Former PC Raywood

POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020

As amended by the Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations

CONCERNING:

Officer: Former PC 2196 Ian Raywood

Norfolk Constabulary

Case: CM 45/25

_________________________________________________________________________________

Final Written Report

_________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

1.0 This is the record of determinations made by a Panel at misconduct proceedings brought under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 as amended (the    Regulations) against former Police Constable 2196 Ian Raywood.

1.1 The Panel consisted of Assistant Chief Officer Nicholas Davison (Former Assistant Chief Constable) (Chair) and Independent Panel Members Ms Miller and            Mr Taylor.

1.2 The Panel was assisted by Mr Ireland, the Legally Qualified Person (the LQP).

1.3 The Appropriate Authority (AA) was represented by legal counsel Mr Holdcroft.

1.4 The former officer, having elected a full panel hearing, was not in attendance and was not represented by legal counsel or the police federation. The                  officer had resigned before the Hearing. The Hearing and Panel was bound by the former officer provisions under regulations and guidance.

1.5 The Hearing was a public hearing and was held at Norfolk Constabulary, Operations and Communications Centre, Falconers Chase, Wymondham, Norfolk.

1.6 The Hearing was held on Monday 3^rd August 2026.

1.7 At a preliminary hearing the AA had applied for anonymity for the witness and the Chair ruled that she would be granted such and provided with the                  cipher ‘Ms A’.

 

The Role of the Panel

2.0 The Panel was required to review the facts of the case and decide whether the conduct of the former officer concerned amounts to misconduct, gross                  misconduct or neither (Regulation 41(15)).

Regulation 2 defines misconduct and gross misconduct as follows:

“Misconduct” … means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action.                                                                                        

“Gross Misconduct” means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal. 

2.1 In the case of a former officer, a finding of ‘misconduct’ would simply be recorded. However, if the Panel finds ‘gross misconduct’, it must go on to                        consider what disciplinary action would have been appropriate. In relation to gross misconduct, the words “so serious as to justify dismissal” do not                  indicate that dismissal must result, rather that it is a possible outcome. 

 

Preliminary Matters

3.0 The Panel first addressed whether it was right to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the former officer. The AA applied to continue the hearing in              the former officer’s absence, citing the authorities R v Hayward [2001] QB 862; R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 and GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 at                [13],[17] and [18]. Additionally, the Panel considered the Home Office guidance (2020) to the regulations paragraph 11.106 [137].

3.1 In support of this application the AA presented a written timeline of contact with the former officer and produced two emails dated 24th June 2026 and 1            August 2026 sent by the former officer to his Federation representative asking the same to be placed before the Panel. This was done and the Panel read both emails. From these it was evident that the former officer was aware of the evidence against him, had responded with a Regulation 31 reply, was aware of the date, time and venue of the hearing, and had informed, through the emails, that he had no intention of attending the hearing.

3.2 The Panel therefore found that, the former officer had the opportunity to attend but has voluntarily absented himself from the hearing; was aware of the              case against him, had been informed of his right to legal representation and that nothing would be gained by adjourning proceedings. Therefore, the Panel            determined that the hearing would proceed.

 

Allegations

4.0 The Panel was referred to a Regulation 30 notice in respect of the Officer containing the allegations and that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct,              namely:

BACKGROUND

1. On 17 January 2021, PC 2196 Ian RAYWOOD (‘the Officer’) joined the Norfolk Constabulary. He had approximately 23 years prior police service with the Ministry of Defence Police Force.
2. The Officer engaged in a casual consensual sexual relationship with Ms A. The relationship involved sexualised messaging via WhatsApp, the exchange of sexualised images and videos, and sexual contact. However, because the Officer was in a relationship with another female the majority of the contact with Ms A (whether in person or via mobile telephone) took place during his duty hours.
3. Ms A primarily lived with her mother but also had her own address in Kings Lynn (‘the addresses’). She was in a relationship until late 2024 and as a result had blocked the Officer on WhatsApp. However, contact resumed in November 2024.
4. Whilst on duty the Officer attended the addresses and engaged in sexual interactions/contact (including but not limited to kissing, oral sex, and/or sexual intercourse) with Ms A on one or more of the following occasions:

