Former Officer - PC W
Norfolk Constabulary misconduct hearing.
Officer: Former PC ‘W’
Hearing Dates: Wednesday 5th and Thursday 6th February 2025
Location: Norfolk Constabulary, Operations and Communications Centre, Falconers Chase, Wymondham, NR18 0WW.
Panel:
Chair: Assistant Chief Constable Nicholas DAVISON
Independent Panel Member: Mrs Victoria MILLER
Independent Panel Member: Mr Peter GRATTON
==
Legally Qualified Person to the Panel: Mr David TYME
SUMMARY REPORT UNDER REGULATION 43 OF THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020 (as amended)
Summary of Allegation
It is alleged that the former officer had inappropriate contact with and then a relationship with a vulnerable person met in the course of their duty. The former officer failed to make timely and full disclosure of the relationship and accessed police systems in respect of this person without a policing purpose to do so.
It is alleged that this conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of:
- Authority, Respect and Courtesy
- Discreditable Conduct
- Orders and Instructions
- Confidentiality
It has been determined that the allegations should be heard at a misconduct hearing.
Following representations, the Chair for the Hearing has determined that the former officer should be referred to by a cipher, including in the advertisement for, during and post hearing. As a result, a reporting restriction order has been made under Regulation 39 (3) (C) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (as amended).
The Panel’s Approach
- The Panel approached this decision on the following basis: -
i) First, to ascertain the facts whether admitted or found proven.
ii) Second to determine whether based on those facts the officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour alleged.
iii) Third, if yes, to decide whether such breaches constituted misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.
iv) Fourth, dependent on our findings under two and three, to decide on the appropriate outcome.
Stage 1- Findings of fact
- In making its findings of fact, the Panel had full regard to all the documents as described and the oral evidence and submission. The fact that each document is not referred to does not mean each document has not been carefully considered.
- The Panel noted that there had not been any formal response to the allegation other than the Regulation 31 response indicating no plea. The Panel therefore proceeded on the basis that the Allegations as set out in the Regulation 30 notice were denied.
- Therefore, these facts remain disputed, and the Panel has considered and made findings in relation to each paragraph of the Regulation 30 notice.
- The Panel has set out below a summary of its findings of fact. A full written determination will follow in due course in line with regulations.
In respect to the facts set out in the regulation 30 notice as entered into the record.
Decision on Facts
We find on the balance of probability that all of the facts were proved.
In summary the panel, in its analysis of the bundle provided to it: the exhibits concerning telematics and PC W’s police vehicle movements, the IOPC data analysis of the phone of PC W and the exchange with Miss A. PC W’s training records, the constabulary’s policies concerning domestic abuse, disclosable associations and the joint NPCC / college of policing policy of professional boundaries, the code of ethics, the audits of the constabulary IT systems showing PC W’s use and access, the emails between PC W and PSD concerning the control measures and initial contact- all provided evidence that the panel concluded proved the facts.
In addition, the panel considered the evidence of DS [intelligence] and PS [supervisor] set against the responses PC W provided in her misconduct interviews. The panel found that we preferred the evidence of DS [intelligence]and PS [supervisor] and their accounts to that of PC W's explanations in the interviews that were in December 2021 and July 2023.
Finally, we considered the evidence of DS Cornwall, both his statement, his original email made shortly after his phone conversation with PC W in April 2020 and in his live oral testimony to the panel and we found his evidence compelling and credible. Set against the account and explanations put forward by PC W in her interviews we preferred his evidence to hers.
With all the above in mind the panel concluded that on the balance of probability all of the facts were proved.
Stage 2- Has former PC W breached all or any of the standards of Professional Behaviour?
Relevant Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Throughout the decision making the Panel bore in mind the relevant standards of professional behaviour in making its findings as set out in Schedule 2 to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020.
The Panel considered the decision of Wyn Williams J in Chief Constable of Wiltshire v Police Appeals Tribunal (Paul Woollard Interested Party) [2012] EWHC 3288 (Admin) and noted that in order to prove a breach of the Standard relating to Discreditable Conduct it is not necessary to prove that actual discredit has been brought to the police service; it is sufficient that the officer’s behaviour had the potential to do so.
