 17^th August 2021 and then came across the malicious communications crime report.

13.67 In relation to the reason why he went onto Athena, he explained at the investigation interview of 19^th October 2021 (152) that he did this search to further his local knowledge of a wanted missing person. Yet he confirmed to DC Davey that he was not tasked individually by a supervisor to do this. He also confirmed (153) that he had not informed any supervisor that he had viewed this malicious communications crime report.

13.68 It was PC Brazier’s evidence at this hearing, however, that he had informed SC Harman, who told him not to worry about the malicious communications report. It was SC Harman’s evidence at this hearing that he did not say this to him.

13.69 There is no dispute between the parties that on 17^th August 2021, both PC Brazier and SC Harman had a conversation. The nature of the conversation on 17 August 2021, was PC Brazier was trying to identify a female officer who had visited [address 3 vicinity]. It was someone who had worked in SC Harman ‘s previous team. SC Harman reeled off several names before PC Brazier and then paused when he mentioned Ms T, indicating that he thought this was the officer.  SC Harman contacted Ms T, who did not immediately respond but did later. 

13.70 There is no evidence to show SC Harman updated PC Brazier   on the 17^{th of} Aug 2021 in relation to Ms T.

13.71   We find on a balance of probabilities, that PC Brazier had viewed the malicious communications report for a non- policing purpose, this is because he confirmed in the investigation interview of 19 October 2021 that he had not been tasked to do this.  He therefore had no legitimate policing purpose to view this.

13.72 We further find, on a balance of probabilities, that PC Brazier did not tell SC Harman about the malicious communications report. This is because there is no mention that PC Brazier told SC Harman about this in the following: -

1. SC Harman’s witness statement dated 21 Oct 2021.
2. PC Brazier’s investigation interviews (153) with DC Davey dated 19 October 2021 and 22 November 2021; and
3. In the Crown Court transcript of 11 October 2023.

13.73 The Panel therefore determines that, SPB 1(Honesty and Integrity) Ground 4 and SPB 3 (Confidentiality) , para 51 have been breached by PC Brazier. 

18 August 2021

13.74 We find that on the 18 August 2021, it was more likely than not that a conversation took place between SC Harman and PC Brazier (even though P C Brazier does not accept this) because there is no evidence to show SC Harman updated PC Brazier on 17 August 2021. SC Harman’s evidence is that following the team meeting, he logged onto a workstation and then was approached by PC Brazier, seeking an update.  It is therefore more likely than not that PC Brazier would have approached SC Harman for an update.  

13.75. Ms Terry s evidence shows that SC Harman viewed the CAD at 16.18 on 18 Aug 2021. It is more likely than not that the reason why SC Harman looked at the CAD was because PC Brazier prompted this, not having had an update previously. The Panel found SC Harman’s evidence on this point credible. On a balance of probabilities, SC Harman viewed the CAD because he was prompted by PC Brazier; why else would he need to go into the CAD to view this.

14. Decision

 14.1 Our table below provides examples of our findings which show a breach of the relevant Standards of Professional Behaviour.

