PC Kieran O’Connor outcome report

Accelerated Misconduct Hearing (AMH) - 4th September 2025 Police Constable 42082736 Kieran O’Connor

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, and the reviewed decision from the DCC on the 1st September 2025. I fully concur with this decision.

I have considered the written submissions prepared by Mr Russell Fortt on behalf of the Appropriate Authority and adopted and referred to by Mr Fortt during the hearing.

I have also read the documentation pack provided in support of the hearing and watched the Body Worn Video footage that has been provided to me.

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’.

Anonymity and Restrictions on Reporting

There has been an application for reporting restrictions to be imposed on this hearing and for the hearing to be held in private. A summary of my decision is as follows:

• There is a clear presumption of police conduct hearings to be held in public, and there are restrictions that minimise the risk to proceedings and the welfare of Miss A. Therefore, the hearing will not be held in private.
• I restrict all reporting regarding the details and persons involved in this AMH until the conclusion of all criminal proceedings related to it.
• I restrict the reporting of Miss A’s details in any way before, during or after the hearing.

Decision whether to delay the hearing

There has been an application to defer the hearing until after the criminal proceedings have concluded. The Home Office Guidance is clear at 7.81:

“Where there are possible or outstanding criminal proceedings against an officer, these will not normally delay the misconduct proceedings. They will only delay proceedings under the Conduct Regulations where the appropriate authority considers such action would prejudice the outcome of the criminal case.”

The prejudice that would come from this case would be in the reporting of the matters and there are restrictions in place that would mitigate this and minimise the risk of this. The AA has drawn me to the case of R (on the application of Montgomery) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2012] EWHC 936, which speaks about witness and due to this being an Accelerated Misconduct Hearing there are no witnesses, and PC O’Connor has decided not to attend today to put anything across himself; therefore there is no prejudice to any evidence that would be given today.

Considering the wider fairness and reporting restrictions I can see no prejudice in why proceeding today would negatively impact on the fairness with consideration to the Human Rights Act.

PC O’Connor has had the papers and has provided response to these; there is no reason of unfairness to the officer or the public in proceeding today.

DCC Nolan has looked and reviewed the evidence on the 1st September 2025 and has deemed this to still be considered incontrovertible; the evidence set out is clear and based on facts and the officer has not put forward or instructed anyone to put forward on his behalf anything that clarifies the facts or undermines the evidence. The Special Conditions are still made out and the matters do still meet the threshold and should therefore be heard at this Accelerated Misconduct Hearing.

Decision to hear the case in PC O’Connor’s absence  

PC O’Connor has chosen not to attend today. He has not instructed any Federation representation to attend on his behalf. PC O’Connor has been given a lawful order to attend and through his Federation Representative noted his intention not to attend. The AA submit that the hearing should proceed in the officer’s absence in line with Regulation 57 3b, and in the public interest. The Home Office Guidance states at 12.16:

“The officer concerned must attend the accelerated misconduct hearing. If they are unable to attend physically on reasonable grounds the person conducting the accelerated misconduct hearing may allow the officer to participate by video link or other means, as set out in Regulation 57(1) and (2) of the Conduct Regulations). The accelerated misconduct hearing may proceed in the absence of the officer concerned, but the persons conducting the hearing should ensure that the officer concerned has been informed of their right to be legally represented at the hearing or to be represented by a police friend where the police officer chooses not to be legally represented. This also applies where the officer concerned participates by video link or other means.”

The officer is still serving and knows the proceedings are happening. He has had legal advice and is represented although they are not present at the hearing today. There is no issue of a lack of fairness in my assessment by proceeding.  

As a result, I have decided to continue in PC O’Connor’s 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 PC O’Connor and the officer’s conduct.