In all the circumstances, the Panel found that the Allegations 1- 4 as set out in the regulation 30 notice, proven and as such, the proven conduct engages the following standards of Professional Behaviour ( as detailed below ) :
- Authority, Respect & Courtesy
- Discreditable Conduct
- Orders and Instructions
- Confidentiality
In reaching its conclusion the Panel had regard to the College of Policing Code of Ethics and Policing and National Police Chiefs Council Guidance on maintaining professional boundaries.
The College of Policing Code of Ethics states that:
“Police officers should not establish or pursue an improper sexual or emotional relationship with a person with whom they come into contact during the course of their work who may be vulnerable to an abuse of trust or power”.
The College of Policing and National Police Chiefs Council Guidance on maintaining professional boundaries between police and members of the public states that:
“Officers should be aware of the imbalance of power between themselves and members of the public they come into contact with at work and should maintain professional boundaries. Any sexual or improper emotional relationship with a member of the public is likely to breach the Guidance, it will be aggravated where the member of the public is particularly vulnerable. Where officers find themselves attracted to a member of the public, or a member of the public is attracted to them, it is their responsibility not to act on those feelings and to report the matter to a line manager as soon as practicable. the use of (or providing) of personal social media, email, telephone or contact details to a member of the public is usually inappropriate.”
Stage 3: Do any proven breaches constitute misconduct, gross misconduct or neither?
Having found the allegations proved, the Panel went on to consider whether former PC W’s actions amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct.
Under Regulation 2(1)
Misconduct is defined as a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action.
Gross misconduct is defined as a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour which is so serious as to justify dismissal.
In accordance with Paragraph 11.132 of the Home Office Guidance, the Panel has taken all the proven allegations together for the purpose of making an assessment as to the seriousness of the conduct and taken into account the Guidance on Outcomes 2022
The Panel, in finding the factual allegations proved, has identified serious breaches of the standards required of an Officer. The Panel was mindful that it does not follow that a finding of misconduct and/or gross misconduct must follow from the identified breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
The Panel bore in mind the Guidance on Outcomes which sets out at paragraph 4.9 that, Culpability denotes the officer’s blameworthiness or responsibility for their actions. The more culpable or blameworthy the behaviour in question, the more serious the misconduct and the more severe the likely outcome. Here the panel concluded that PC W was entirely responsible for her actions and decisions to continue contact with Miss A and ultimately enter into a relationship with her by her own admission.
The panel also considered paragraph 4.10 that states Conduct that is intentional, deliberate, targeted or planned will generally be more culpable than conduct that has unintended consequences, although the consequences of an officer’s actions will be relevant to the harm caused. Here the panel concluded that PC W’s conduct saw her deliberately and intentionally enter into a relationship with a vulnerable person who she only came into contact with through her role as a police officer.
The panel also considered para 4.66 of the guidance that states’ Harm will likely undermine public confidence in policing. Harm does not need to be suffered by a defined individual or group to undermine public confidence. Where an officer commits an act that would harm public confidence if the circumstances were known to the public, take this into account. Always take misconduct seriously that undermines discipline and good order within the police service, even if it does not result in harm to individual victims.
The panel concluded that had the public known of the actions and behaviour of PC W as set out above that it would have fundamentally undermined the trust and confidence that they place in police officers.
Accordingly, in all the circumstances, taken together the panel considered that the breaches of professional standards found are so serious that dismissal could be justified and for this reason the panel found gross misconduct.
Decision on outcome
Having found that the allegations proven amount to gross misconduct, the Panel went on to consider what the appropriate outcome in this particular case should be.
Regulation 42(14) procedure provides that when considering the question of disciplinary action, before any such question is determined, the panel:
- Must have regard to the record of police service of the officer concerned.
- May receive evidence any witness whose evidence would, in their opinion, assist in determining the question; and
- Must give the officer concerned, his police friend or relevant lawyer, and the appropriate authority, an opportunity to make oral or written representations.
The Panel heard submissions from Mr Waters as to the appropriate outcome these are summarised below.
He considered PC W’s level of culpability to be high on account of the fact that she was entirely responsible for her own actions, had undertaken those actions despite clear instruction to the contrary, and on account of the vulnerability of Miss A.
Furthermore, Mr Waters stated public confidence would be harmed if the public was aware of the facts. And he submitted that Harm was high.
Turning to aggravating factors he noted abuse of position in respect to a vulnerable person. As well as misconduct of a substantial period of time and significant deviation from instruction and the code of ethics.
He referenced, if found there would be multiple proven allegations.
Finally, he put forward that there were no mitigating factors from the appropriate authority’s perspective.
