Former PC Jack Avis outcome report

Accelerated Misconduct Hearing (AMH) – 6th July 2026 Former Police Constable 42082069 Jack Avis

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 Mr Philip Matthews as counsel on behalf of the Appropriate Authority and adopted and referred to by Mr Matthews during the hearing.

I have also read the documentation pack provided in support of the hearing.

I have also read and reminded myself of 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’.

Reporting Restrictions / Anonymity

For the reporting of this hearing, I am imposing reporting restrictions as follows:

1) Prohibit the publication of the names (or any circumstantial details which would enable identification) of the third-party individuals involved in this matter.

There is the presumption that Accelerated Misconduct Hearings are public but the above reporting restrictions are not pertinent to the matters involved in the hearing and will apply from now and indefinitely. This protects the Article 8 rights of the individuals and still allows the transparency in relation to the officer’s accountability. The conduct by the officer is what is relevant to the matters and not the identification of the person in the images. There are no issues of unfairness in restricting the identity of the member of the public whose images were taken, and their identity is immaterial to the facts of the matter.

Decision to hear the case in PC Avis’ absence

PC Avis has resigned ahead of the hearing so is a former officer. He has chosen not to attend today, and he has not instructed any representative to attend on his behalf or ask for the proceedings to be delayed. PC Avis’ Federation Representative confirmed in writing to the AA that he will not be attending or engaging in the proceedings. This email also shows that PC Avis has had access to and received legal advice in relation to these matters.

The AA submit that the hearing should proceed in the officer’s absence in line with Regulation 57 3b, and in the public interest. There is no issue in my view of a lack of fairness by proceeding today, and it is in the public interest to do so.

As a result, I have decided to continue in former PC Avis’ absence.

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 Jack Avis and the former officer’s conduct.

The AA sets out the behaviour of former PC Avis as the following:

• At all material times PC Jack Avis was a Police Constable, his last posting was in the Chelmsford Domestic Abuse Investigating Team (DAIT).
• On the 14th November 2025, [REDACTED TEXT] an Essex Police mobile device attributed to PC Avis had taken seventeen photographs on the [REDACTED TEXT]
• Fifteen of these images related to photos of screenshots from a seized mobile phone which [REDACTED TEXT] belonging to the suspect. [REDACTED TEXT] the images appear to be of the suspects phone whilst in PC Avis’ hand.
• Six of these photographs raised concern and were believed to have been taken without a legitimate policing purpose.
• The photographs in question [REDACTED TEXT] were photographs of images displayed on the suspect’s device. The images were highly explicit and sexual in nature.
• Later on [REDACTED TEXT] the number of images of PC Avis’ Essex Police mobile device reduced from 1134 to 1128, [REDACTED TEXT] This indicates that PC Avis deleted six images from his device.
• Later manual triage of the mobile phone which was seized as part of the domestic violence investigation established that the six concerning images were historic taken from 2020 and saved in separate folders in addition to being in the ‘main photo gallery’. The main gallery album commences in 2020 with the latest images being from 2025, meaning numerous images would need to be scrolled through to find those in question.
• Further review identified that at least two of the images in question were of the victim  [REDACTED TEXT]

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 Mr Matthews has drawn me to. I have had throughout in my mind the point made clearly by the AA that it is their job to prove the case and that even in the absence of PC Avis this remains the case.

I find the facts proven on the balance of probabilities; it is clear based on the evidence provided from the phone data that this behaviour occurred. The statements provided by those involved in this provide continuity to this as well. It is clear that it was PC Avis’ device, he took the images and they were of the victim [REDACTED TEXT]. It was him that then preceded to delete them.

Standards of Professional Behaviour Engaged

The AA proposed that the following standards are engaged as set out in the conduct above:

• Honesty & Integrity
• Authority, Respect and Courtesy
• Orders and Instructions
• Duties and Responsibilities
• Confidentiality
• Discreditable Conduct

I agree with the AA’s case that all six standards are engaged.

I find the standard of Honesty & Integrity engaged as whether PC Avis has attempted to cover up his actions by deleting the images he had taken or deleted them to right a wrong, he was dishonest about this and did not come forward to say that he had done it. This also undermines his integrity as a police officer as this is not the behaviour the public would expect of a police officer.

I do find the standard of Authority, Respect & Courtesy engaged as PC Avis’ behaviour was not courteous and showed little respect to the person in the images [REDACTED TEXT]

I find the standard of Orders and Instructions engaged as the images PC Avis took were not relevant [REDACTED TEXT] and these were taken on his work issued mobile device contrary to policies that are in place. The public expect police officers to follow all the relevant policies and procedures, and PC Avis did not do this. 

