PC Olding

 POLICE CONDUCT HEARING

In the case of Alleged Breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour Under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 as amended

 PC 620 Alexandra Olding

Suffolk Constabulary

Case: CM 24/25

_________________________________________________________________________________

FINAL WRITTEN REPORT

 

1. Summary of Allegation

PC Olding faces an allegation that she was in possession of a Class C drug, namely Tramadol, without having a prescription for her personal use for that drug.

It is alleged by the Appropriate Authority (AA) that this conduct breached the following Standards of Professional Behaviour (the “Professional Standard”): -

1. Orders and Instructions (breach of the Managing Substance Misuse policy): “Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions. Police officers abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders;” and

2. Discreditable Conduct: “Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty. Police officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any conditions imposed on them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice.”

1.  

The AA also asserts that the conduct should be assessed as gross misconduct.

PC Olding accepts that the above two Professional Standards have been unintentionally breached. She does not believe, however, that such breaches constitute misconduct or gross misconduct.

 

2. The Hearing

The hearing took place on Monday 29th June and 30 June 2026 at Suffolk Constabulary, Landmark House, Ipswich. It was a public hearing. The AA was represented by Ms von Wachter. PC Olding was represented by Ms R Hill. The Panel retired to deliberate at 12.09 pm on that day. It delivered its decision orally on Tuesday 30th June at approximately 10.46am.

 

3. Preliminary Matters

3.1: Equality Act

The Chair asked if there were any Equality Act issues to be determined. Both parties confirmed there were not any.

3.2: Additional Evidence

Prior to the hearing, Ms Hill sought to include some additional evidence, which comprised six emails relating to the training received by PC Olding. Specifically, they related to whether any reference to Tramadol was made during the training received by PC Olding. Ms Von Wachter stated at the outset that she did not object to the inclusion of such emails. It was therefore agreed that these would be included as part of the evidence before the Panel. The Chair formally admitted the emails under regulation PCR 41(11), 2020 Regulations.

3.3: Reporting Restrictions

An application was made by Ms Hill in relation to the medical evidence of PC Olding. Such evidence, she stated, needed to be heard in private. This was not objected to by Ms von Wachter.

The Chair had to determine whether or not he would deal with the hearing of such evidence pursuant to Regulation 39 (3) (a), Regulations 2020 (the “2020 Regulations”), namely to exclude any member and specifically in this case the press as the Chair thought fit when such medical evidence was being heard. Alternatively, he had to consider whether he should deal with this under Regulation 39(3)(c),2020 Regulations; this allowed the Chair to give a direction to prohibit the publication of the medical evidence.

Before the Panel made its decision, submissions were invited to be made from the AA, on behalf of PC Olding and from the press.

The Chair then determined that he would deal with this under Regulation 39(3)(c), 2020 Regulations. He made the following direction, which is set out in full in this decision: -

“It is my duty as Chair to ensure that this hearing is conducted   fairly and equitably and in line with the principles of open justice as much as is practicable. The Home Office Guide, para11.85 provides as follows: “Wherever restrictions are needed, blanket restrictions should be avoided, and careful consideration should be given to which parts of the hearing can remain open”. With this in mind, I do not propose to convert this into a private hearing each time PC Olding’s medical condition is being discussed. I direct that the press is prohibited from reporting the details of PC Olding’s medical conditions. The fact that PC Olding has medical conditions can be reported without reporting any specific details about such medical conditions. They may be referred to as “medical conditions” and no more. Should this direction be breached, this shall constitute a contempt of court. I issue this direction under Regulation 39 (3) (c), of the Regulations.” 

 

4. Evidence

The Panel was presented with a bundle of documentation comprising 116 pages, which it considered in making its determination. The Panel received and read the AA’s opening note and the written submissions made by Ms Hill on behalf of the officer in closing remarks. It also considered the oral submissions made on behalf of the AA and PC Olding. PC Olding did not give oral evidence at the hearing.

 

5. AA’s Case

PC Olding possessed a Class C drug without legitimate excuse. The Tramadol had been prescribed for another person (a relative). PC Olding accepted that she had not attempted to return it to the prescribed owner or take it to a pharmacy for disposal.

The AA submitted that PC Olding had knowledge or constructive knowledge of her responsibilities with respect to drugs.

The AA further submitted that the explanations given are unconvincing. The AA was also disappointed that PC Olding showed so little insight initially into the effect her conduct could have on the reputation of the Suffolk Police Force. (She did later accept that her actions could affect the reputation of the Force).

