Former PC Roscoe outcome report

IN THE MATTER OF A MISCONDUCT HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE CONDUCT REGULATIONS 2020 RE: FORMER POLICE CONSTABLE ROSCOE

Introduction

1. This is the determination in the misconduct proceedings relating to the Former Officer, Police Constable Roscoe, whose last working day was 7 June 2026. Accordingly, we will refer to him as ‘the Former Officer’.

Representation

2. The hearing took place over 1 day – 8 June 2026 at Chelmsford Civic Centre before a Panel which consisted of F. Henderson (Chair), J. Jones (IPM), S. Hurdle (IPM). They were assisted by A. Findlay (LQM).

3. There were no public or press present.

4. The appropriate authority was represented at today’s hearing by Mr. Taheri of Counsel.

5. The Former Officer did not attend the hearing and nor is was he represented. The Federation Representative did appear in order to assist if the Former Officer attended however he did not play any active part in proceedings following the non-appearance.

Former Officer’s non-attendance

6. At the outset, I ascertained that the Former Officer had been given proper notice of the hearing and the allegations against him, and that he had declined to attend, this having been confirmed via email on 18 May 2026 by legal representatives of the Former Officer. There was no indication in this correspondence that an adjournment would secure the attendance of the Former Officer, in fact quite the contrary, it was indicated that there would be no Regulation 31 response forthcoming and confirmation that the Former Officer would take no part in the hearing. Given these considerations, we were invited by the Appropriate Authority to proceed in the Former Officer’s absence and the Panel was content that the proper course was to do so.

Anonymity

7. I shall refer to the complainant throughout as Ms. A given the nature of the allegations.

Allegations

8. The Former Officer was served with notice of misconduct proceedings on 24 April 2026 outlining the following conduct, which, if proven, was assessed as amounting to gross misconduct:

Allegations

“1. During the course of your personal relationship that started in 1999 with Ms A [REDACTED TEXT] you repeatedly engaged in behaviour towards her that was controlling or coercive. Examples of this behaviour towards Ms A are as follows:

(a) You engaged in jealous or controlling behaviour that had the purpose or effect of preventing or dissuading Ms A from, or making it difficult for her to, socialise with friends or neighbours. For example:
(i) At the beginning of your relationship with her, owing to your mistrust of her, you would send her messages if she were to go out.
(ii) You would become angry and moody when she spent time with her friends and not you.
(iii) You would say things that would make her feel guilty for leaving the house. For example, saying to your two children with her, “Why is mum out and not at home with us?”
(iv) More recently, on her popping out to see friends or neighbours for even 30 minutes, you would text her, asking where she is, and you would become frustrated and angry, leading to arguments.

(b) On multiple occasions, when Ms A tried to end the relationship with you, you threatened suicide or otherwise emotionally blackmailed her.

(c) In 2018, after one attempt by Ms A to break up with you, Ms A was supposed to be going on holiday with her father and two children. You hid the passports and said to her that she could not go because she had tried to break up with you.

(d) Your controlling and jealous approach to your relationship with Ms A contributed to her deferring studies at [REDACTED TEXT] as you were paranoid that her going to university would lead to the end of your relationship with her. You gave her an ultimatum that it was either you or university.

(e) On multiple occasions, you behaved in an angry manner at home and threw items around the property or damaged items in anger.

For example:

(i) In 2017, you and Ms A had been invited to a Christmas family party.
You were angry that she wanted to go to this party. [REDACTED TEXT]
(ii) On one occasion when Ms A was starting a new job: On her first day at work, you were angry and throwing things around the house, causing her to leave the house in a rush in her trainers.
(iii) On another occasion, in anger, you threw a chair down the stairs.
(iv) The incident set out in paragraph 2 below.

2. At around 8am on 2nd October 2024, you damaged various items inside your family home:

(a) You kicked the oven door.
(b) You pulled off a radiator cover, threw it on the floor and started stomping on it, causing it to break.
(c) You ripped a mirror in the hallway off the wall, banging it on the floor and stomping on it, causing it to break.
(d) You took another mirror off the wall in the living room, smashed it on the floor, causing it to break.
(e) You broke a further radiator cover.
(f) You ripped the TV off the wall in the dining room, threw it on the floor, and caused it to break.

3. Due to your behaviour set out above in paragraph 2, Ms A called the police. Officers attended. At or about 8.32am on 2nd October 2024, T/PS Thomas Baskeyfield placed a key into the front door of your family home and unlocked the door. Upon T/PS Baskeyfield pushing the door open, he placed his right hand between the edge of the door and the door frame. You kicked, or otherwise slammed, the door shut, trapping T/PS Baskeyfield’s right finger and knuckle in the door. Other than the immediate pain caused to him, this left a small graze to his right index finger knuckle and some slight swelling.

Your conduct was a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to

(1) Discreditable Conduct and

(2) Authority, Respect & Courtesy

Your conduct amounted to gross misconduct, namely a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious that your dismissal would be justified.

Burden and standard of proof

5. The burden of proof is on the Appropriate Authority to prove that the Former Officer behaved in the manner alleged and that, in doing so, he breached the standards of professional behaviour.

6. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The Appropriate Authority must further satisfy us that the manner of the breaches is of such a nature or degree that it amounts to gross misconduct.

Former Officer’s Response

7. The Former Officer has declined to provide a formal response in these proceedings. We have seen the emails beginning at pdf 22 of the bundle which outline that the Former Officer “does not intend to engage with the hearing process going forward”

8. The Former Officer was interviewed twice during the process of investigation, once in relation to the criminal investigation and once in respect of the misconduct investigation. During the first interview on 2 October 2024, which was in respect of the criminal investigation, the Former Officer was accompanied by a solicitor and a federation representative. Throughout that interview the Former Officer made no comment.

9. During the second interview, in respect of misconduct, which took place on 7 October 2024 the Former Officer was accompanied by a federation representative. During that interview a short, prepared statement was read by his representative in which he denied all allegations and made counter allegations of domestic abuse following which no further comment was made.

Determination of conduct

9. The matters to be addressed are:

(a) Which facts we find to have been proved on the balance of probabilities.
(b) Whether those facts amount to breaches of the standards of professional behaviour.
(c) Whether those breaches amount to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.

10. In making the determination, we have assessed all relevant information made available to us in the supplied bundle. It was confirmed that all parties had access to the same information, and no submissions were made to introduce additional information on the day of the hearing. We have considered the written opening supplied on behalf of the Appropriate Authority and listened to their fair and balanced submissions in respect of the weight which can be applied to the written evidence in this case. While we note the no comment interview of the Former Officer we have taken into consideration his account as set out in his prepared statement. We watched 2 short video extracts from body worn video which both related to allegation 3 which we will address in our main reasoning. It should also be noted that there was one live witness, PS Baskeyfield, who attended in respect of allegation 3, the injury to him.

11. Complainant was not willing to attend and we shall address that issue in detail within our reasoning in relation to the facts.

12. We have utilised the relevant sections of the College of Policing Document ‘Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings’ in formulating the rationale for our determination.

13. The purpose of the police misconduct regime is threefold:

(i) To maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service;
(ii) To uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct; and
(iii) To protect the public.

14. Before making any determination, we reminded ourselves of the definition of misconduct and gross misconduct and that and that we must not find that the conduct of the Former Officer amounts to gross misconduct unless we are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that this is the case.

Evidence and Findings

15. We heard from only one live witness, PS Baskeyfield. His evidence accorded with his written statement and due to the circumstances of the hearing he was not challenged. He was able to comment upon two body worn video excerpts which showed his arrival at the property where the Former Officer resided and his hand being caught between door and frame while trying to open the front door with a key. The Former Officer is seen twice on the footage opening and slamming the door while officers request entry prior to the incident which injures PS Baskeyfield. The second body warn excerpt is from the back seat of the car in which the Former Officer is conveyed to custody in which he says to a fellow officer that he was unaware that PS Baskeyfield’s hand was in the door when he closed it. This appeared to us to be an admission, at least on a reckless basis, to causing the injury through his actions albeit unintentionally.

16. Given the absence of the complainant or other witnesses we looked very carefully at the statements and the surrounding evidence in this case. It was clear to us that if we accepted the statements as true and accurate recollections of the actions of the Former Officer then they all accorded with the allegations at paragraph 8 above.

17. In coming to our conclusion we took into account all of the evidence within the bundle. In broad terms the allegations against the Former Officer fall into 3 categories:

a. Coercive and controlling behaviour over an extended period of time prior to 2 October 2024;
b. An incident in which the Former Officer loses self control and damages property in his home on 2 October 2024; and
c. Injury being caused to PS Baskeyfield on 2 October 2024.

18. We first looked at the incident on 2 October 2024 which is described in statements by Ms. A, [REDACTED TEXT] and a neighbour. It would appear common ground that on the morning of 2 October 2024 there was an argument within the property of the Former Officer where he resided with Ms. A [REDACTED TEXT]. The catalyst to this argument is a letter which was received by Ms. A alleging infidelity by the Former Officer. We have seen a copy of this letter within the bundle and there is therefore no doubt that such a letter was written and received.

19. It is then described by both Ms. A [REDACTED TEXT] that the Former Officer begins to angrily smash items within the property [REDACTED TEXT]. By the description given in the statements this level of anger appears extreme. Refuge is sought by Ms. A at the house of her neighbour. A contemporaneous report is made to that neighbour that the Former Officer has “gone nuts” and is “smashing up” items within the house. The police are called and Ms. A, in the presence of the neighbour, gives a consistent account to the police upon arrival.

20. We have seen pictures from the house in the aftermath of the police attendance that morning once the Former Officer is arrested. Within our bundle at pdf 170-177 there are images of broken mirrors, a TV and radiator covers from within the property. Ms. A [REDACTED TEXT] describe those items as having been broken by the Former Officer in anger. The Former Officer has given no other explanation for the destruction witnessed on that morning by the other officers who arrived at the property.

21. There are text messages sent by the Former Officer to a person whose name has been redacted admitting to the damage and sending pictures of the aftermath at pdf 181-185.

22. We therefore find the allegations in respect of the behaviour of the Former Officers on that day and the damage at the property as described to be proved on the balance of probabilities.

23. We next turn to the injury to PS Baskeyfield. We have seen video as to how this occurred. Officers are trying to gain entry to the property to speak to the Former Officer who they have reports is threatening to harm himself, in addition to the damaging of property within the house. We will return to this in our determination of the historic allegations in respect of coercive controlling behaviour.

24. It can be seen that the Former Officer on two occasions opens and then slams the front door while telling officers to go away. A key is obtained for the front door and as PS Baskeyfield begins to open the door and attempt to enter the property. The door is again slammed shut from the inside. Having turned the key to operate the lock PS Baskeyfield’s knuckle is between door and frame when the door is slammed. This causes the injury which can be seen at pdf 179 within the bundle. As the door is closed PS Baskeyfield can be seen to recoil in pain. Although thankfully minor in nature it is nevertheless an injury caused by the actions of the Former Officer in slamming the door closed. We accept that this was not deliberate in terms of the injury but entire foreseeable that an injury may have occurred if the door was slammed while someone was trying to open it. We therefore also find this allegation proved.

25. In respect of historic allegations we initially considered the statement of Ms. A which appears at pdf 76-81. This contains narrative accounts of all of the allegations which are outlined at 1a-c of the Regulation 30 notice. We do not seek to go through each in particular detail save to say that within the statement all are outlined in depth. We have read and considered that evidence very carefully indeed.

26. The statement [REDACTED TEXT] also corroborates issues in respect of the Former Officer becoming angry and previously throwing objects in anger. Particularly well recalled is the throwing of a chair down the stairs. Also present within that statement at pdf 84 is evidence that the Former Officer would use guilt as a mechanism of control [REDACTED TEXT].

27. It is also clear from objective evidence that the Former Officer has on occasion threatened suicide. There is a text message to that effect at pdf 167 within the bundle of papers. This is also a factor known to the neighbour and contained within her statement at pdf 86-87 where she confirms that she is aware of him having done this before although not often.

28. Given the objective evidence in respect of some of the allegations and the consistent narrative which we find throughout the statements of Ms. A we find it more likely than not that her evidence as a whole is correct about her life with the Former Officer up until the incident on 2 October 2024. There is certainly no reason for us to believe that while she has been provably accurate about many topic (threats of suicide, anger, damage) she is not a witness of truth in respect of other matters. We do not see what would be to gain for Ms. A in this approach. It is understandable, given her lived experience, she was unwilling to attend at this hearing.

29. Our findings are that allegations are proven on the balance of probabilities, and that the breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to Discreditable Conduct and Authority, Respect and Courtesy constituted gross misconduct.

30. The Discreditable Conduct Standard of Professional Behaviour is 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.” The basis for our finding that the allegation breaches the discreditable conduct standard is that the Former Officer displayed many years of controlling behaviour toward a domestic partner. On the 2 October 2024 there was an incident [REDACTED TEXT] in it as well as Ms. A. The Former Officer also injured a colleague who was carrying out his lawful duty.

31. The Authority, Respect and Courtesy Standard of Professional Behaviour is that: “Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.” This standard is breached on the same facts.

32. The basis for our finding of gross misconduct is: these breaches exceed the threshold of purely unacceptable or improper behaviour and reach the threshold of being so serious that it justifies dismissal.

33. The Code of Ethics requires that officers behave in a manner whether on or off duty which does not bring discredit on the police service or undermine trust or confidence in policing. In determining whether the off-duty conduct discredits the police, the test is not whether the police officer discredits himself or herself, but the police as a whole. In this case this standard is quite obviously passed.

34. The Former Officer has not acted with self-control or tolerance in his actions on 2 October 2024 or in the many years of controlling behaviour which preceded it, nor treated Ms. A with respect and courtesy.

Determination of sanction

35. Having determined that the allegations are proven and that the proven breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour constitute gross misconduct, we invited representations from the Appropriate Authority on the appropriate sanction in this matter.

36. In the absence of the Former Officer or active involvement from the Federation Representative no representations were made on the Former Officer’s behalf at the hearing.

37. Submissions were made by the Appropriate Authority that the appropriate sanction in this case would have been dismissal without notice had the Former Officer not resigned and that this would be the minimum sanction consistent with upholding the threefold purpose of the misconduct policing regime.

38. As stated above, the Former Officer has not provided a response save for basic denials during a prepared statement and nor has he put forward any mitigation. He has not provided any character references. We have also considered his Record of Service, which showed no previous behaviour such as this. It did show that just prior to the incident on 2 October 2024 the Former Officer had been off work with stress and we have taken this into account when considering sanction.

39. Essex Police holds itself to the highest standards in respect of the rule of law, the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Professional Behaviour, but also the standards expected by the community that the police will operate with a higher level of trust and integrity as it is their duty to protect people.

40. Any action we take today must be proportionate and balance the rights of the Former Officer and the requirement to maintain public confidence.

41. The proven misconduct constitutes gross misconduct, and given that the Former Officer is no longer a police officer, the available outcomes are:

(a) To decide to take no disciplinary action and simply record the finding; or

(b) To decide that dismissal would have been appropriate had the officer still been serving.

42. We have carefully considered these potential outcomes in order from the lowest sanction (no action) through to dismissal and assessed them as to how they may meet the need to fulfil the purposes of the misconduct proceedings, and the purpose of imposing sanctions.

43. This is not a case which engages the presumption of dismissal as provided for by the new The Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, as the allegations are ‘pre-commencement allegations’.

Seriousness

44. We have considered the seriousness of the misconduct that gave rise to the Former Officer’s appearance at the hearing today, in accordance with the College of Policing’s Guidance on Outcomes.

45. In determining seriousness, we have had regard to the four factors detailed in the College of Policing Guidance; culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, before having regard to any personal mitigation.