Brazier Particulars of Misconduct

Standard of Professional Behaviour	Examples of Our Findings as set out Fully in Section 13.	Breach?
1 Honesty and Integrity
1.In that you acted dishonestly and/or without integrity, in that: 1. You failed to record any information and/or the connection between Male A and Male B as set out at paragraph 22.	(1)   He received appropriate Code of Conduct training. (2)   Para 22: Failed to record connection between Male A and Male B on approved police systems e.g Compact. (3)   Para 22: Failed to mention Male B connection at 9 Aug briefing.	Yes
2. Together with PC Motlib, either directly or indirectly, you caused Male B to feel threatened, shocked and afraid as set out at paragraphs 37, 38, 40 , 43, 45 and 49.	(1)   Paras 37,43,45,49: Fact that PC Brazier made calls in the early hours of the morning caused Male B to feel threatened. (2)   Para 40: No breach found.	Yes (except in relation to para 40)
3. You failed to alert a supervisor to your conduct as set out at 1 in the Particulars of Conduct (see above)	3. Failed to mention Male B connection at 9 Aug briefing, where supervisors were present and readily available	Yes
4. Having viewed the crime report on 17 August 2021, as set out at paragraph 51, you failed to inform any officer that the report potentially related to your mobile telephone and the actions of yourself and/or PC Motlib.	Para 51:  He viewed the crime report when PC Brazier was not specifically assigned to the Male A enquiry. Therefore, this was deemed to be for a non-policing purpose. PC Brazier confirmed in investigation interview that he did not tell anyone.	Yes
2 Authority, Respect and Courtesy
In that the language directed to Male B and as set out at paragraph 38 could reasonably be perceived to be abusive or offensive by the public or your policing colleagues.		No
3 Confidentiality
Your behaviour as set out in paragraphs 24, 25 and 51. You used police systems to search for and/or access crime reports when there was no policing purpose so to do and/or for personal reasons.	(1)   He received appropriate training and used information for non-policing purposes. (2)   Para 24 and 25: Searched on Athena, not for policing purposes. Failure to record [address 1 vicinity] visit in his pocket notebook. (3)   Para 51: PC Brazier viewed the crime report for a non -police purpose.	Yes
4 Discreditable Conduct In that your behaviour as set out in paragraphs 22, 30 , 37,38,40, 43, 45, and 49 and (1) - (3) and (5) of the Particulars of Misconduct have discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence in it.	(1) Para 22: Failed to record connection between Male A and Male B. (2) Para 37, 43,45,49: PC Brazier made the calls for a medium risk case. (3) para 38 and 40- no breach	Yes (except for para 38 and 40)
5 Failure to Challenge In that you failed:		PC Brazier accepted he breached 5 a,b,c.
a. To challenge your policing colleague PC Motlib and his conduct on 10 August 2021.		Yes (on admission)
b. To report your policing colleague PC Motlib for his conduct on 10 August 2021.		Yes (on admission)
c. To alert a line manager or supervisor to the conduct of PC Motlib on 10 August 2021.		Yes(on admission)
d. Having viewed the crime report on 17 August 2021, as set out at paragraph 51, to inform any officer that the report potentially related to your mobile telephone and the actions of yourself and/or PC Motlib. It is alleged that these matters individually and/or collectively amount to gross misconduct, namely a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that, if proved, is so serious that your dismissal would be justified.	Para 51: He confirmed in the investigation interview that he did not inform any officer.	Yes

 

Motlib Particulars of Misconduct

Standards of Professional Behaviour	Our Findings	Breach?
1.Honesty and Integrity
In that you acted dishonestly and/or without integrity, in that: 1. Together with PC Brazier, either directly or indirectly, you caused Male B to feel threatened, shocked and afraid as set out at paragraphs 37, 38, 40, 43, 45 and 49.	(1)   para 37: PC Motlib spoke to Male B in the early hours of the morning. (2)   Para 37: Mr Y described Male B as being “shook up” (3)   Paras 38,40,43,45 and 49 are not breached	Yes (Para 37 is breached but not paras 38,40,43,45 and 49
2. You failed to alert a supervisor to your conduct as set out at 1 (a) in the Particulars of Conduct)		Yes
(2) Authority, Respect and Courtesy
In that the language directed to Male B and as set out at paragraph 38 could reasonably be perceived to be abusive or offensive by the public or your policing colleagues		No
(3) Discreditable Conduct
In that your behaviour as set out in paragraphs 37,38, 40, 43, 45, and 49 and (1) - (2) and (4) of the Particulars of Misconduct have discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence in it.	(1) Para 37:  He spoke to Male B at in the early hours of the morning) . (2) Paras 38,40,43,45 and 49 are not breached	Yes ( Para 37 is breached but  not paras 38,40,43,45 and 4
(4) Failure to Challenge In that you failed:
1. to challenge your policing colleague PC Brazier and his conduct on 10 August 2021.	PC Motlib knew that there was an issue with the call because PC Brazier told him about Male B and Ms S call. Implausible he was zoned out.	Yes
2. To report your policing colleague PC Brazier for his conduct on 10 August 2021	He failed to report PC Brazier’s conduct.	Yes