The AA submitted that PC Olding knew what she was doing but went ahead and did it anyway.

It was the AA's case that the Professional Standards have been breached and PC Olding's actions amount to gross misconduct.

 

6. PC Olding’s Case

PC Olding accepted that she was in possession of the Tramadol. She stated that she was in possession of these as a safety blanket in case she needed further analgesia. She maintained that she had not taken (consumed) the drug and her hair sample analysis supported this assertion. Therefore, it was PC Olding's case that she did not compromise her position as an officer. PC Olding accepted that both Professional Standards had been breached.

 

7. Burden of Proof

The burden of proof falls on the AA to prove the allegation to the requisite standard. In determining issues of fact, the Panel is required to apply the civil standard of proof namely, on the balance of probabilities. The conduct will be proven on the balance of probabilities if the Panel is satisfied by the evidence that it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred.

The Panel reminded itself of the purpose of disciplinary proceedings as set out in the case of R (ex p Wiltshire Police) v. Police Appeal Tribunal & Wollard [2012] EWHC 3288, Wyn Williams J said at para 53: “…one of the primary purposes of professional misconduct proceedings is to ensure the preservation of public confidence in the profession in question. There can be no doubt that this principle is applicable to disciplinary proceedings involving police officers.”

 

8. Issues for the Panel to Determine

It was agreed that the following were issues for determination by the Panel: -

Issue 1: Has PC Olding breached the standard listed in the allegations?

Issue 2:  If so, does the conduct amount to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither?

 

9. STAGE 1: DETERMINATION OF FACTS ALLEGED

Issue 1

9.1 Fact 1: Alexandra Olding, whilst a police officer serving with Suffolk Police, your conduct is alleged to have fallen below the standard expected of a police officer in such a way that you contravened the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

9.2 The Panel found on the balance of probabilities that fact 1 is proven. Pc Olding admitted breaching the Professional Standards of discreditable conduct and orders and instructions.

9.3 Fact 2: You joined Suffolk Police as a police constable on 19th April 2022.

9.4 The Panel found fact 2 to be uncontentious. It was out in the case bundle within the investigating officers report [p11 para 3.2]. The Panel found on the balance of probabilities fact 2 proven.

9.5 Fact 3: On 24th March 2025, following consensual searches of your home address you were found to be in possession of Tramadol, an opiate medication and class C controlled drug, requiring prescription. You knew the Tramadol found in your possession was not prescribed to you.

9.6 The Panel found on the balance of probabilities fact 3 to be proven. The Regulation 31 response accepted it had been found in her bedroom and that it was not prescribed to her [p113 para 3]. Further the Regulation 31 response confirmed she had accepted a community resolution in respect to Tramadol (Class C) [p113 Para 4]. In addition, at para 5 of the Regulation 31 response to the allegations, she accepted that she “should not have been in possession of the Tramadol because it had not been prescribed to me” [p113]. This response was consistent with her criminal interview where she admitted possession and set out an explanation [p45 – 46, p 50 -51]. Additionally, in the interview when asked ‘did you not take them as you knew you shouldn’t as they were not prescribed for you,’ the officer replied, ‘Partly, yes’ [p57 - 58]. The Panel interpreted this specific response as her known understanding and knowledge concerning prescription medication.

9.7 Fact 4: On 10th September 2025, you accepted a community resolution in relation to possession of a Class C controlled drug.

9.8 The Panel found on the balance of probabilities fact 4 proven. The officer admits accepting the community resolution in her formal Regulation 31 response to the allegations [p113 para 4]. Additionally, the Panel has viewed the community resolution document dated 10^th September 2025, noting the contents and PC Olding’s signature [p70].

9.9 Fact 5: You knew, or ought to have known, that your conduct was in breach of the standards of professional behaviour and Force policy.

9.10 The Panel found on the balance of probabilities fact 5 to be proven. Whilst the officer maintained that she was unaware and did not consider Tramadol per se as a Class C controlled drug, the Panel found that she ought to have known given, that she had received mandatory training as a student officer. Whilst she stated that she did not believe Tramadol was specifically discussed, she could not say for certain.