Culpability

34. We have considered the Former Officer’s culpability in this case and make the following observations:

a. The Former Officer alone was responsible for his actions

b. The misconduct was deliberate targeted, planned and repeated over a period of years culminating in the incident on 2 October 2024.

c. The Former Officer ought to have known that his actions were inappropriate and damaging.

d. Pursuant to paragraph 4.61 of the College of Policing Guidance: ‘Policing has come under national scrutiny through high-profile cases where there has been a failing to prevent or protect women and girls from abuse and violence, and/or violence has been perpetrated by those serving the police. It is imperative that policing makes it clear that misconduct of this nature is wholly unacceptable, setting a clear expectation as to the seriousness to which these matters are treated.

e. As paragraph 4.62 of the College of Policing Guidance makes clear: ‘Violence against women and girls perpetrated by a police officer, whether on-duty or off-duty, will always have a high degree of culpability, with the likely outcome being severe.’ Paragraph 4.60 makes clear that, ‘The term 'violence against women and girls' refers to acts of violence or abuse that are known to disproportionately affect women and girls.’ Control and coercion squarely engages this guidance as does the incident which took place on 2 October 2024.

46. . We therefore assess the Former Officer’s culpability as high.

Harm

47. We have considered the harm in this case and make the following observations:

a. There was a physical injury caused to a fellow officer.

b. The incident on 2 October 2024 occurred [REDACTED TEXT] and as we find the facts as described by Ms. A in respect of that incident, it would have been very frightening [REDACTED TEXT].

c. The Former Officer would have known or should have known that the impact of both his long term behaviour and the specific incident on 2 October 2024 on the complainant would be severe.

d. There was the potential for significant harm to public confidence in the long term actions of the Former Officer.

48. We find therefore harm in this case is high.

Aggravating factors

49. We have carefully considered the aggravating factors listed within the Guidance and any other factors outside of those. The Former Officer’s conduct was sustained and repeated. We however remind ourselves that the persistent nature of the Former Officer’s conduct is taken into account when assessing culpability and do not aggravate further on this basis.

Other matters have also been taken into account at an earlier stage and therefore the only aggravating factor that we find is the deliberate and gratuitous damage to property which occurred on 2 October 2024.

Mitigation

50. The purpose of mitigation is to reduce the seriousness of the conduct.

51. We have considered the relevant factors of the College of Policing Guidance, which is a non-exhaustive list.

52. The Former Officer has not put forward any mitigation, nor evidenced any remorse in fact quite the opposite as he has made denials and allegations toward the victim.

Personal Mitigation

53. We have not been provided with any character reference nor have we heard any submissions on that point. However, we have seen the contents of his service record which does show some periods of absence in respect of mental health conditions, one which was immediately before the incident in October 2024.

54. We have taken account of the decision in R (on the application of Williams) v Police Appeals Tribunal and another [2016] EWHC 2708 as to the weight to be given to personal mitigation in police misconduct proceedings.

55. Maintaining public confidence is essential and any personal mitigation would have been necessarily limited because of this.

Determination on sanction

56. We find that the appropriate outcome in this case would have been dismissal without notice had the Former Officer remained in service because:

a. For the reasons set out above, this is a very serious matter with no / limited mitigation.

b. These proven breaches exceed the threshold of purely unacceptable or improper behaviour and reach the threshold of being so serious that it justifies dismissal.

c. No other outcome than dismissal would be adequate to uphold public confidence in policing and maintain the high standards that are expected.

d. This type of conduct by officers will not be tolerated and we need to deter future misconduct by other officers. We consider that dismissal will help to prevent future misconduct.

57. As a consequence of the above, we indicate that the Former Officer’s details should be included within the Police Barred List (Regulation 3(2) of the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017).

58. We are aware of the Former Officer’s right to appeal in accordance with the Police Appeals Tribunal Rules 2020. The Former Officer should provide notice of his intention to appeal to the Appropriate Authority within 10-working days of receipt of this written determination.

8 June 2026