1. 1. Between about 14:29 and 14:44 (15 minutes) on 11 January 2025, and/or
   2. Between about 11:37 and 11:49 (12 minutes) on 20 January 2025, and/or
   3. Between about 09:49 and 10:13 (24 minutes) on 19 February 2025, and/or
   4. Between about 14:19 and 14:40 (21 minutes) on 1 March 2025, and/or
   5. Between about 11:08 and 11:23 (15 minutes) on 12 March 2025, and/or
   6. Between about 11:36 and 11:56 (20 minutes) on 21 March 2025, and/or
   7. Between about 19:02 and 19:22 (20 minutes) on 23 March 2025, and/or
   8. Between about 11:43 and 12:06 (23 minutes) on 31 March 2025, and/or
   9. Between about 22:27 and 22:44 (17 minutes) on 2 May 2025.

PARTICULARS OF MISCONDUCT

Police Constable Ian RAYWOOD it is alleged that you have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour. In particular you have breached and in   particular the standards relating to:

1. 1. Discreditable Conduct

In that your behaviour as set out in paragraph 4 has discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence in it.

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.

 

Former Officers response

5.0 In his formal regulation 31 response to the allegations the former officer denied the main thrust of the allegations that he had engaged in sexual activity          whilst on duty but accepted that he had been in a relationship with Ms A citing a two-and-a-half-year relationship with her [p59]. He accepted that in respect to the dates and times alleged in the allegations that he had been in attendance visiting Ms A at her addresses whilst on duty [57-58]. He indicated that he attended on a number of the occasions because he considered her a friend and that she was supportive [65] as well as in order to utilise the toilet. He stated that he would typically stay in the porch area by the rear door or kitchen area. Additionally, that on a number of occasions he attended, other family members of Ms A would be present [59-63]. The former officer set out that Ms A was lying / mistaken about the sexual contact with him whilst he was on duty on the dates indicated in the allegation [57-67;120-177]. The former officer accepted the sexualised character of the messaging, which he characterised as flirtation only, the majority of which he stated was sent off duty.

5.1 The Panel accepted the former officer’s regulation 31 response [57-67] but as he was not in attendance the Chair indicated that whilst there were partial          admissions to the facts alleged the Panel would proceed on the basis that the facts needed to be proven.

 

Evidence

6.0 The AA set out its evidence in its written opening note and relied upon the material set out in the case bundle [1-254] and the digital material. The Panel        were in receipt of:

• • The case papers bundle.
  • AA opening note.
  • Former officers’ regulation 31 response.
  • Conduct interview recording and transcript.
  • Witness statements and accounts.
  • BWV account (Ms A’s mother).
  • Social media message extracts and exchange between Ms A and the former officer.
  • Telematics and APLS data and mapping for the former officer’s police vehicle and personal airwave radio.
  • Hand drawn floor plans Ms A’s address.
  • Correspondence between the Investigating Officer and Police Federation.
  • Investigating Officers report and memos.

6.1 The Panel heard live witness testimony from Ms A. Ms A adopted her two statements from within the bundle [68-74]. She confirmed that whilst the former          officer would ‘occasionally’ visit her home for a cup of tea or to use her toilet, the ‘main reason’ that he would visit her was to engage in sexual activity.

6.2 As the former officer was not present his assertions [57-67;120-177] as to her evidence was put to her. She described how she had met the former officer          whilst working as a contracted third-party employee [Redacted] and had known him for approximately 6 years. She described how she had begun to get a ‘bit flirty’ with him, they exchanged phone numbers and the relationship developed from there. When asked, she confirmed that it was the former officer who gave her his ‘phone number as she could not have obtained it in any other way.