The Panel found fact 5 to be proven based upon the following documents: -

1. Her ‘Statement under caution’ response dated 24^th October 2025 [p108] and at paragraph 18 and 19 [p109].
2. The late submitted emails from the controlled drug liaison officer who provides student officers with training as part of the wider student officer training in respect to controlled drugs where the liaison officer acknowledged that he does on an ‘ad hoc basis’ [email 11/04/2025 09:31] refer to “ Tramadol as an example in as much as patients used to go in and ask their GP for Tramadol (addiction)….” [email 08/04/2025 13:22].
3. In the interview when asked “‘did you not take them as you knew you shouldn’t as they were not prescribed for you,” the officer replied, ‘Partly, yes’ [p57 - 58].

The Panel considered all the above documents and determined that it was more likely than not that given she was a police officer for some three years, she ought to have known that her conduct was in breach of the Standard of Professional Behaviour and Force policy.

 

STAGE 2: DO THE FACTS AMOUNT TO THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BEING BREACHED?

9.11 Allegation 1: It is alleged that your actions as set out above at paragraph 3 constitute a serious departure from one or more of the following standards such that dismissal could be justified (and therefore amount to gross misconduct):

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

9.12 This was admitted. The officer admitted the breach of this standard [p113 Para 7]. The Panel accepted the admission and on the basis of the admission, concluded that the standard was breached.

b. Orders & Instructions: Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions.

9.13 This was admitted. The officer admitted the breach of this standard [p113 Para 6]. The Panel accepted the admission and on the basis of the admission, concluded that the standard was breached.

9.14 The Panel found that the facts and the allegations in the Regulation 30 have been proven on the balance of probabilities as set out above.

 

STAGE 3: DO THE BREACHES AMOUNT TO MISCONDUCT/GROSS MISCONDUCT OR NEITHER?

Issue 2

9.15 In determining this question, the Panel used the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes 2023 (the “Outcome Guidance”) to assist it in differentiating between the definitions of “gross misconduct “and “misconduct”. The Panel has not used the Outcome Guidance for any other purpose and is aware that Stage 4 requires a separate and different use of such Guidance.

Culpability

9.16 The Panel, in considering culpability, noted that culpability denotes the officer’s blameworthiness or responsibility for her actions. Here the Panel was aware that in considering the culpability or blameworthy behaviour in question, the more serious the misconduct, the more severe the outcome.

9.17 The Panel considered that the conduct in question was intentional. The Panel found that PC Olding intended to keep and retain the Tramadol. The Panel made this finding based upon PC Olding’s explanation in her interview dated 08/04/25 with the Investigating Officer, where she stated that she had no real intention to return it to the pharmacy [p57].

9.18 The Panel also considered paragraph 4.23 of the Outcome Guidance, which it considered to be relevant to this case. PC Olding received a community resolution order, which is an informal agreement available as a suite of outcomes to investigations. The Panel found, however, that despite it being an informal outcome, what was significant about this community resolution order was that PC Olding admitted to possession of Tramadol, a Class C controlled drug, when it had been prescribed to another person. Therefore, because of this, the Panel found that PC Olding’s conduct, in her possession of Tramadol, was, by its nature, criminal.

Harm

9.19 The Panel considered harm in respect to the facts before it. It found that there is an undermining of public confidence in policing as a result of PC Olding possessing the Class C drug in the specific circumstances.

Although the Panel made this finding, it also recognised that the likelihood of harm arising because of such possession was very low. This is because the only person, such possession was affecting, was PC Olding and nobody else, including any other member of the public.

The Panel took account of paragraphs 4.64, 4.66 ,4.68 ,4.69 and 4.70 of the Outcomes Guidance.

The Panel considered the following in relation to such paragraphs. PC Olding had procured the Tramadol from within her own home. In her interview, she stated it was in the family bathroom she uses (p46). She had not ingested the drug at all. This was evidenced by her hair samples (p 62). (In passing, and having studied the report from the hair samples, the Panel noted that a significant range of controlled drugs had been tested for. All of the results were shown as being negative).

The Panel accepted PC Olding’s explanation that she had possessed the Tramadol as a safety blanket due to her medical condition, but having read the instructions and learning about the side effects, she had decided not to do ingest this.

Aggravating Factors

9.20 The Panel considered whether there were any aggravating factors.

In considering this, the Panel considered in detail and critically the Managing Substance Misuse Policy and considered paragraph 4.76 of the Outcome Guidance and specifically the following bullet point: "significant deviation from instructions whether an order, force policy, or national guidance.” 

PC Olding had herself admitted the breach of the Managing Substance Misuse Policy.