The panel noted PC W’s position on non-engagement and noted no submissions forthcoming.
The Panel followed the three stages as set out by Mr Justice Popplewell in the case of Fuglers LLP v SRA [2014]EWHC 179 (admin) [28] and in the Guidance in determining the appropriate outcome:
Stage 1: Assess the seriousness of the misconduct.
Stage 2: Keep in mind the purpose of disciplinary action
Stage 3: Choose the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.
Culpability
In determining the seriousness of the misconduct, the Panel considered former PC W’s culpability first, that is the blameworthiness of the conduct. The Panel adopted its previous findings on culpability and adds the following.
4.11 Where harm is unintentional, culpability will be greater if the officer could reasonably have foreseen the risk of harm
4.50 Officers must not, under any circumstances, use their professional position to initiate or pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with a vulnerable person.
4.52 Factors that may give rise to vulnerability include:
Mental ill health
Substance misuse
Experience of crime including domestic abuse
In coming to its determination on culpability the panel, concluded that culpability was high.
Harm
In determining harm, the panel again adopted its previous findings and adds the following:
4.74 Where gross misconduct has been found and the behaviour has caused – or could have caused – serious harm to individuals, the community and/or public confidence in the police service, dismissal is likely to follow. A factor of the greatest importance is the impact of the misconduct on the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole. For example, violence against women and girls perpetrated by a police officer, whether on-duty or off-duty, will always harm public confidence in policing, since this is inimical to the values of modern policing and the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Had the public been aware of a serving police officer engaging in a relationship with someone who they had previously come into contact with during the course of their professional duties on a number of occasions, both as a victim and a perpetrator the panel concluded that their confidence in the police service would be seriously undermined.
The Panel concluded that PC W’s proven conduct would undermine public confidence in the police service and would also damage the reputation of the Constabulary if the circumstances were known. Accordingly, PC W’s level of culpability is High.
Aggravating factors
The CoP Guidance provides non-exhaustive lists of potential aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors are those that tend to worsen the circumstances of the case in relation to an officer culpability or he harm caused.
The panel found the following:
- Abuse of trust and position
- Sustained behaviour of a period of time
- Vulnerability
- Continuing the behaviour after the officer realised or should have realised that it was improper
- Significant deviation from instructions
- Multiple proven allegations
- The absence of making full disclosure concerning her relationship with Miss A.
Mitigating factors
The Panel could not identify any mitigating factors in this case
In assessing seriousness, the panel took the view that given the factors considered above former PC W’s actions were serious.
Outcome
We Kept in mind the purpose of disciplinary action
In considering the outcome, the Panel bore in mind the purpose of the police misconduct regime which is threefold:
(a) To maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service.
(b) To uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct.
(c) To protect the public by preventing an offending officer from committing similar misconduct again by excluding them from the police service.
Choose the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question
Given the finding of gross misconduct the Panel considered the two possible outcomes available for a former officer which are:
(a) Disciplinary action
(b) No disciplinary action
The panel received a copy of former PC W’s record of service. The panel noted that it had not received a formal response or any testimonials or mitigation from former PC W.
The Panel also taken into account the Guidance which states that personal mitigation is to be taken into account, however its impact will be limited in police misconduct hearings because of the need to maintain public confidence in the police. Maurice Kay LJ in Salter -v-The Chief Constable of Dorset [2012] EWCA Civ 1047 and [2011]EWHC 3366(Admin) at paragraph 23 concluded:
“As to personal mitigation, just as an unexpectedly errant solicitor can usually refer to an unblemished past and the esteem of his colleagues, so will a police officer often be able so to do. However, because of the importance of public confidence, the potential of such mitigation is necessarily limited.”
Whilst we had it in mind, the panel concluded that there was no personal mitigation.
The Panel considered its findings its previous assessment of seriousness and due to this took the view that it would not be appropriate to take no disciplinary action in this case.
The Panel was also satisfied that the multiple breaches of the standards, as it had found proved would have been incompatible with Pc W’s service as a Police Officer if she had still been in service and that the need to protect public confidence in and the reputation of the police service, the need to maintain high professional standards and the need to protect the public and officers and staff by preventing similar misconduct in the future would be appropriately served by the imposition of disciplinary action.
The Panel reached the conclusion that given its findings of gross misconduct that former PC W would have been dismissed without notice if she had not ceased to be a police officer.
[Appeal process details redacted]