6.3 She was therefore not mistaken as to the identity of the officer who visited her on the occasions alleged. It was the former officer Pc Ian Raywood. It was            not any other officer. She denied that she was lying and told the Panel that she had no reason to lie or be dishonest in her testimony. She confirmed when            asked that she had provided the WhatsApp messages to the AA and that they were complete and accurate, (the former officer having deleted them from his          ‘phone) and that they had not been altered in any way; she added that she doubted that they could be manipulated in any way and even, if possible, she              did not have the knowledge to undertake such actions.

6.4 Again, when asked, she confirmed that she knew the former officer was on duty when he attended and engaged in sexual activity because he visited her in          a police car which he parked outside her house, was in uniform, and had a police radio which he always left turned on, and would listen to, but with his                body worn video turned off. She also confirmed that her mother, [Redacted], would be present on some occasions, albeit not in the same room.

 

Application for hearsay evidence to be admitted.

7.0 The AA then applied for the account from Ms A’s mother recorded on the investigating officers Body Worn Camera to be admitted into evidence.

7.1 [Redacted]. Therefore, her only evidence was that contained in the video recording. In deciding on the admissibility of the video the Panel were referred              to the case of Thorneycroft v NMC [2014] EWHC 1565 and took into account the following guidance from the judgement:

The admission of the statement of an absent witness should not be regarded as a routine matter and the ….. rules require the Panel to consider the issue of          fairness before admitting the evidence.

The fact that the absence of the witness can be reflected in the weight to be attached to their evidence is a factor to weigh in the balance but will not                    always be a sufficient answer to the objection to admissibility. 

The existence or otherwise of a good and cogent reason for the non-attendance of the witness is an important factor. However, the absence of a good                  reason does not automatically result in the exclusion of the evidence.                                                                       

Where such evidence is the sole or decisive evidence in relation to the charges, the decision whether or not to admit requires the Panel to make a careful              assessment, weighing up the competing factors. The assessment should involve a consideration of the issues in the case, the other evidence to be called              and the potential consequences of admitting the evidence and the Panel must be satisfied having undertaken this assessment that, either the evidence is              demonstrably reliable or that there is some means of testing its reliability.

7.2 The Panel determined that there was a good and cogent reason for the witness’s absence [Redacted], that it was not the only or decisive piece of evidence        against the former officer, but was supportive to some degree of Ms A’s evidence, that much of her evidence about former Pc Raywood’s visits to the house was corroborated by other evidence and admissions, and its’ admission would not cause prejudice to the former officer as, even if he attended, no cross                examination was possible.

Therefore, the Panel admitted the recording into evidence and the Panel confirmed that it viewed the recording.

 

Approach taken by the Panel.

8.0 The Panel reminded itself that the burden of proof lies with the AA and is discharged on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). The Panel                    reminded itself of the Home Office guidance (2020) concerning the burden and standard of proof at paragraph 9.10 and 9.11.

8.1 The Panel considered all oral evidence it heard, and all written and digital evidence contained within the bundle as well as the two emails the former officer          requested be seen by the Panel as set out above and the AAs opening note.

8.3 The Panel’s findings have been based on the evidence, including inferences properly drawn from the evidence. The Panel did not have the benefit of hearing        oral evidence from the former officer. He is entitled to decline to give evidence but neither his account given during the interview under the misconduct                caution nor in his regulation 31 response were tested under cross examination. The Panel took into consideration the AAs opening note [para19 p13]                    concerning adverse inferences and the approach to take in Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33. Here the Panel considered his non-attendance. The former officer provided an email (02/08/2026) indicating that he was not prepared to attend the hearing, as in his view the investigation was not fair, balanced and impartial and that lines of enquiry were not pursued as he expected. The Panel noted the AAs position and response to the former officers’ observations within the bundle [244- 248] and the subsequent witness accounts obtained by the AA [250],[251] and [254]. The Panel formed the view, having weighed the former officer’s position against the strength of the evidence and AAs account and, concluded it would have been reasonable to expect the former officer to attend and explain or contradict matters within his knowledge.