The Panel found that only part of paragraph 3.3 was relevant to the facts of this case, namely that aspect relating to “possession.” PC Olding has not used the Tramadol, as evidenced by the hair sample analysis.

The Panel concluded that PC Olding had not breached the policy in any significant way because the vast majority of the policy was about procedural matter associated with substance misuse. The Panel found in this case that there had been no such misuse. Therefore, the Panel found there to be no aggravating factors.

Mitigating Factors

9.21 The Panel, applying para 4.79, Outcomes Guidance then considered whether there were any formal mitigating factors. Mitigating factors are those that tend to reduce the seriousness of the misconduct. Some factors may indicate that an officer's culpability is lower or that the harm caused by the misconduct is less serious than it might otherwise have been.                                                        

9.22 The Panel considered whether or not the mitigating factors set out in paragraph 9.23 below should have been referenced to by Pc Olding at an earlier stage of the proceedings or not (para 4.80 Outcomes Guidance).

The Panel found that these mitigating factors were present from the outset. Therefore, the Panel did not place less weight on such mitigating factors.

9.23 The Panel considered the bullet point factors listed in paragraph 4.81, Outcome Guidance. It found that: -

• PC Olding’s misconduct was confined to a single episode and was of a brief duration. This was a one-off incident.

(b) PC Olding had made an open admission at an early stage of the proceedings of the breaches. Further, PC Olding had been cooperative at an early stage; for example, she had provided hair samples, had voluntarily allowed searches of her workplace locker, car, and home and permitted the police force access to her medical records. Further, her account had been consistent throughout the whole process.

(c) PC Olding had shown genuine remorse, insight and acceptance. The Panel found this based her admission, not just of the breach of the Professional Standard but also how she had accepted that this incident had or could have brought into disrepute the police force.

9.24 In relation to her medical condition and the stress she underwent as a result of such medical condition, the Panel took account of pp (64-68) in the bundle that described the medical conditions that PC Olding was facing at the time. The Panel considered the complexity and the symptoms that she would have been enduring, including evidence of significant long-term pain. The Panel noted further from PC Olding's medical records that she was on at least nine different types of medication. Therefore, the Panel found that PC Olding would have been in some form of stress as a result of her medical condition. The Panel found this to be a mitigating factor.

 

10. Misconduct /Gross Misconduct or neither finding.

10.1 Based on the Panel's findings of fact and having taken into account the Outcome Guidance assessment set out above, the Panel concluded that in relation to culpability, the risk level is medium because there had, indeed, been an infringement of the Professional Standards, as had been admitted by PC Olding. She was in possession of Tramadol, which was, in her hands, illegal because it had not been prescribed to her.

10.2 The Panel found, however, that this was a naive infringement of the law in that she did not know that Tramadol was a Class C drug. (The Panel noted, of course, that her ignorance of the law was not a defence to her breaching it, but took account of the fact that she was naive as opposed to deliberately and wilfully infringing the law). Her naivety was demonstrated by the fact that she had placed the Tramadol on her desk in open view at work (a police station). Further, as was evidenced by the hair samples, the Tramadol had not been used.

10.3 In relation to harm, the Panel found that the risk of harm was low. This is because a well-informed member of the public would realise that her action did not expose a third party to any harm. Her acts had been conducted for her own reasons. (She had taken possession of Tramadol because it was a safety blanket for her in case her pain increased).

10.4 Further, the Panel found the harm to be low because a well-informed member of the public would likewise conclude that the risk of harm was low, given the entire circumstances of this case, including PC Olding's medical condition.

10.5 The Panel concluded that the risk of harm was low given the circumstances of where, according to PC Olding, she had found the Tramadol, namely at home, as opposed to her having procured this from an illicit source.

10.6 The Panel found the risk was low as opposed to no risk because she had in her possession Tramadol, a class C drug as defined under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which had been prescribed to another and not herself.

10.7 Having used the Outcomes Guidance to assist it in its decision around whether or not the facts, the Panel had found (as set out above) amounted to gross misconduct, misconduct or neither, the Panel took account of the definitions of ‘gross misconduct’ and ‘misconduct’ as defined in section 2, 2020 Regulations as such definitions have been amended by Schedule 2, 2020 Regulations.

10.8 Applying these statutory definitions, the Panel concluded that the conduct and the breaches of the Professional Standard of professional behaviour amount to misconduct.

 

11. STAGE 4: OUTCOME

11.1 In making its decision, the Panel reminded itself as to the purpose of misconduct proceedings. The purpose is not to punish an officer but to retain public confidence in the police force. The Panel had to hand the Outcomes Guidance to assist it in making its decision.

