Former PC Shane Wills outcome report

Accelerated Misconduct Hearing (AMH) – 30th June 2026 Former Police Constable 42003037 Shane Wills

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 DS Ashley Chittock as counsel on behalf of the Appropriate Authority and adopted and referred to by DS Chittock during the hearing.

I have also read the documentation pack provided in support of the hearing and watched the Body Worn Video.

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

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

1. The occupants of the address be known as Ms A, Ms B and Child D

2. Ms A’s name not to be published due to references in the papers to her health.  

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.

Ms A is entitled to her right to confidentiality of medical information, as well as giving rise to risk to her welfare if she was named.

Decision to hear the case in PC Wills absence

PC Wills 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 Wills Federation Representative confirmed in writing to the AA on the 24th June that he will not be attending the proceedings.

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 Wills 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 Shane Wills and the former officer’s conduct.

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

• On the 27th May 2025 PC Wills was on duty and attended an incident, in the company of a colleague.
• Whilst in attendance to this incident, a report of domestic-related assault was made to PC Wills by a victim of crime (Ms A).
• During the subsequent conversation with Ms A, she made PC Wills aware of further historical criminal offences committed against her by the same perpetrator.
• Having understood that Ms A was reporting crimes to him, PC Wills:
  (i) Repeatedly questioned her about the truthfulness of her account
  (ii) Questioned her in a manner intended to lead her to change her account
  (iii) Induced Ms A to blame her disabilities [REDACTED TEXT] as being responsible for her actions
  (iv) Ignored the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene who corroborated that an assault had occurred
  (v) Prompted Ms A to repeat the changed account PC Wills had induced from her in front of his colleague
• Consequently PC Wills:
  (i) Failed to properly record a crime, in line with National Crime Reporting Standards (NCRS)
  (ii) Recording a non-crime incident instead, listing Ms A as the ‘suspect’
  (iii) Provided a false update on the STORM log that there were no offences
• PC Wills acted intentionally in the above manner, with intent to avoid dealing with the criminal offences disclosed.
• PC Wills received a Final Written Warning in 2012 following a public complaint. The circumstances were that he failed to properly investigate domestic-related allegations of assault and criminal damage.

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 DS Chittock 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 Wills this remains the case.

I find the facts proven on the balance of probabilities; it is clear that PC Wills attended the incident and the allegations of crime made by Ms A are clear on the body worn video footage that I have seen. PC Wills is an officer that should have understood the need to record this crime and should have properly done so but he didn’t. PC Wills manipulated Ms A’s allegation to her withdrawing her allegations of crime at the scene.

Standards of Professional Behaviour Engaged

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

• Honesty & Integrity
• Equality & Diversity
• Orders and Instructions
• Duties and Responsibilities
• Discreditable Conduct

I find the standard of Honesty & Integrity engaged in relation to integrity as PC Wills should have recorded this crime and taken action in relation to Ms A’s report but failed to do so which is not what is expected of Police Officers. This is a matter of both honesty and integrity. He was dishonest in recording the matter as a non-crime incident when Miss A had clearly alleged a crime and his failure to act to deal with the matter properly is an issue of integrity.

I do not find the standard of Equality & Diversity engaged, whilst both Miss A and B both described being [REDACTED TEXT] he did not treat them less favourably because in my assessment it was just an excuse for PC Wills not to do his job and he did not do this to intentionally undermine her [REDACTED TEXT].

I find the standard of Orders and Instructions engaged as PC Wills made it clear that he understood what was required and mentions that his own boss had the expectation to deal with this matter as a crime and the expectations that they have for their officers. PC Wills had done all his relevant training and as an experienced officer should have been aware of Authorised Professional Practice that is clear in terms of what police officers are expected to do. The College of Policing APP on Investigation Process advises:

“Investigations should be conducted using professional curiosity. Investigators should conduct a suspect-focused investigation, taking previous offending history and behaviours into account. They must impartially follow all reasonable lines of enquiry to gather material that points both towards and away from a suspect”.

I find the standard of Duties and Responsibilities engaged as it is clear that PC Wills knows that he should have recorded this in line with NCRS which states:

“An incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable offence) for ‘victim related’ offences if, on the balance of probability:

a. The circumstances of the victim’s report amount to a crime as defined by law

And

b. There is no credible evidence to the contrary immediately available”

The public expect police officers to follow all the relevant policies and procedures and it is clear that PC Wills did not do this.  

I also find the standard of Discreditable Conduct engaged as PC Wills 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 how he dealt with Ms A that day and this is not what is expected of people in his position.  This undermines public trust in policing.

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 four standards of professional behaviour engaged in this case; there were two vulnerable people involved in this case both the victim and suspect both of which should have been safeguarded and PC Wills failed to do so. I have found the matters proven in relation to that. This relates to an allegation of domestic abuse that is priority to tackle by the Force and Essex wide

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.

This was a Domestic Abuse case and the risk to those involved was real. PC Wills was also clearly not following force policy and procedures.  Tackling Domestic Abuse is a force priority.

Culpability 

PC Wills is fully culpable for his decisions and actions in relation to this. He attended the incident with an inexperienced colleague and he was their tutor. PC Wills manipulated the outcome himself and that is clear in the body worn video footage.  It was his decision not to record the crime accurately and take appropriate action.

Harm

It is clear that there is harm caused to the reputation of policing by not properly following policy and in their trust in the police for dealing with domestic abuse related incidents. Both the victim and the suspect in this case are vulnerable so there is clear harm to them in not properly dealing with this incident and safeguarding them. There is further harm caused to the victim due to the disclosed [REDACTED TEXT] from them.

This also does not need to be to a specific group or person as set out in paragraph 4.66 of the CoP Guidance:

“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 very conscious of not double counting matters I have already considered but PC Wills is an experienced officer so knew what was expected of him at domestic abuse incidents. He was also the senior of the two officers who attended and should have led by example.

PC Wills has unprofessionally investigated similar incidents in the past and has had management action given to him that would make him further understand what was expected of him. Although not subject to a live warning he has done similar before and should have known better. PC Wills has failed to investigate this incident and did not follow procedure and APP.

I have also found four standards of professional behaviour engaged.

Mitigating factors

I acknowledge the AA’s submission that the initial updates on STORM were candid and stated that Ms A had been assaulted but in my view, this is little mitigation based on the seriousness of the conduct I have found proven.

Personal Mitigation

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

I have read PC Wills service record, and it is detailed; he was an experienced officer and had a long career. However, this as little weight when compared with the seriousness of the gross misconduct.

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 Wills is allowed to continue to be part of the police service. 

The proven allegations against PC Wills 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 Wills 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. 

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 Wills behalf.

The only outcome available to me that meets the purposes of police conduct procedure is ‘dismissal without notice had PC Wills 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 Wills 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 Wills name and the findings of the hearing should be made public internally and externally in the interests of public trust and confidence and to reenforce the standards expected by the public, policing and Essex Police.

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

BJ Harrington QPM
Chief Constable of Essex Police
30th June 2026