PC Jonathan Steel outcome report

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020

Between: THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF ESSEX POLICE and  PC 82844 JONATHAN STEEL

Panel findings

1. The panel has been convened to consider allegations of misconduct made by the Appropriate Authority (AA) against the above officer. It is alleged that the officer acted in breach of the standards of authority respect and courtesy and discreditable conduct.
   
   
2. We remind ourselves that the burden of proof lies with the AA and is discharged on the balance of probabilities.
   
   
3. We have considered all oral evidence we have heard and all written and digital evidence contained within the bundle. To be admissible, evidence must be relevant; evidence is relevant if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof. However, the Panel can still rule evidence inadmissible if it would be unfair to admit it because its probative value is clearly outweighed by its prejudicial effect. There has been no challenge to the admissibility of the evidence we have received.
   
   
4. We have been assisted by the submissions of both counsel. Submissions on law have been made by both counsel and we have been assisted by the LQP in our determination.
   
   
5. The issues in the case are a limited factual dispute that is set out in the officer’s Reg 31 response and the blameworthiness of the admitted conduct.
   
   
6. The standards said to be engaged are -
   

   Authority, Respect and Courtesy
   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.

   Discreditable Conduct
   Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

   Police officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any conditions imposed on them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice

7. As a preliminary point we note that the AA has withdrawn allegation 1. We entirely agree that is appropriate as having reviewed the evidence we cannot identify any evidence to support this allegation and would have dismissed it were we have had to determine it.
   
   
8. The misconduct to be considered is contained within the reg 30 notice.
   
   
9. Our findings must be based on evidence, including inferences properly drawn from the evidence, but not conjecture or speculation.
   
   
10. The assessment of witnesses, including the officer, is a matter for the panel, but we have reminded ourselves to avoid over-reliance on demeanour.
    
    
11. We remind ourselves that the officer is of ‘good character’ and take this into account both in our assessment of his evidence and credibility and also when considering whether it is likely whether he has behaved in the ways alleged.
    
    
12. We have looked at what may properly be regarded as corroborative evidence. Corroboration is not required but may assist in our evaluation of other evidence. We have considered first if the pieces of evidence are independent of one another before using as corroborative.
    
    
13. The decision-making process generally – we have made findings of fact then decided whether these findings are consistent with finding a breach of a standard. More than one incident is alleged in the reg 30 and we are aware that we may come to different conclusions on each. If we find one or more breaches we will make an assessment of seriousness. We ask ourselves if the breaches found are serious enough to amount to misconduct, are the breaches so serious so they may justify dismissal and so amount to gross misconduct or neither. In the assessment of seriousness, we will apply the CoP guidance on outcomes. Should we find more than one breach made out then we may consider the totality of misconduct when making an assessment of seriousness.
    
    
14. We have asked the LQP to write up our report which he has done. We have reviewed the document and confirm that it properly records the panel’s findings.
    

    Findings of fact

15. In making our findings of fact we have followed the same numbering scheme as used by the AA in the Reg 30 notice.
    
    
16. Allegation 2 – We do not find proven the allegation that the officer made sarcastic comments about PC A’s dress or said she looked like a stripper. We note that the evidence comes from PC A and PC Steel. Although other officers were present no evidence is before us of their recollection and so we do not speculate. We consider the text exchange between PC A and PC Steel and note that it is consistent with the account given by PC Steel. This allows us to resolve the issue in favour of the officer.
    
    
17. Allegation 3 – We are satisfied that PC Steel attended a social occasion with others including PC A and PC B and that during the course of the evening PC Steel placed his hands on both on more than one occasion. We are satisfied that PC Steel picked up PC A. We are so satisfied of the above facts as a result of the evidence of PC A, PC B and PC Steel all agree that touching took place and PC A gave evidence of the picking up and picking up occurred (all be it PC Steel accepted he had no independent recollection of the picking up but has subsequently observed the event on CCTV footage disclosed to him by the AA) and in doing so it is more likely than not his action pressed her body to his. We also are satisfied that PC Steel hugged PC A goodbye and that this action would press her body to his.
    
    
18. Allegation 4 – We are satisfied that the officer made both comments and that both were sexualised comments. We do so by reference to the written and oral evidence taken together with the text messages. We are satisfied that the officer commented on PC C’s ‘arse’ and said PC A was ‘fit’. We note that no other person heard the word ‘fit’ but given the evidence of all that the bar was busy and noisy to the extent that those present had to lean into each other to be heard we are not surprised that no other witness heard the ‘fit’ comment. We find that the officer’s use of the words in subsequent messages corroborates the evidence of PC A that the word was used in person. We give the words their normal meaning and are satisfied that the usage was sexualised.
    
    
19. Allegation 5 – We find proven that the officer sent sexualised messages to PCs A and C as alleged. We have considered the evidence of all witnesses and read the messages. We have given the words their normal meaning and are satisfied that they are sexualised.
    