8.4 The Panel has looked at what may properly be regarded as corroborative evidence. Corroboration is not required but may assist in the evaluation of other          evidence. The Panel has considered first if the pieces of evidence are independent of one another before using as corroborative.

8.5 The Panel has 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 breached the Standard of Professional Behaviour (“the Standards”) as set out in Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
• (iii) Third, if yes, to decide whether such breaches constituted misconduct or gross misconduct.
• (iv) Fourth, dependent on the findings under (ii) and (iii), to decide on the appropriate outcome, within the constraints of the former officer provisions.

 

Findings of Fact (Stage1)

9.0 The Panel found all facts alleged proven on the balance of probabilities.

9.1 In considering the evidence the Panel found that Ms A was a credible and persuasive witness with no reason to lie or exaggerate. Her live testimony was consistent with her written statements [69-74]. Her account was consistent with the evidence presented by the telematics and APLS data [196-235]. She stated he attended her addresses and the data indicated he did. She had not been responsible for the alleged misconduct coming to the attention of the AA and her evidence was to a very large extent corroborated by other evidence as well as the APLS / telematics such as the WhatsApp exchange between the two of them which indicated to the Panel that they were engaged in a consensual sexual relationship [76-113]. Former Pc Raywood in his response, admitted that on all relevant occasions as alleged [57-58], he was present at Ms A’s address – in truth, he could do little else given the telematic evidence [196-235] – and that he was on duty. The significant difference between the two, was that the former officer claimed that no sexual acts took place during these visits.

9.2 Some messages between former Pc Raywood and Ms A, the Panel found, were, as far as the allegations are concerned, to refer to recent events (i.e. shortly after his visits). In particular the messages between them on 12 March 2025 between 13.12 and 13.52 [92] demonstrate very clearly that, set against the balance of probabilities, what was being discussed was the sexual act between them that had just taken place and were coincided with earlier messages that the former was on his way to visit Ms A and the telematic evidence to prove that he was present at her address at the relevant time. Equally on the 19 February 2025 the WhatsApp exchange [86] starting at 08:39 of a sexualised nature, including the sending of images, an invitation of a sexual nature to attend Ms A’s address there and then and that the house was empty and his subsequent attendance a short time later evidenced by telematics and APLS a short time later [209-211].

9.3 The Panel further considered and assessed the former officers account in his response and his conduct interview against the contemporaneous record of the social media exchange between him and Ms A where his account in his response differed from that record. The Panel found inconsistencies. An example being the former officer challenged Ms A’s account and description of him taking down his ‘trousers and boxers’ stating that it could not be the case as he wore briefs, [Redacted], until March 2025 [120-177] yet the Panel saw that he had photographed himself for Ms A wearing boxer shorts on 18th December 2024 [246]. A further difference concerned Ms A’s mother’s whereabouts on 1^st March. The former officer’s account was that she was present in the kitchen throughout his attendance on 1^st March, yet the message exchange indicated she was in hospital. The Panel noted he accepted that in the conduct interview and that he had ‘got that wrong’ [120-177,75-113]. A further difference in his account from the social media record related to knowledge of Ms A’s vulnerability. The former officer told the investigators he had ‘no idea if she’s a past DV victim’ [120-177] but the message exchanges show Ms A told him directly of the stalking report on 9^th January 2025 [78] and of an assault on 10^th May 2025 she spoke of an assault and he replied that it would be ‘logged for a diary appointment as the threat had passed’ [109]. Whilst the Panel noted he was able to rely on good character, in our assessment of credibility and propensity, given the inconsistencies against the message record and his non-attendance, when weighing his rationale against the evidence we assessed the weight of his account lower than the account from Ms A.

