Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Misconduct Hearing – finding and outcome.
Name of Officer: Police Constable 1870 Stuart BARNEY.
Hearing Date: Monday 7th – Tuesday 8th October 2024.
Location: Ipswich Town Football Club, Ipswich, Suffolk.
Panel: Legally Qualified Chair Mr Alesdair KING, Detective Superintendent Mike BROWN and Mrs Rebecca STEPHENS.
Summary conduct alleged:
That in 2020 the officer made inappropriate comments, including of a sexual nature, to two female colleagues. He also poked one without consent.
That in 2022 the officer made inappropriate comments, including of a sexual nature, to a female colleague. He also pulled on her bra strap and ‘pinged it’.
It is alleged that this breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of:
Summary of finding and outcome:
The burden of proof was on the Appropriate Authority. The panel heard evidence given by witnesses in person and had also been provided with an evidence bundle in advance. The panel concluded:
The panel found that the alleged breaches of the standards of professional behaviour relating to authority, respect and courtesy and diversity had been breached. They also found that the conduct would have undermined public confidence in the police service and so amounted to discreditable conduct.
Culpability – The panel characterised the behaviour as inappropriate attempts to dominate colleagues rather than any intention to gain sexual gratification. The conduct was intentional, and the officer should have foreseen the effects of his conduct. The conduct didn’t amount to a sexual assault but did amount to an assault. The conduct did not amount to sexual harassment but did create a hostile environment for female colleagues. The conduct could cause substantial damage to public trust or confidence in the police. The factors taken together led the panel to place the culpability as high.
Harm – The panel concluded that the conduct caused PC A psychological harm. The conduct would undermine public confidence, was deliberate and although lacking in full insight, was repeated, prolonged, involved more than one colleague and multiple breaches. They concluded that the level of harm was high.
The panel found that the breaches amounted to gross misconduct.
Outcome – The panel considered the seriousness of the conduct, the circumstances giving rise to the misconduct, public interest, and mitigation. They accepted that the officer had taken the first step towards his rehabilitation and that his performance was described as good. The panel were not of the opinion that the conduct was so serious that only dismissal would serve to protect the public or maintain public confidence. In the circumstances the panel imposed a final written warning for 5 years.