Former PC Ben Preston outcome report

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020 (as amended)

RE: Former PC Ben Preston 

The following represents the Panel’s findings in respect of the Police Misconduct hearing held at Essex Council Civic Centre 12-13 May 2026.

Legal Advice

Proceeding in absence of the former officer

GMC-v-Adeogba 2012 held that, as relevant,  a police misconduct  panel has a discretion whether to proceed in the absence of the former officer and that such discretion should be exercised with great care.

In considering whether to proceed, the panel should be mindful that fairness to the officer is of paramount concern. However, fairness to the regulator (in this case the AA) must also be considered. In determining the issue, the panel should have regard to the following:

1) The nature and circumstances of the officer’s behaviour absenting himself;

2) Whether an adjournment might result in the officer attending voluntarily and or not disrupting the proceedings;

3) The likely length of such an adjournment;

4) Whether the officer wishes to be legally represented or has by his conduct waived his right to be represented;

5) The extent of the disadvantage to the officer not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him;

6) The risk of the Panel reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of the officer;

7) The general public interest and the particular interests of the victims and witness that a hearing should take place within a reasonable time of the events.

Meaning of “Dishonesty” and “Integrity”

The Supreme Court in the case of Ivey (Appellant) v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords (Respondent)[2017] in considering the issue of dishonesty in the context of a criminal charge the court observed that;

“ dishonesty is by no means a defined concept. On the contrary, like the elephant, it is characterised more by recognition when encountered than by definition. Dishonesty is not a matter of law, but a jury question of fact and standards.”

Further, the Supreme Court set out a two -stage test that should be applied in determining whether the index conduct was dishonest as follows:

“Firstly, it must be asked whether the conduct complained of was dishonest by the lay objective standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people. If the answer is no, that disposes of the case in favour of the defendant. But if the answer is yes, it must ask, secondly, whether the defendant must have realised that ordinary honest people would so regard his behaviour, and he is to be convicted only if the answer to that second question is yes”.

The Court of Appeal in the case of Solicitors Regulation Authority v Wingate [2018} was required to consider the meaning of “acting with integrity“ and observed that Integrity  “connotes  moral soundness, rectitude and steady adherence to an ethical code. A person lacks integrity if unable to appreciate the distinction between what is honest or dishonest by ordinary standards”.

Documentation

The Panel was provided with and read the case papers in advance of the hearing which included the following:

1) Regulation 30 Notice dated 16 March 2026.

2) Investigators Report (redacted) 9 September 2025.

3) Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (completed by PC Preston dated 29 October 2024).

4) Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (completed by PS Hills dated 31 October 2024).

5) Record of PC Preston Interview Parts 1 and 2 dated 7 April 2025 and Part 3  dated 23 June 2025.

6) PC Preston’s BWV footage.

7) PC Preston’s email to his Fed Rep dated 9 May 2026

8) Procedure – Domestic Abuse Investigations (Published 22 Oct 2024).

Witnesses

The Panel did not hear any live evidence. Also, the former officer has not engaged with the proceedings and did not attend the hearing to give evidence.

The Allegations

The Allegations as detailed in the R30 Notice [amended] dated 16 March 2026 states as follows:

“Being an officer of Essex Police on 29 October 2024, you breached the Standards of Professional

Behaviour as set out in Schedule 2 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 as follows.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

1) On 29 October 2024, you were on duty.

2) As part of your role, you attended a pre -arranged meeting with a female (Person A) at Basildon Police Station. You captured a section of the meeting on your body worn video (BWV).

3) Person A disclosed information to you during the course of your meeting in relation to her ex - partner. This information included:

a) Allegations of stalking and/or harassment;

b) Allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour; and

c) Information about her ex -partner telling her that he was in possession of a firearm.

4) Person A’s account of her ex -partner’s behaviour included:

a) The fact that he threatens her over the phone;

b) When she blocks him on her phone, he “turns up;”

c) He went through the bin at her home and told her that she was disgusting and asked her whether her boyfriend knew about her pregnancy test;

d) He threatened her with a gun in person in front of her children. He told her that the gun was in his car boot with his spare wheel (she provided the vehicle registration details). She stated he told her how much the gun cost him and that he was making effo rts to remove the serial number;

e) He said, “he would love to live through his wildest fantasy and tie my legs to the back of his car and drive down the street;”

f) He said that if she wanted to get rid of her partner, he and his friends could make him “disappear;”

g) He sends offensive messages to her children and tells them to tell her; and

h) He asks her children to record her in her home.

5) Person A asked whether the information she provided would be kept on record.