9.4 The Panel also noted that the former officer admitted in the conduct interview that he and Ms A had engaged in sexual relations over a period of time and that they had been introduced to one another by a fellow co-worker. Subsequently they had met at a work social event that he and Ms A attended [124]. It was also noted that in his interview, [Redacted], ‘whilst not making up for lost time, he was not holding back and wanted to try things and do things’ [125]. Given this, and the other evidence the Panel asked itself rhetorically, how likely is it that the former officer willingly restricted himself to engaging in sex with Ms A only when he was off duty, when Ms A made it very clear that she was happy and willing to so be engaged when he visited her whilst on duty? The Panel found his assertion unrealistic.

9.5 The Panel also found corroboration from the evidence of Ms A’s mother [appendix 5 18/18/2025]. It was clear that she was uncomfortable in discussing matters of a sexual nature, but she did inform the interviewing officer that former Pc Raywood and her daughter had engaged in acts she described as a ‘knee trembler’ and a ‘blow job’ albeit she relied on what Ms A had told her. However, she also added that whilst not an eyewitness to any sexual act, she did say that it was obvious what they were doing.

9.6 Taking into consideration and together, the APLS and telematics data, showing the officer in the vicinity Ms As addresses (incontrovertible) , the evidence from Ms A in her statement and live testimony, the BWV evidence from Ms As mother, the former officers regulation 31 response, his account in the conduct interview and the extensive social media exchange between Ms A and the former officer including the dates, times, content and sexualised nature of the exchange (incontrovertible), the fact that there was alignment in the accounts provided by Ms A and the former officer in all but the sexual activity whilst on duty; and the Panels assessment of the former officers evidence against incontrovertible messages and that he chose not to attend; the Panel found that the allegations were proven on the balance of probabilities. It was more likely than not that he engaged in sexual activity on the dates and times as alleged by the AA whilst on duty.

 

Does the found conduct engage and breach the standard of Professional Behaviour (Stage 2)?

10.0 The Panel proceeded to consider whether the standard of discreditable conduct alleged had been breached in respect to the found behaviour. It examined the definition as set out in the police conduct regulations 2020, namely that:

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).

10.1 The Panel in its assessment of the definition against the facts and behaviour of the former officer found the standard engaged and breached. By engaging in sexual activity whilst on duty, in uniform and being paid at the public expense on multiple occasions his actions and behaviour discredited the police service and undermined public confidence in it.

 

Does the found breach of the standard of professional behaviour amount to gross misconduct, misconduct or neither? (Stage 3)

11.0 The Panel remined itself of the definitions as set out in the police conduct regulations at schedule 2.

11.1 To assist it in differentiating between the definitions the Panel used the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct proceedings (2023) and considered both culpability and harm.

11.2 The actions of the former officer were deliberate, intentional and planned, undertaken over a long period of time. Therefore, culpability is high.

11.3 The Panel also noted that the harm caused was reputational. This was vividly demonstrated by the evidence of one witness, who, when discussing the affair involving an on-duty police officer with Ms A, said to another police officer ‘you lot are all the same.’ Given national events as well as local news coverage of sexual impropriety by police officers, the reputation of all the service is undermined by such actions.

11.4 The Panel found that former PC Ian Raywood’s breach of the Standard of Discreditable Conduct was so serious as to amount to Gross Misconduct.

 

Assessment of Seriousness and Outcome (Stage 4)

12.0 Having made a finding of gross misconduct; the Panel went on to deliberate on what disciplinary action would have been appropriate. It received submissions from the AA.

12.1 The Panel had regard to the former officer’s record of service.

12.2 The Panel has had regard to the Outcomes Guidance published by the College of Policing (CoP 2023). References to paragraphs below are those within that Guidance. Following the approach in Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin), as adopted in the Outcomes Guidance, the Panel approached its decision on outcome in three stages to determine the appropriate sanction:

Stage 1: Assess the seriousness of the misconduct (based on (i) the officer’s culpability (ii) harm caused by the misconduct (iii) the existence of any aggravating factors (iv) the existence of any mitigating factors).