11.2 In regard to the Outcomes Guidance, the Panel reminded itself that this does not override the discretion of the Panel, whose function is to determine the appropriate outcome and that each case will depend on its particular facts and circumstances. The Panel noted that the Outcomes Guidance cannot and should not prescribe the outcome suitable for every case. The Panel further noted that the Outcomes Guidance outlines a general framework for assessing the seriousness of conduct, including factors that may be taken into account; and that these factors are non-exhaustive and do not exclude any other factor(s) that the Panel may consider relevant.

11.3 The Panel read and had regard to PC Olding’s record of police service.

11.4 The Panel reminded itself of the threefold purpose of the police misconduct regime:          

(a) to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service.

(b) to uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct.

(c) to protect the public.

 

Assessing Seriousness

11.5 The Panel has followed the required stages as set out by Mr Justice Popplewell, namely: -

• assess the seriousness of the misconduct.
• keep in mind the purpose of imposing sanctions.
• choose the sanction that most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.

In relation to (a), the seriousness of the proven conduct needs to be assessed by reference to: -

(i)  the officer’s culpability for the misconduct.

(ii)  the harm caused by the misconduct.

(iii) the existence of any aggravating factors; and

(iv) the existence of any mitigating factors.

 

Para 4.11, Outcomes Guidance

11.6 The AA made a submission referring to paragraph 4.11, Outcomes Guidance. This provides as follows: "Where harm is unintentional, culpability will be greater if the officer could reasonably have foreseen the risk of harm."

11.7 It was the AA's submission that PC Olding could have reasonably foreseen the risk of harm and therefore the culpability was greater even though the harm was unintentional.

11.8 The Panel took account of this submission. It found that PC Olding could not have reasonably foreseen the risk of harm. Therefore, culpability was not greater. The Panel made this finding for the following reasons: -

(a) The Panel reviewed the packaging of Tramadol in the bundle (page 31). Studying the packaging, the Panel found that there was nothing on the packaging to indicate this was a Class C drug.

(b) The only evidence before the Panel relating to the training received by PC Olding in relation to drugs was in the form of six emails provided by PC Olding. The Panel reviewed these emails. Thereafter, it found that these did not show that PC Olding had been trained on the classification of Tramadol. The email dated 11th April 2025 from Mr R Pivet to Ms S Abbott provided some detail on the training provided by Mr R Pivet to police officers. He stated that the classification of Tramadol was not information provided at the training. Reference to Tramadol as a drug which could be addictive was the extent of the training relating to Tramadol.

11.9 Therefore, the Panel found that culpability was not greater. This is because, considering points (a) and (b) above, PC Olding could not have reasonably foreseen the risk. She had not been aware, due to her naivety, of the classification of Tramadol.

 

Community Resolution Order

11.10 In the AA submissions on outcome, the AA submitted that paragraph 4.21, Outcomes Guidance is applicable. This states that any criminal conviction will be serious and will be likely to have an adverse impact on public confidence in policing.

11.11. As a result of this submission, the Chair requested the parties to provide clarity on the status of the community resolution order as a sanction. Counsel for the AA and PC Olding adjourned to consider this. They both collectively provided the following information:

11.12 Both parties jointly referred to information from the National Police Chief Council's (NPCC) Guidance from 2022 on community resolutions. Both parties agreed that paragraph 1.1 and paragraph 1.8 were relevant to the status of community resolution orders: -

 

(a) NPCC Paragraph 1.1 states:

 “Community Resolution is the nationally recognised term used to describe the lowest disposal type available to policing. It is used for the disposal of low-level crime and may be used with children, young people, and adults where: 

1. A case is capable of proof.
2. An offender has been identified; and
3. There is an acceptance of the responsibility or admission of guilt.”

 

(b) NPCC Paragraph 1.8 states:

 “The available options (in ascending order of severity) are:

• Community resolution
• Community caution (adult or youth)
• Diversionary caution (adult or youth conditional caution)
• Charge / postal requisition.”

 

11.13 The Panel took account of paragraphs 1.1 and 1.8. Having considered these paragraphs, the Panel found that the relevant paragraph of the Outcomes Guidance was not 4.21 but paragraph 4.23, which states that if the conduct found proven in the misconduct proceedings is criminal in nature, then this needs to be taken into account when considering the culpability of the officer, notwithstanding the absence of a criminal conviction.