6) You failed to deal with the victim in an appropriate manner, namely:

a) You omitted to record and/or to acknowledge risks raised by Person A;

b) You omitted to record and/or to acknowledge offences raised by Person A;

c) You failed to act in a manner which reflected that you were taking the matter seriously upon hearing the concerns raised by Person A;

d) You informed Person A that you would resolve the matter as a “non crime – domestic;” and

e) When Person A said that she felt that the gun threat was serious even though he was trying to “laugh it,” you said to her that he was maybe just trying to scare her.

7) In relation to the risk assessment form, you asked Person A whether she wished to complete a risk assessment, which she declined. You completed a risk assessment form:

a) You answered questions on behalf of Person A;

b) You had not asked Person A these questions;

c) You graded the risk as a “Standard Risk;” and

d) You did not update the form with all of the relevant info Person A had provided to you.

8) You recorded a non -crime investigation on Athena and submitted the matter to your sergeant for closing.

9) Two days later, another police colleague completed a risk assessment by asking Person A the questions in the risk assessment form. On receipt of the information from Person A the risk was graded as a “High Risk .”

The AA’s Case

The AA maintains that the alleged conduct amounts to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour of: Honesty and integrity, Orders and instructions, Duties and Responsibilities and Discreditable conduct, and amounts to Gross Misconduct.

The former officer’s Response to the Allegations

The former officer did not serve a R31 Response to the Allegations.

However, on 9 May 2026 the former officer in writing to his Federation Representative stated as follows:

“I wish to make it absolutely clear that I deny deliberately manipulating the domestic abuse risk assessment, deliberately minimising the concerns raised by Person A, or acting dishonestly at any stage during this matter.

At no point did I intentionally seek to misrepresent the information provided to me, suppress safeguarding concerns, or avoid taking appropriate action. I reject the allegation that I acted without honesty or integrity….”

The Panel’s Approach

During this hearing, the Panel took the following approach:

(i) First, to consider the facts of the case and to make findings in relation to each of the facts alleged by the AA.

(ii) Second, to determine whether those facts found proved constituted one or more breach(es) of the relevant standards.

(iii) Third, to determine whether any conduct found proven against the Officer amounted to Misconduct or Gross Misconduct or Neither.

(iv) Fourth, and if appropriate, to decide what the outcome should be.

The Panel reminded itself that the burden of proof is on the AA throughout the hearing and that the relevant standard of proof is the standard required in civil cases namely, the balance of probabilities.

Findings of Fact 

In making the following findings of fact, the Panel had regard to the available documentation, the former officer’s email dated 9 May 2026, Body Worn video footage and  submissions made by Counsel on behalf of the AA.

On 29 October 2024 the former officer was on duty when he was required to attend a pre arranged meeting with Person A at Basildon Police Station that was given a two-hour time slot. The former officer’s BWV captured a part of the meeting, because he forgot to switch on his camera from the outset.

Harassment, coercive and controlling behaviour

During the meeting with the former officer, Person A disclosed information about her ex-partner concerning allegations of: stalking and or harassment,  coercive and controlling behaviour; and further that he was in possession of a firearm. For example, Person A stated as follows :

‘he phones a lot of the time to threaten me…’

‘he asks me out to dinner…I don’t know how many times I have to decline’ and  ‘the more I decline, the more he is insistent’

As regards coercive and controlling behaviour the Panel noted and accepted Person A’s written account that, amongst others, her ex partner stated that he would get their daughter to follow her round the house, record what she was saying and who she was talking to. Further, another occasion Person A’s ex-partner  broke into her house, went through the bedroom and hung underwear in kitchen.

Furthermore, Person A also alleged that her  ex -partner’s behaviour  included:

a)  making threats over the phone, and when she blocked him on her phone he would turn up at  her home address

b) going  through her dustbin  and telling her that she  was disgusting: and asked whether her current boyfriend knew about her pregnancy test;

d) repeated references to possession of a gun ( which caused her to feel threatened ) to include;  that he kept the gun in the boot of his car with his spare wheel, the cost of the gun and that he was making effort to remove the serial number

e) stating that he would love to live through his wildest fantasy and tie her legs to the back of his car and drive down the street;

f) that he and his friends could make Person A’s ex-partner “disappear;”

g) sending offensive messages to her children and tells them to tell her; and asks  the children to record her whilst at home.

During the meeting, Person A enquired whether the information that she provided regarding her ex-partner would be kept on record.

In summary, the Panel concluded that on any reasonable analysis the evidence provided to the former officer was capable of amounting to harassment, coercive and controlling behaviour and therefore he should have taken the necessary steps with a view to safeguarding Person A in accordance with the Domestic Abuse Investigations Procedure.

Furthermore, the Panel determined that had the former officer fully applied his mind to the nature of the matters disclosed by Person A  he would clearly have identified the potential offence of harassment.

Accordingly, the former officer was or ought to have been aware that there was prima facie evidence that offence(s) may have been disclosed by Person A. Moreover, had the former officer had due regard to the ex-partner’s offending history  on the Storm log, this would have provided further evidence of the ex-partner’s character and propensity to commit similar offences as recorded on the police system.

In all the circumstances the Panel concluded that, the former officer failed to deal with Person A in an appropriate manner in that he:

a) omitted to record and or acknowledge the risks raised by Person A and or the offences raised by Person A and or having identified the risks posed by Person A’s ex-partner he failed to translate the information onto the risk report;

b) failed to act in a manner which reflected that he took her complaint  seriously .In this regard, the Panel noted that the former office did not make any notes during the meeting with Person A and made his  decision after 1 minute 11 Seconds that the complaint should be recorded as “no crime” , and he appeared unwilling to change his mind.

c) When Person A stated that she felt that the gun threat was serious the former officer said, amongst other things, and without any empathy that maybe her ex-partner was just trying to scare her.

In the end, the former officer told Person A that he would resolve her complaint as a “non-crime domestic”.

Furthermore, in accordance with the Domestic Abuse Investigation policy and procedure, the former officer asked Person A whether she wished to complete a risk assessment, which she declined. Accordingly, the former officer completed the risk assessment on behalf of Person A without asking her the relevant questions. 

In the end the former officer graded the risk as a “Standard Risk” and did not update the risk assessment form with all of the relevant info provided by Person A. More specifically, in this regard the Panel noted the former officer’s body language, tone of voice, and the fact that he concluded an offence of harassment had not been made out within 1minute, 11 seconds of the body worn video footage.

Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the former officer was disinterested in Person’s A’s concerns and was somewhat impatient with her and did not take her complaint seriously.  Furthermore, in this respect the Panel noted that during the course of his PSD interview the former officer accepted that he only spent 30 minutes of the two hour appointment with Person A and that, he should have focussed on the domestic abuse actions in the remainder of the time  but instead he focussed on other “bits”.

In the end, the former officer recorded a non-crime investigation on the force computer system, Athena, and then submitted the matter for consideration by his Sergeant.

However, about two days later, another police colleague completed a risk assessment by asking Person A the relevant questions within the risk assessment form and upon receipt of Person A’s response unlike the former officer graded the risk as “High”.

Gross Misconduct / Misconduct or Neither/ Standards of Professional Behaviour

Having determined the facts the Panel considered which of the relevant Standards of Professional Behaviour (SPB) were engaged and breached, as stated in the College of Policing Code of Ethics.

Honesty and Integrity

By these standards officers are required to act with integrity and not to compromise or abuse their position.

Orders and Instructions

By these standards officers are required to give and carry out lawful orders only, and to abide by Police Regulations

Duties and responsibilities

By these standards officers are required to be diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities and to this end they must ensure that accurate records of their actions are kept – both as good practice and as required by legislation, policies and procedures.

Discreditable conduct.

By this standard, officers are required to constantly keep in mind that the public expect them to maintain the highest standards of behaviour. Therefore, they must consider how a member of the public may regard their behaviour whether on or off duty.

As regards Honesty and Integrity, the Panel noted the absence of any evidence that the former officer stood to benefit in any respect by being dishonest in his dealings with Person A. In all the circumstances, the Panel determined that the proven conduct constituted a breach of the following Standards of Professional Behaviour: Honesty and Integrity (Integrity Only), Orders and Instructions, Duties and Responsibilities and Discreditable conduct.

Gross Misconduct / Misconduct / Neither

In considering whether the proven conduct amounted to Gross Misconduct or Misconduct, and in accordance with the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (as amended)  the Panel was mindful that in relation to disciplinary action regarding a  former officer, a finding of Gross Misconduct means a finding that the former officer would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be a member of the service.

Whereas, disciplinary action of Misconduct for a former officer is defined as conduct not so serious that the former officer would have been dismissed if he had still been a member of the police service.

Notwithstanding that the Panel found all the allegations proven and amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviours namely, Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only), Orders and Instructions, Duties and responsibilities and Discreditable conduct, in the absence of any evidence (as found by the Panel)  that the former officer stood to benefit in any respect by being dishonest in his dealings with Person A, the Panel considered that the proven  conduct was  not so serious that the former officer would have been dismissed if he had still been a member of the police service.

Accordingly, the Panel determined that the proven conduct amounts to Misconduct.

Panel

ACO  Fiona Henderson (Chair)

Jeremy Webster (Independent Panel Member)

Debbie Wootton (Independent Panel Member)

David Tyme (Legally Qualified Person)- Remotely

May 2026