JMW’s Police Law Team, based within the Business Crime Team, has achieved an outcome of no case to answer, for a Police Officer following allegations that he breached the Professional Standards of Behaviour.

Background

PC SR was subjected to both criminal and gross misconduct proceedings following an investigation by the Force Professional Standards Department. The allegations were that the Officer deliberately factory reset his mobile phone following an invitation to attend at the Police Station to provide an account in respect of a linked investigation.

The Officer was interviewed under caution in respect of the linked investigation and whilst he was answering questions, he was further arrested for factory resetting his mobile phone with the intention to conceal information which may be of interest to the investigation. He was further served with a Regulation Notice alleging that he had breached the standards of Honesty and Integrity and Discreditable Conduct. The Officer was notified that the matter would be referred to a Police Misconduct Tribunal as the matters amounted to gross misconduct and that if the breaches of the Professional Standards of Behaviour were proved, dismissal would be justified. He was further suspended from duty.

JMW’s Expert Assistance

The Officer was referred to JMW’s Police Law Team by way of referral from the Police Federation. A Solicitor from the Police Law Team represented the Officer during the interview under caution. Following the Officer being released, and representations being made, the criminal matter was disposed of as no further action.

Given JMW’S Police Law Team’s specialist knowledge in respect of the Police Conduct Regime, they retained the Officer’s case and prepared his case for the Gross Misconduct Hearing. The approach taken was to put forward a full account as opposed to brief details of the defence at the outset along with mitigation to explain the Officer’s mindset at the time. The Officer had experienced exceptional circumstances and it was important to explain them and the background leading up to them.

Due to the sensitive nature of the matters set out in the allegations, JMW’s Police Law Team instructed Counsel to represent the Officer during the hearing. They further made representations for the Officer to be anonymised in the notice which was to be published  and for his Misconduct Hearing to be held in private. The Regulations state that the starting point is for all hearings to be in public and for Officers to be named in the notices. This is to promote public confidence in policing amongst other matters unless there are exceptional reasons to not do this. JMW were successful in the representations and the Officer was anonymised throughout the Misconduct Hearing and he was not named in the notice published prior to the hearing notifying the public that an Officer was subject to misconduct proceedings and the outcome notice, published following the conclusion of the hearing.

JMW’s Police Law Team identified that there may be equality act matters which may arise, in that the Officer felt he was not able to ‘be himself’ whilst at work due to the culture around him. He was supported by JMW extensively in respect of this which included obtaining statements from other members of the Police Force who not only were supportive of the Officer but also put forward their experiences of not being able to ‘be themselves’. The statements were highly impactive.

At the hearing itself, the Officer was advised to provide a full account which included accepting that he factory reset his mobile phone but providing details of his mindset at the time and how his background and experiences influenced his decision which was a momentarily lapse of judgement. The Officer was truly apologetic.

Outcome

Following a three-day hearing during which evidence was given by the Officer and numerous other witnesses, the Disciplinary Panel returned an outcome of no case to answer in respect of both breaches of the Professional Standards of Behaviour. This meant that with JMW’s expert assistance the Officer was able to retain his employment as a Police Officer.

Following conclusion of the case, the following feedback was received: