Former PC Adam Gardiner outcome report
Accelerated Misconduct Hearing (AMH) – 30th January 2026 Former Police Constable 42079265 Adam Gardiner
I have read all the papers presented to me and heard the case put forward by the Appropriate Authority.
In particular, the certificate issued by DCC Nolan as Appropriate Authority (AA) that the special conditions for an accelerated misconduct hearing are met under S49 Police Conduct Regulations (PCR) 2020. I fully concur with this decision.
I have considered the written submissions prepared by DI Nick Elliot on behalf of the Appropriate Authority and adopted and referred to by DI Elliot during the hearing.
I have also read the documentation pack provided in support of the hearing, and watched the Body Worn Video Footage provided.
I have also read and reminded myself of the relevant areas of the Home Office Guidance 2020, the College of Policing (COP) Code of Ethics relevant at the time, the Standards of Professional Behaviour as set out in Schedule 2 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and the COP guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings as updated in August 2022.
In this and all my determinations on decisions, I am considering the information and evidence I am provided with and assessing this against the test of ‘balance of probability’.
Anonymity Decision
The publication of the identity of the officer and any evidence at hand in these proceedings may unduly influence or prejudice the outcome of the live criminal proceedings, by bringing relevant information into the public domain ahead of trial.
The subject matter of these proceedings is such that it is likely to be of significant interest to the press or public. Whilst public interest reasons are often grounds for transparency, in this case, the full facts of matter are due to be made public over the course of a criminal proceeding so there will not be a permanent deprival on the part of the public to open justice.
The risk of prejudice to the criminal proceedings is real and one that in my assessment must be mitigated. This is in line with Article 6 Human Rights Act 1998.
I restrict all reporting regarding the details and persons involved in this AMH until the conclusion of all criminal proceedings related to it.
Decision to Proceed in Absence
The AA has submitted to proceed in the absence of former PC Gardiner as he has had notice of the hearing and has indicated that he does not intend to attend the hearing. There was a previous hearing booked on the 23rd December which was already postponed on the 18th December to allow for the officer to attend a medical appointment. This was at his request so he knows that he can ask for postponement if he cannot attend and he has not. PC Gardiner has resigned ahead of the hearing today.
I agree to proceed in absence of PC Gardiner today as there is no issue of fairness, and it is in the public interest to continue with the hearing today, and this has already been postponed once. There is no unfairness to PC Gardiner to proceed today in line with Regulation 57 3b, and it is in the interest of the force and the public to do so.
Decision as to whether the conduct took place
The Appropriate Authority have set out clearly in the opening note and in the allegation of the breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour against former PC Gardiner and the officer’s conduct.
The AA sets out the behaviour of PC Gardiner as the following:
- PC Gardiner was due to attend a course, representing Essex Police between the 19th and 21st November 2025.
- This course was being held by an external company in Devon and Cornwall, and Essex Police funded your attendance at this course including a stay in a local hotel.
- PC Gardiner travelled to the area of Devon & Cornwall on 18th November 2025 in an Essex Police vehicle.
- On the 18th November 2025 PC Gardiner checked into the hotel that had been arranged by Essex Police.
- PC Gardiner did not attend the course he was booked to attend.
- He also did not communicate with his Sergeant any reasons for his non-attendance on the course.
- On Friday 21st November 2025 PC Gardiner had been driving Essex Police vehicle EU72 ATV.
- On Friday 21st November 2025, Devon and Cornwall Police received numerous complaints about the manner of driving of vehicle EU72 ATV.
- These complaints included that the vehicle was being driven erratically, almost colliding with other vehicles, swerving between lanes, and unable to maintain a constant speed.
- Devon and Cornwall police officers witnessed a similar manner of driving.
- Devon and Cornwall have attempted to stop the vehicle, and the vehicle failed to stop.
- Essex Police vehicle EU72 ATV reversed into a Devon and Cornwall Police vehicle, whilst on the hard shoulder.
- After reversing into the Devon and Cornwall Police vehicle, PC Gardiner has driven off at speed.
- Whilst driving PC Gardiner has reached speeds over 110mph.
- The vehicle was then steered across three lanes of traffic before colliding with an Armco barrier causing the vehicle to stop.
- PC Gardiner was identified as the driver of the vehicle and arrested for dangerous driving and failing to stop.
- PC Gardiner was also arrested for driving a motor vehicle when the alcohol level above the prescribed limit after failing a roadside breath test.
- PC Gardiner was subject to the breath test procedure for driving with excess alcohol in his body.
- The evidential samples of breath recorded show PC Gardiner had 114 micrograms and 115 micrograms in his breath. This is significantly above the legal limit of 35 micrograms.
- Criminal proceedings against PC Gardiner are ongoing for:
- Fail to stop
- Over the prescribed limit of excess alcohol whilst driving
- Dangerous Driving
- PC Gardiner was considered on duty on the 21st November 2025.
I have considered the allegations as set out in the Regulation 51 notice against the standard of a balance of probability. I have been clear to consider the comprehensive evidence set out by the AA in the bundle and the specific points that the AA has drawn me to.
I have had throughout in my mind that is the job of the AA to prove the case, especially in the absence of PC Gardiner. He has had the opportunity to put forward an alternative version and his explanation to counter the allegations, but he has not done so.
PC Gardiner made admissions on the 12th December in his response to the formal allegations and notification and admitted that he was on duty at the time, used the Essex Police vehicle to drive in this manner and was over the limit for alcohol. I take the behaviour set out above as the case, and importantly this is corroborated by the evidence seen on the Body Worn Video footage, the evidence of the officers that did the breath test and those that witnessed the driving that were able to identify PC Gardiner as the driver.
I have watched the Body Worn Video and this corroborates this further, as I have seen the nature and standard of the driving by PC Gardiner. I find that the facts of this case are proven as these are part admitted, but I also find them all proven on the balance of probabilities.
Standards of Professional Behaviour Engaged
The AA proposed that the following standards are engaged as set out in the conduct above:
- Honesty and Integrity
- Authority, Respect & Courtesy
- Use of Force
- Orders and Instructions
- Duties & Responsibilities
- Fitness for Duty
- Discreditable Conduct
I do not find the standard of Honesty and Integrity engaged; the non-attendance of PC Gardiner at the course would be dealt with through performance management through his command and not as a conduct matter.
I find the standard of Authority, Respect & Courtesy engaged as PC Gardiner showed a lack of self-control and this continued throughout. He had the opportunity to stop multiple times and drove off each time from the Devon and Cornwall Police officers and did not stop when they attempted to stop him initially.
I find the standard of Use of Force engaged as PC Gardiner reversed into the Devon & Cornwall Police vehicle, and this was clearly seen on the Body Worn Video. This was an unnecessary use of force that put other people and himself at risk through his actions.
I find the standard of Orders and Instructions engaged as PC Gardiner was not authorised to use an Essex Police vehicle in this manner; and also did not pull over when he had multiple opportunities to do so.
I find the standard of Duties and Responsibilities engaged as PC Gardiner did not follow his responsibilities as a Police Officer in keeping the public safe by the manner of his driving. He was not authorised to drive in this manner.
I find the standard of Fitness for Duty engaged as PC Gardiner was over the limit for alcohol when he was arrested by the Devon and Cornwall Police officers; he has admitted that he was on duty on the 21st November 2025 therefore was not fit to perform his duties due to his alcohol readings of 114 and 115 micrograms of alcohol.
I also find the standard of Discreditable Conduct engaged as the public expect police officers to abide by the law and not be using a vehicle over the limit for alcohol and driving dangerously in an Essex Police vehicle. The behaviour of PC Gardiner brings the officer and the wider police service into disrepute.
Gross Misconduct
In considering whether the behaviour is misconduct or gross misconduct, I have consulted and considered Home Office guidance for Conduct Efficiency and Effectiveness 2020 as well as the College of Policing (COP) Guidance on Outcomes in Police Conduct Proceedings 2023.
Regulation 2 of the Police Conduct Regulations defines gross misconduct as a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal.
The manner and criminal nature of the behaviour show how serious this is; and I have also found that six of the standards of professional behaviour are engaged.
I stress that in making this decision I reach no decision as to outcome.