The Panel found that the community resolution order was criminal in nature and not a criminal conviction. The Panel did not therefore accept the AA's submission that paragraph 4.21, Outcomes Guidance was applicable; paragraph 4.23 was relevant.

11.14 Having considered the submissions by the Parties in respect of the outcome, the Panel then revisited in its entirety the severity assessment process involving culpability, harm, aggravating factors, and mitigating factors. The Panel found no new or alternative aspects of this severity assessment to the use of the assessment process it had undertaken in Stage 3.

The Panel therefore adopted its severity assessment work already undertaken in Stage 3 but for the purposes of Stage 4. In summary, the Panel adopted its assessment of culpability to be medium and its assessment of harm to be low.

 

11. Personal Mitigation

The Panel having made the assessment of seriousness then turned to personal mitigation. The Panel noted however, that due to the nature and purpose of disciplinary proceedings, the weight of personal mitigation will necessarily be limited. Nonetheless, personal mitigation is always relevant and should always be taken into account as the Panel has and we have given it some weight.

Here the Panel considered the character bundle comprising 12 pages submitted on behalf of PC Olding. The Panel read this bundle carefully and fully. The Panel noted, a supervisor’s assessment of her work ethic and how she seeks out work, takes on responsibilities and how it is engrained and part of her character. One example of her work ethic was the contribution she made to a remand file whereby PC Olding completed two substantial files for a burglary series in the town centre, one of which was a burglary to a charity for military veterans with a loss of over £10K ensuring that the two prolific offenders were remanded until their trial.

Another supervisor described Pc Olding as a very upbeat and genuine person who goes out of her way to help the team throughout her career. Noting that even after her diagnoses for the medical condition, PC Olding remained working to assist the team in any way she could despite the clear pain she was in and only ever took time off for either an appointment or if she physically could not drive.

Another reference described Pc Olding as approachable, professional, and highly committed. The Panel reviewed another supervisor speak about the quality of Pc Olding’s work and that it was always of a high standard. This supervisor has consistently trusted her to carry out her duties diligently and professionally.

Another supervisor remarked on how many jobs were carried out by PC Olding, she was not afraid to get stuck in, make decisions and take control. This supervisor described PC Olding as a highly valued member of the team who is an extremely detailed and a very good investigator.

The Panel also noted that all the supervisors commented upon the obvious pain and discomfort that PC Olding was experiencing whilst at work but that how she continued with her work to a high standard to deliver service to the public.

 

13. Outcome

13.1 Turning to outcome the Panel noted the options available to it and consider less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes as required.

13.2 The Panel determined that the sanction to be provided to PC Olding is that of a written warning.

13.3 The reason why the Panel has determined that this lowest form of sanction is appropriate in these circumstances is for the following reasons:

1. There have been breaches of Professional Standards and PC Olding has indeed admitted to this. Therefore, a sanction needs to be imposed, as was submitted on behalf of the AA.
2. A written warning is proportionate to these specific breaches of Professional Standards in the Panel's determination. Any greater sanction would not be proportionate.
3. This sanction recognises the naivety of PC Olding and recognises the severity of the outcome determined by the Panel in relation to both culpability and harm.

13.4 A sanction has been provided for the Professional Standard breaches. Therefore, it is the Panel's determination that the purpose of levying the sanction has been maintained; the purpose is to maintain public confidence in the police and by levying a sanction, this purpose has been satisfied.

 

14. Publication

14.1 The Chair directed that the final written report is to be published but maintained the reporting restrictions concerning medical condition as set out above at paragraph 3.3.

 

15. APPEAL

15.1 All officers have a right of appeal to a Police Appeals Tribunal against any disciplinary finding and/or disciplinary outcome imposed at a misconduct hearing or a finding of gross misconduct and/or any disciplinary outcome imposed. The grounds of appeal for matters dealt with under the Conduct regulations are:

a) That the finding or disciplinary action imposed was unreasonable,

b) That there is evidence that could not reasonably have been considered at the misconduct hearing which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action or,

c) That there was a breach of procedures set out in the Conduct regulations or other unfairness which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action. Where an officer wishes to appeal, they will need to give notice in writing to their local policing body. The notice must be given within ten working days, beginning with the first working day after the police officer is first supplied with a written copy of the decision they are appealing against.

 

8^th July 2026

Panel Members

ACO Nicholas Davison

Dr Hope Osayande

Mr John Jones