I find the standard of Duties and Responsibilities engaged as the definition states:

‘Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities’

This clearly states that officers need to be diligent and PC Avis did not stick to this with his behaviour. He showed a lack of diligence by taking these images for his own personal gratification [REDACTED TEXT]. Based on the evidence I have been provided in the only reason that can be drawn as to why PC Avis did this.

I also find the standard of Confidentiality engaged as the images that PC Avis took were not relevant [REDACTED TEXT]  and he breached the privacy of his victim.

I also find the standard of Discreditable Conduct engaged as PC Avis’ behaviour fell below what the public would expect from police officers and brings discredit on policing. His behaviour fell below the standard that is expected with regards to the intrusive nature of taking the images with no legitimate reason for doing so.

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.  

I have found six standards of professional behaviour engaged in this case; PC Avis was in a position of trust [REDACTED TEXT] and he did not adhere what would be expected of him with this.

I have made no decision as to outcome at this stage.

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

This matter is serious as I have found Gross Misconduct proven in relation to the former officer’s behaviour. Adding to the seriousness of the behaviour is the intrusive nature of the taking of the explicit photos.

Culpability 

PC Avis is fully culpable for his decisions and actions in relation to this. It was his device; he took the photos and the subsequently deleted them. This was clearly a conscious choice that PC Avis made as he did not delete other images from his device.

Harm

There is harm caused to the reputation of policing by taking the sexually explicit images and this undermines public trust and confidence. There is also harm caused to the victim [REDACTED TEXT] that was in the images as their privacy was intruded upon. Although, as stated at 4.66 in the College of Policing this does not need to be to a specific group or person:

“Harm will likely undermine public confidence in policing. Harm does not need to be suffered by a defined individual or group to undermine public confidence. Where an officer commits an act that would harm public confidence if the circumstances were known to the public, take this into account. Always take misconduct seriously that undermines discipline and good order within the police service, even if it does not result in harm to individual victims.”

Aggravating factors

I am conscious not to double count matters already considered regarding seriousness of the nature of the images.

PC Avis deleting the images on his device is an aggravating factor in my opinion and not a mitigating factor as this was to cover up his wrongdoing.

PC Avis was in a position of authority, and this was a vulnerable victim [REDACTED TEXT]  he had a duty of care over her and should have safeguarded them which he failed to do by taking the explicit images from the suspect’s phone.

I have also found six standards of professional behaviour engaged.

Mitigating factors

There has been no mitigation put forward on behalf of PC Avis and none is evident.

Personal Mitigation

There has been no personal mitigation put forward on Former PC Avis’ behalf.

I have read PC Avis’ service record, and it is unremarkable and adds little weight in terms of mitigation.

Purpose of Police Conduct Procedures

The college of policing guidance clearly sets out the purpose of police misconduct proceedings. These are threefold.

• Protect the public.
• Maintain public confidence in and representation of the police service.
• Uphold 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 former PC Avis is allowed to continue to be part of the police service. 

The proven allegations against PC Avis 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 and former PC Avis’ actions undermine this.

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. Due to the service of the notice of the AMH being after May 2025 the presumption of dismissal does apply in this case. I must though still ensure the appropriate outcome. 

This is a matter where there is a presumption of dismissal unless there are exceptional circumstances although I am conscious, I must apply the outcome most appropriate to the seriousness of the conduct.

Given the seriousness taking no action would not be appropriate and would not meet any of the outcomes, notwithstanding that the officer has resigned.  There are no exceptional circumstances obvious in this case, and none are put forward by the AA or on PC Avis’ behalf.

The only outcome available to me that meets the purposes of police conduct procedure is ‘dismissal without notice had PC Avis still been serving’, which would protect the public both now and, in the future, and protect the public’s trust and confidence in policing.

This protects the public by ensuring that PC Avis cannot rejoin policing and is setting a clear example to follow policy and procedure. This provides a clear signal to the public that they can trust policing to tackle breaches of professional behaviour. This provides a clear deterrent for officers to not ignore proper policy or procedure and to appropriately support vulnerable people.   

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

All reporting restrictions implemented at the start of the hearing are still in place.

Former PC Avis’ name and the findings of the hearing should be made public internally and externally in the interests of public trust and confidence and to re-enforce the standards expected by the public, policing and Essex Police.

Former PC Avis will be added to the College of Policing barred list.

BJ Harrington QPM
Chief Constable of Essex Police
6th July 2026