Considering the conduct and the definition of Gross Misconduct in the Home Office Guidance I do consider this as Gross Misconduct.
Decision as to Outcome
Seriousness
I do find the conduct proven to be serious. I have assessed that it is Gross Misconduct in that the nature and circumstances of it are such that dismissal would be justified. PC Gardiner’s actions are moving forwards towards a criminal trial including dangerous driving and driving over the limit for alcohol which are serious.
Culpability
PC Gardiner is fully culpable for this actions; he was booked on the course, drove the vehicle and was significantly over the limit for alcohol which is being pursued criminally.
Section 4.17 of the College of Policing guidance states that:
“It is unacceptable for police officers, who are responsible for enforcing the law, to break the law themselves”
Harm
There is undoubted harm through PC Gardiner’s behaviour; there is serious risk based on the nature of his driving and the fact he was significantly over the limit for alcohol which was witnessed by Devon and Cornwall officers and shown on the Body Worn Video footage.
PC Gardiner’s overall behaviour could have caused serious harm to the public, the officers that engaged to stop him based on the nature of his driving and him ramming the police vehicle. PC Gardiner also could have caused harm to himself.
There is also harm caused to the reputation of policing due to the behaviour undermining public trust and confidence, as the public expect police officers to use vehicles appropriately and not drive whilst over the limit for alcohol.
Aggravating factors
I am careful not to double count anything that has already been considered.
PC Gardiner was given the opportunity to stop the vehicle and on 2 occasions he carried on and did not stop.
Mitigating factors
PC Gardiner admitted it was him driving and apologised to the Devon and Cornwall Police officers at the scene this is to his credit. There has been so written mitigation submitted by PC Gardiner or on his behalf.
Personal Mitigation
I am aware of the circumstances around PC Gardiner’s mental health and wellbeing but nothing has been put forward for this hearing that would justify the actions that were taken. I have considered these matters but even weighing them they do not mitigate sufficiently the danger and harm caused by his behaviour and the breaches of the standards of professional behaviour that I have found proven.
Purpose of Police Conduct Procedures
The college of policing guidance clearly sets out the purpose of police misconduct proceedings. These are threefold and can be summarised as:
- Protecting the public.
- Maintaining public confidence in and representation of the police service.
- Upholding the highest standards in policing.
It is essential that through any outcome I prevent harm to the public, officers, and staff and to the trust and confidence in policing. I must protect the public from any further risk that might be caused if PC Gardiner is allowed to continue to be part of the police service.
The proven allegations against PC Gardiner need to be dealt with seriously to demonstrate to the public and other officers that this conduct is intolerable and will not be allowed.
The public are entitled to know that they can trust officers to abide by the standards of professional behaviour required and that where officers do not, they will be held to account. The public must be able to trust officers on duty to not break the law.
Outcome
In considering the purpose of Police Conduct procedures and the information I have read and heard in this case I have looked at the outcomes available to me; under the regulations the presumption when Gross Misconduct is found is dismissal without notice had he still been serving.
Although there is a presumption of dismissal where Gross Misconduct is proven considering this I have considered the lowest outcome first that meets the objectives of police conduct procedures.
I have considered taking no action against PC Gardiner but this in my view would not meet the objectives of Police Conduct Procedures.
I have considered a Final Written Warning but this would not meet the objectives or build confidence in policing. This would not protect the public, officers and staff from further behaviour from PC Gardiner.
Finally, I have considered dismissal without notice has PC Gardiner still been serving. When Gross Misconduct is committed it needs to be dealt with seriously. This protects public and other colleagues and demonstrates that when officers break the law this will be dealt with and they will be held to account.
In considering all of the circumstances and facts I find that the only outcome that is appropriate is dismissal without notice had the officer still been serving.
College Barred List & publicity
The reporting restrictions and anonymity imposed at the beginning of the hearing still apply.
There has been no case made at this stage as to why he should not be named at the conclusion of the criminal trial; and this would show the justice to the public that police officers will be held to account when they break the law and breach the standards of behaviour.
The AA will relay this to PC Gardiner and further representations can be made for consideration.
PC Gardiner will be added to the College of Policing barred list.
BJ Harrington QPM
Chief Constable of Essex Police
30th January 2026