 

The Panel’s Decision on the Breaches of SPBs in relation to PC Brazier

14.2 In relation to PC Brazier, we have identified in our findings and our determination which followed our findings that the SPBs set out in the Regulation 30 notice have been breached except the following:-

(a) SPB 1 (Honesty and Integrity, Ground 2, (para 38));

(b) SPB 2 (Authority, Respect and Courtesy); and

(c) SPB 4 (Discreditable Conduct, para 38);

PC Brazier did of course accept that in relation to SPB 5, paragraphs (a),(b) and (c)(Failure to Challenge) he had breached this, and this constituted misconduct.

We determine that these breaches constitute gross misconduct. Considering all the breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour collectively, PC Brazier has acted without honesty and integrity   and has used police systems for his own interest.  He directly called a member of the public and made such member feel uncomfortable and vulnerable in his own home. This behaviour is damaging to the reputation of Suffolk Constabulary. If such behaviour was made known to the public, this is most likely to damage public trust and confidence in the police.  PC Brazier has fallen short of the high standards quite rightly expected of the police. 

The Panel’s Decision on the Breaches of SPBs in relation to PC Motlib

14.3 In relation to PC Motlib, we have identified in our findings and our determination which followed our findings that the SPBs set out in the Regulation 30 notice have been breached except the following:-

(a) SPB 1 (Honesty and Integrity), para 38, 43,45 and 49;

(b) SPB 2 (Authority, Respect and Courtesy); and

(c) SPB 3 (Discreditable Conduct), paras 38,43, 45 and 49.

We determine that these breaches constitute misconduct because he was present and involved when the calls were made, knowing that his colleague was making the calls for a non – policing purpose. Yet, he failed to challenge and report PC Brazier.

 

15. Decision on Outcome

Legal considerations

15.1 We now address the outcome for the two officers. We have applied the PCRs, including Regulation 42. We have also considered the Home Office Guidance on Outcomes (2020) and the submissions made to us by Mr Holdcroft for the AA, Mr Parham for PC Brazier and Ms Felix for PC Motlib.

The Home Office Guidance on Outcomes (2020) provides that in determining an appropriate outcome the panel must consider and have due regard to the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes in police misconduct proceedings. Further, where a panel finds the case against the officer subject to misconduct proceedings proven to be either misconduct or gross Misconduct, they can impose one of the following disciplinary actions: -

1. Written warning
2. Final Written Warning
3. Reduction in rank
4. Dismissal without notice.

 

College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes (2022)

15.2 The College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes (2022) provides that when determining the appropriate outcome, the Panel should consider the purpose of the misconduct proceedings which is threefold namely: 

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

Further, the College of Policing Guidance provides that misconduct proceedings are not designed to punish police officers. The central concern is the reputation or standing of the police service.

In determining the outcome, the Panel is required to consider less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes.

 

Outcomes

15.3 Following the Guidance on Outcomes in Police Conduct Proceedings there are three stages in determining the appropriate sanction: -

1. Assess the seriousness of the misconduct. Is it gross misconduct i.e. is it so serious to justify dismissal? Or is it misconduct?
2. Keep in mind the purpose of imposing sanctions.
3. Choose the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.

The Panel is required to assess the seriousness of the proven conduct by reference to the following:

1. The officer’s culpability for the misconduct;
2. The harm caused by the misconduct;
3. The existence of any aggravating factors; and
4. The existence of any mitigating factors.

The Panel is required to conduct a balancing exercise between the officer’s record of service, any character evidence and available mitigation and culpability, aggravating factors and harm caused. Personal mitigation such as character references and testimonials must be considered after the assessment of the seriousness of the conduct.