    The Standards

20. Having made the above findings of fact we have gone onto consider the wider factual context in which those actions and comments occurred. We have made the following additional factual determinations -
    

    a. There exists a tension between the accounts of PC Steel, PC D, PC A, PC B and the other officers present as to what form the touching we have found proven takes. We accept the evidence of PC D that he was properly motivated to report the incident and his actions are in accordance with the standards. His account was however internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the evidence of others. In particular he was inconsistent as to his opportunity of observation of the acts described. He included in his account that he was with a colleague at midnight who, on the balance of other evidence was not present at that time. This leads us to conclude that his evidence has been affected by his ability to accurately recall the events as a result of either the passage of time or consumption of alcohol. His account was inconsistent with the evidence of PC A, the complainant. The touching described by PC A does not accord with the touching described by PC D.

    b. We have not been assisted by any CCTV footage either of the incident or surrounding circumstances, such as PC D taking PC A out of the venue, that might have supported the AA’s case on the various touchings. Whilst we are entirely satisfied that touching took place as we have found we are not satisfied that the generality of this went beyond touching that occurred as between others present in a crowded and noisy venue.

    c. We do not find that the officer placed his hands under PC A’s clothing. Aside from the general touching we are satisfied that PC Steel picked up PC A and that this action demonstrated a lack of courtesy and respect and was a breach of the standard.

    d.      We do not find the ‘hug goodbye’ was anything more than colleagues expressing appropriate affection towards each other at the end of an evening.

21. We are satisfied that the use of the words ‘fit’ and ‘arse’, in both spoken word and messages, are objectively discourteous and disrespectful.
    
    
22. We consider that the words we have found spoken and written by the officer, could discredit the police service and undermine public confidence. We therefore find that these aspects of the proven conduct are a breach of the standard.
    

    Provisional assessment of seriousness

23. We apply the Guidance on outcomes to the facts and breaches that we have found proven.
    
    
24. The actions of the officer in making comments orally and in writing were deliberate. The officer was responsible for his actions. We find that the use of language was sexualised and intended to express dominance and be demeaning.
    
    
25. We view the picking up as a deliberate but spontaneous action.
    
    
26. The comments demonstrate sexual impropriety. We do not find the picking up had a sexual aspect.
    
    
27. We note the evidence of PC Steel that he had been spoken to by his Sgt and given the instruction ‘My Sgt had said to me show her the ropes you will be leading’ in relation to PC C. He was, on his account, experienced in the role at Dunmow police station whereas PC C was not. The misconduct must be seen in that context, all be it he has not used his position to facilitate the misconduct. We are satisfied that PC Steel made the remarks to express his dominance over female colleagues who were or might come to work with him where he considered himself to hold a position of greater authority.
    
    
28. The comments were discriminatory and aimed at women. We reject the officer’s evidence that he would use the same language to a male colleague.
    
    
29. Whilst the misconduct in relation to the language is the abuse of women we do not view the picking up as violent.
    
    
30. There was no physical harm. The psychological harm that flowed from the misconduct we have found proven was low . We consider the reputational harm, if the facts as found were known to the public, the language used may result in some reputational harm. We find that public confidence in the police service, in particular in relation to their handling of complaints made by women and girls would be undermined by the officer’s use of language and expressions of dominance.
    
    
31. Avoiding double counting the sole additional factor relating to seriousness is the fact there are multiple incidents of misconduct involving more than one person albeit within a single night.
    
    
32. We conclude that both culpability is high and harm is medium and that the misconduct is so serious such that it would justify disciplinary action but not so serious as to justify dismissal and is therefore misconduct.

Outcome

1. We are grateful to both counsel for the helpful oral submissions, all of which we take into account.
   
   
2. We revisit our first assessment of seriousness and do so by reference to the Guidance on Outcomes.
   
   
3. We use the Guidance framework to assess culpability and harm, identify aggravating and mitigating factors and arrive at an assessment of seriousness. Our provisional assessment remains unaltered.
   
   
4. We have then taken account of the officer’s personal mitigation, all be it we note that the more seriousness the misconduct the less weight we can attach to this.
   
   
5. We have read the bundle of references and are impressed by their detailed content.
   
   
6. The available outcomes are a written warning, a final written warning or dismissal (were 41.6 applies and our decision is based upon the officer's conduct arising from more than one incident and those incidents are not closely factually connected).
   
   
7. We firstly consider whether a written warning is sufficient to meet the seriousness of the misconduct and meet the threefold purpose of misconduct proceedings and will only move to other outcomes if we consider that a written warning would not be appropriate.
   
   
8. Given our assessment of seriousness we do not find a written warning is appropriate. We do so as a result of the conduct not being isolated to one incident or person and the conduct involves the abuse of female colleagues.
   
   
9. We do find that a final written warning would meet the threefold purpose and be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct. We do so as the conduct is limited to a single night, there is no record of previous misconduct and the harm caused was not so great as to demand a more severe sanction.
   
   
10. We have considered the length of the final written warning and take into account -
    
    - the seriousness of the conduct
    - the circumstances that gave rise to the misconduct
    - the public interest
    - the mitigation offered by the officer, including previous record of conduct. 
    
    
11. We conclude that the duration of the final written warning should be three years to reflect these circumstances.