The AA sets out the behaviour of PC O’Connor as the following:

• In November 2024 PC O’Connor was dispatched to the home of Miss A who disclosed that she had suffered domestic abuse from her partner, including being repeatedly physically assaulted and harassed by way of abusive telephone calls and messages.
• After PC O’Connor left Miss A’s home, he was contacted later that day by Miss A who made it apparent that she was interested in a relationship with him. In response, that day and into the early hours of the following day PC O’Connor:

(i) Told Miss A that he was open to the idea of having a ‘sleepover’ with her;

(ii) Told Miss A that he would give her a cuddle if ‘she behaved’;

(iii) Told Miss A that he would help her ‘unwind and relax’;

(iv) Asked Miss A if she had any condoms and when she stated she did not, told her he would obtain some;

(v) Attended Miss A’s home again with the intention of engaging in sexual activity with her;

(vi) Was present in Ms A’s bedroom where you were either in or on her bed;

(vii) Engaged in sexual activity with Miss A

• ANPR evidence shows that PC O’Connor’s vehicle travelled between his home address and Miss A’s home address on the relevant dates in November 2024, out of his working hours, which is also confirmed by Apple locations.
• In November 2024 Miss A confirmed in a body worn video recorded account that PC O’Connor did subsequently visit her and she did have sex with the officer.  

I have considered the allegations as set out in the Regulation 51 notice against the standards and considered on the balance of probabilities. I have been clear to consider the evidence set out by the AA in the bundle and the specific points that Mr Fortt 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, even in the officer’s absence.

There is clear incontrovertible evidence from Miss A stating they he had returned to her property, and they had sex and looking at the evidence it confirms that this is on the relevant dates in November 2024. I do note that this was consensual.

The messages and comments between PC O’Connor and Miss A corroborate the facts. The evidence shows PC O’Connor travelling between locations and ANPR cameras that show the car that is registered to him making those journeys on the dates alleged.

PC O’Connor attended Miss A’s address on the relevant date in November 2024 in a professional capacity for work and following this there are messages between them and suggestive behaviour; there is initial clear rebuttal from PC O’Connor that any further contact would be inappropriate and outside of his responsibility as a police officer.

PC O’Connor has also completed the relevant training and should understand the inappropriateness of the relationship.

I find the conduct as set out above 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:

• Orders and Instructions
• Honesty & Integrity (solely the integrity part)
• Discreditable Conduct

I find the standard of Orders and Instructions engaged as this is clearly against policy and against the training PC O’Connor has received. It is against policy without notification to have a relationship with someone you have dealt with professionally, and at no time is it appropriate for a police officer to have sex with a victim of crime that they have dealt with in the execution of their duties.  

I find the standard of Integrity engaged as his behaviour has undermined his integrity and that of the police service to have sex with a victim of crime.

I also find the standard of Discreditable Conduct engaged as the public would not expect police officers to engage in personal relationships with a victim of crime who may or may not be vulnerable. PC O’Connor did this, and his actions bring discredit on the police service.  

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.

PC O’Connor’s actions were a clear abuse of position and occurred in circumstances that are entirely inappropriate. This would be clear to PC O’Connor from his training, College of Policing training and also the standards that are explained and expected of him as a police officer. Miss A was a victim of domestic violence and vulnerable when PC O’Connor was dealing with her.

PC O’Connor completed a College of Policing online training package called, ‘Abuse of position for sexual Purposes’. The transcript of that training included the following instruction:

‘Although you may find yourself attracted to a member of the public, you should not act on these feelings, as to do so becomes an abuse of position’.

It also directed the officer on that page to the College of Policing’s guidance to the same effect, which states at paragraphs 6 and 7:

‘6. Do not engage in, or pursue, a sexual or improper emotional relationship, on or off duty, with any member of the public who you have come into contact with during the course of your current work or duties.’

‘7. While you may find yourself attracted to a member of the public, or find yourself in a situation where someone is attracted to you, it is your responsibility not to act on these feelings. This is to prevent any harm that such actions may cause and to maintain the integrity of the policing profession.’

The Home Office Guidance states that gross misconduct is a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal; I have found 3 standards engaged in this case. It relates to off duty behaviour for sexual impropriety following on duty contact which in my view meets this definition. 

Considering the conduct and the definition of Gross Misconduct in the Home Office Guidance I do consider this as Gross Misconduct. 