15.4 PC Brazier

15.4.1 Culpability

From the available evidence, the Panel considers that PC Brazier’s course of conduct was intentional, deliberate, targeted and planned. He also acted with a conflict of interest. Therefore, we consider PC Brazier’s level of culpability to be High.

15.4.2 Harm

The public perception and the reputation of the police service are also relevant when considering harm or the risk of harm caused by the proven conduct. In relation to PC Brazier, the Panel finds that the course of conduct was targeted at a member of the public, which caused them to feel concerned and vulnerable.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the harm caused, if the public was made aware of the reason for the proven conduct is High.

15.4.3 Aggravating Factors

Aggravating factors are indicative of a higher level of culpability.

The Panel concludes that, there were aggravating factors present in PC Brazier’s behaviour, namely:-

1.Targeted behaviour towards an individual; and

2.Premeditated action e.g. accessing information for non- policing purposes

15.4.4 Mitigating Factors

Mitigating factors are those tending to reduce the seriousness of the proven conduct. The Panel took into account PC Brazier’s age and lack of policing experience at the time of the breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour. We have also considered the character references and the policing record.

15.4.5 Outcome in relation to PC Brazier

In all the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the proven conduct amounts to gross misconduct.

The Panel considered the purpose of imposing outcomes in police misconduct proceedings and what the most appropriate outcome that fulfils that purpose, given the seriousness of the conduct in question. In doing so, the Panel took account of PC Brazier’s culpability, the harm caused by the misconduct, the existence of any aggravating factors and the existence of any mitigating factors.

The Panel determines that the outcome for PC Brazier will be dismissal without notice. 

Because the Panel finds gross misconduct, with the outcome, being dismissal, the Panel invites the AA to consider placing PC Brazier on the barred list.

15.5 PC Motlib

15.5.1 Culpability

From the available evidence, the Panel considers that PC Motlib’s conduct was not a course of conduct which was targeted or planned.  PC Motlib reacted to a situation which was not of his making. However, PC Motlib was party to behaviour which caused harm

Accordingly, the officer’s level of culpability is Medium.

15.5.2 Harm

The public perception and the reputation of the police service are also relevant when considering harm or the risk of harm caused by the proven conduct.

In relation to PC Motlib the Panel considered that the public would be concerned and disappointed, particularly because of his failure to challenge and report the behaviour.

Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the harm caused, if the public was made aware of the reason for the proven conduct is Medium.  He simply did not do the right thing. 

15.5.3 Aggravating Factors

Aggravating factors are indicative of a higher level of culpability.

Although PC Motlib’s conduct did in fact cause harm, we believe he did not intend to cause such harm.  

15.5.4 Mitigating Factors

Mitigating factors are those tending to reduce the seriousness of the proven conduct.

The Panel has considered PC Motlib’s character references and police record. The Panel has also have taken note of the lack of policing experience at the time of the incident.

One overarching mitigating factor which the Panel has considered is that this whole situation was not of PC Motlib’s making.

15.5.5 Outcome in relation to PC Motlib

In all the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the proven conduct amounts to misconduct.

The Panel considered the purpose of imposing outcomes in police misconduct proceedings and what the most appropriate outcome that fulfils that purpose, given the seriousness of the conduct in question. In doing so, the Panel took account of PC Motlib’s culpability, the harm caused by the misconduct, the existence of any aggravating factors and the existence of any mitigating factors.

The Panel determines that the outcome for PC Motlib is a written warning. [Note – added – written warning last for 18 months]

 

Right of Appeal.

In accordance with Regulation 43(2), the Appropriate Authority shall provide the officers with a copy of this report and a notice of the right of appeal. The officers are reminded he has a right to appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal. ("PAT"). The PAT may increase or decrease any penalty or overturn our decision.

[Note added – all events occurred in Ipswich]

 

Signed:  Su (Sujata) Sharma

7 February 2025

 

Panel Members

Su (Sujata) Sharma

Supt. Jonathan Chapman

Kevin Rogers