Stage 2: Keep in mind the purposes for which an outcome is imposed.

Stage 3: Choose the outcome which most appropriately fulfils those purposes given the seriousness of the conduct.

               

Seriousness of the misconduct

12.3 The Panel was careful not to double count.

Culpability

12.4 Paragraph 4.9 provides 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.

12.5 The Panel determined the following:

• • As recorded above, the former officer’s actions were premeditated, planned and intentional (CoP 2023 4.10).
  • The AA submitted that Ms A was vulnerable thus exacerbating the former officer’s culpability. The Panel found that there was a short period of time where Ms A was the alleged victim of stalking by a former partner, but Ms A herself stated that this was never discussed with the former officer nor was he involved in any way with the issue. Additionally, the relationship between the former officer and Ms A was already in existence for some years prior to such events and continued thereafter. There was no evidence to show that Ms A’s vulnerability at that time in any way was acted upon by the former officer. Further they had met through the workplace and not as a result of the former officer’s role. There was no evidence in this case that the former officer had misused his position of trust or authority for a sexual purpose. Therefore, the Panel did not find that this aspect contributed to the former officer’s culpability as neither vulnerability nor abuse of position for a sexual purpose were factors in this case.

Harm

12.6 The harm caused by an officer’s actions can be considered in various ways. The Panel determined the following:

• • As above (Cop 2023 4.66); there would be significant harm to the reputation of the police if the full facts were known as evidenced by the witness statement reaction as recorded [118].

Aggravating Factors

12.7 Aggravating factors are those tending to worsen the circumstances of the case, in relation to either the officer’s culpability or the harm caused.

12.8 The Panel determined the following to be present:

• • Malign intent on the part of the former officer, namely sexual.
  • The misconduct was undertaken over a long period of time.
  • There was a significant departure from national guidance.
  • The scale of national concern on such matters.
  • There were multiple allegations that breached the Standard.

Mitigating Factors

12.9 Mitigating factors are those tending 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.

12.10 The Panel could find no mitigation.

Assessment

12.11 The Panel found Culpability to be high and Harm to be high.

 

Personal Mitigation

13.0     The Panel recognised personal mitigation should always be considered but that it has limited weight. There was no character bundle submitted by the former officer. We had the record of service and had seen it. We had considered the two emails he asked for the Panel to see.

 

Outcome

14.0 The Panel reminded itself of the threefold propose of the police misconduct regime, namely:

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

14.1 Given that this is a former officer case, the Panel was aware that it can only consider two possible outcomes - disciplinary action or no disciplinary action.

14.2 The Panel concludes that former officer’s conduct, taken as a whole, was so serious the only appropriate action would be disciplinary action.

14.3 The Panel considered less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes.

14.4 The Panel considered a Final Written Warning including an extended written warning as the sanction but given its findings as to the nature and level of conduct by the former officer, it did not consider that the aims of the regime would be met by such a sanction.

14.5 He had been found to have committed gross misconduct and our assessment was high culpability and high harm. He was engaging in sexual activity for his own gratification whilst on duty multiple times and whilst being paid at the expense of the public purse and expected to be available to respond to calls for service from the public and discharge his duties as an officer. There was already a real impact on the reputation and confidence in policing as it was talked about in the community. Nothing less than dismissal would serve to deter similar behaviour uphold high standards or to maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service.

14.6 As a result of this misconduct hearing the following was found and imposed with effect from today:

Had the former officer still been a serving officer he would have been dismissed without notice.

 

Policing Barring List

15.0 The AA is directed to write a report to the College of Policing seeking to have the officer placed on the police barred list.

 

Publication

16.0 The AA is directed to publish the final written report. Anonymity is provided to the members of the public within the report. The former officer is to be named.

 

Appeal

17.0 In accordance with Regulations, the AA shall provide the former officer with a copy of this report and a notice of the right of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal.

 

The Panel

ACO Davison

Ms Miller

Mr Taylor

11/08/2026