I have made no decision on outcome at this stage.

Decision as to Outcome

Seriousness

It is my assessment that this is serious as it involves a police officer having sex with a woman after meeting her whilst on duty when she was a victim of crime, which is unacceptable behaviour.

Culpability

PC O'Connor is fully culpable for his actions. He has engaged with Miss A off duty following his on duty contact in an inappropriate way and then made his way to her address and has sex with her. Although the initial contact whilst off duty is from Miss A, PC O'Connor has driven from his home address to her flat (where he had attended whilst on duty) and then stayed for a few hours and had sex during this period. This was not an impetuous or immediate impulsive act, but deliberate action and a planned journey by him. 

PC O'Connor’s culpability is also increased as he holds a position of responsibility. Not only as a police officer, but importantly the police officer who has attended to help Miss A when she was a victim of crime earlier that day.

Whilst Miss A may not consider herself vulnerable by the very nature that she had come into contact with PC O'Connor as a victim of domestic abuse she is.

Harm

Whilst this was consensual sexual contact and there was no physical or psychological harm caused there is harm caused to trust and confidence in PC O'Connor and in public trust and confidence in the police service. Whilst the details of this conduct may not be known to the public as the COP guidelines set out in paragraph 4.69 this does not matter:

“4.69 How such behaviour would be, or has been, perceived by the public will be relevant, whether or not the behaviour was known about at the time.”

The public and victims of crime must be sure that officers will not engage in emotional relationships with people who are vulnerable through work.

Aggravating factors

I am purposefully not double counting the planned nature of PC O'Connor’s actions as this is considered in his culpability.

The misconduct was for sexual gratification and Miss A would have been considered as vulnerable to PC O'Connor because of his Abuse of Power training that was evidenced by the AA.

Whilst my assumption is that PC O'Connor denies the behaviour and the seriousness, he has not put forward any rationale or explanation to the hearing.

Mitigating factors

Although PC O'Connor had previous contact through Tinder and Miss A recognised him and initiated the off-duty contact, I place little weight to this as PC O'Connor clearly knew it was wrong as evidenced by his initial messages after attending Miss A's address. 

I have read PC O'Connor's record of service, and it offers no mitigation.

Personal Mitigation

There has been none put forward by the officer or on their behalf.

Purpose of Police Conduct Procedures

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

• The primary purpose is to protect the public confidence in and the reputation of policing;
• The second purpose is the declaratory purpose of maintaining high professional standards by demonstrating to other officers that misconduct of a certain kind and/or a certain seriousness will be dealt with by disciplinary action of a certain severity; and
• The third purpose is to protect the public and/or officers and staff by preventing the officer from committing similar misconduct again by excluding them from the police service.

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 in any outcome I decide.  

The proven allegations against PC O’Connor 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 outcome I decide needs to serve as a deterrent to other officers and members of the organisation as this is a serious breach of the standards of professional behaviour.   

The public are entitled to know that they can trust officers to abide by the standards of professional behaviour required and not put anyone at further risk now or in the future.  

Outcome

I must also consider the most appropriate outcome and start by considering the least serious.  Importantly I note that the purpose of the outcome is not punishment.

Applying no outcome would not be appropriate given the seriousness of the case and the circumstances. It would not meet any of the threefold purposes.

A Final Written Warning is a serious outcome. At its most serious with a 5 year Final Written Warning this would send a clear message but this would not protect the public as PC O'Connor would still be serving and it would not serve to build public trust in policing.

Dismissal without notice is the appropriate outcome. It ensures that PC O'Connor cannot abuse his position in this way in way now or in the future. It sends a clear message to others that this Gross Misconduct is not acceptable and demonstrates to the public the seriousness that will maintain public trust.

Therefore,

The outcome of this AMH is that PC O’Connor is dismissed without notice.

College Barred List & publicity

PC O’Connor’s 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 upon completion of any criminal proceedings.  Miss A will retain anonymity on any reporting.

PC O’Connor will be added to the College of Policing barred list.  

BJ Harrington QPM
Chief Constable of Essex Police
4th September 2025