Former PC Thomas Fance outcome report

ESSEX POLICE IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE ACT 1996 AND THE POLICE CONDUCT REGULATIONS 2020 AS AMENDED BY THE POLICE (CONDUCT) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2024

NOTIFICATION OF FINDINGS AND OUTCOME: FORMER PC 78972 THOMAS FANCE

Hearing:

15th – 17th September 2026

Location:

Online hearing administered from Essex Police HQ

Panel

Panel Chair: ACC Glen Pavelin  

Independent panel member: Hope Osayande

Independent panel member: Clive Manning

Legally Qualified Advisor: Jane Jones

Representatives

Counsel for Appropriate Authority: Joanne Kane

Counsel for the former Officer: none

Police Federation: none 

Decisions Summary

The former Officer chose not to attend or be legally represented. He faced 14 allegations, most of which were found proved; these comprised repeated incidents of domestic violence, breach of bail conditions, sending misogynistic messages about female colleagues, accessing confidential information without a policing purpose and unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. 

The conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Honesty and Integrity, Orders and Instructions and Discreditable Conduct.

The conduct amounted to Gross Misconduct.

The outcome was that the former Officer would have been dismissed without notice had he still been a serving officer.

A.    Introduction

1.     This is the record of the decision of the Police Misconduct Panel held under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, as amended in 2024. All references to the Regulations are to these regulations unless specified otherwise.

2.     There may be slight differences between this written document as compared to any full transcript of the hearing or oral determination delivered at the hearing. If that is the case, this written document should be regarded as the definitive version.

3.     The Officer resigned in 2025, with his last day of service being 10th August 2025. He is referred to in this document as the ‘former Officer’.

4.     The former Officer was aware of the proceedings but chose to disengage during the later stages of the process and not to attend the hearing. He also dispensed with the services of his Police Federation Friend. He was kept informed of the hearing arrangements throughout.

5.     The Appropriate Authority made an application at the commencement of the hearing for the case to proceed in the absence of the former Officer. After receiving advice from the LQA, the Panel decided to proceed in the absence of the former Officer, confident that he was aware both of the proceedings and his obligations.

6.     This report has been drafted by the LQA but is adopted by the Chair having consulted with the Panel. The Panel has had the opportunity to review and amend it. The Panel members understand that they are ultimately responsible for both the decisions they have made and the explanation of those decisions, The Panel have considered this case with care and in great detail.

7.     This was a public hearing. A public notice giving details of the hearing was published on the Essex Police website in the usual way and for the requisite period. One member of the public registered to attend, and arrangements were made to facilitate this. However, this person did not subsequently attend. No member of the media attended.

8.     The hearing was conducted online and administered from Essex Police Headquarters in Chelmsford.

B.    The Regime

9.     The conduct in question was alleged to have taken place between March 2021 and May 2025. The police misconduct regime was applied as follows:

(i)              The proceedings were conducted under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, the matters in question having come to the attention of the relevant Appropriate Authority after February 2020.

(ii)            The first tranche of the 2024 Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations, principally affecting the constitution of the Panel, applied. The proceedings were chaired by a senior police officer because the Regulation 30 Notice was served after 7th May 2024.

(iii)          The Police (Conduct, Performance and Complaints and Misconduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 have a commencement date of 28th May 2025. The amendments made by Part 3 of the 2025 Regulations are significant, particularly because of how they amend the outcome process under Regulation 42 of the 2020 Regulations. Regulation 64 (1) (a) of the 2025 Regulations specifies that the amendments do not apply to a ‘pre-commencement allegation’. Regulation 67 defines this as an allegation which came to the attention of the chief officer of police before 28th May 2025. All of the allegations in this case meet this criteria, with the exception of the allegation of breach of bail actually on 28th May 2025 (see 13 (c) of the Regulation 30 Notice). This however is caught by the provision in Regulation 64 (1) (b) as it relates to a matter which was a pre-commencement allegation which was already being handled in accordance with the appropriate regime. In short, the amendments made by Part 3 of the 2025 Regulations do not apply to this case.

(iv)           The amendments made by the Schedule of the 2025 Regulations do, at least in the first instance, apply because the Regulation 30 Notice was served after 28th May 2025. The Schedule introduces a presumption of an accelerated hearing in the case of a former officer. However, in this case the Appropriate Authority determined that a full misconduct hearing was necessary because of the complex and disputed nature of the allegations. So, no part of the 2025 Regulations applies to this case.

(v)             The relevant Home Office Guidance is the February 2020 version.

(vi)           The relevant College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes is the 2023 version. Updated versions of this and the Home Office Guidance are expected very soon, but not currently available.

(vii)         The College of Policing’s Code of Practice for Ethical Policing came in to effect on 6th December 2023. This is guidance for senior officer and pre-dates some of the allegations.

(viii)       The College of Policing’s Guidance for Ethical Policing and Professional Behaviour in Policing and its Ethical Policing Principles were both published on 24th January 2024. These documents together replace the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics and are relevant to those allegations which post-date their publication.

C.    Background

10.  The former Officer joined Essex Police in 2018 and served within the Local Policing Teams at Basildon and Chelmsford.

11.  From March [REDACTED TEXT] the former Officer formed a relationship with Ms A. She was employed in a professional capacity working in Essex Custody suites, but she was not a police officer. They later [REDACTED TEXT]

12.  In February 2025 Ms A made a report of domestic abuse against the former Officer. He was suspended from duty and a criminal investigation commenced, although no criminal proceedings were subsequently taken. Further allegations came to light. Interviews were carried out with the former Officer under both the criminal and misconduct regimes; the content of the former being effectively adopted in the latter. The former Officer spent a period on police bail, subject to conditions.

13.  Ms A has the status of a complainant in this matter and has been treated accordingly.

D.    Pre- Hearing:

14.  A pre-hearing was held in private on Microsoft Teams on 26th August 2026. This was attended by the Chair, Council for the Appropriate Authority, the Investigating Officer, the Hearings coordinator and the LQA.

15.  Compliance with the regulatory regime was confirmed and there was agreement that the 2025 Regulations did not apply.

16.  There were no outstanding issues with editing or disclosure of the bundle.

17.  It was understood that the former Officer had resigned and was not going to engage further with the proceedings or be represented. There was evidence to this effect.

18.  Having considered representations and advice, the Chair determined that it would not be necessary to call any live witnesses to the full hearing.

19.  An application for anonymity for Ms A was granted by the Chair.

20.  A decision was made that the hearing should be public, and the usual public notice should be given.

21.  In view of the above decisions, it was decided that the case was suitable to be heard online with the provision of public access.

22.  No Equality Act issues were raised at any stage by or on behalf of the former Officer, either with regards to matters relevant to conduct or reasonable adjustments.

23.  A direction was made with regard to the provision of an Opening Note.

E.     The Appropriate Authority’s position

24.  The Appropriate Authority served a Regulation 30 Notice on the former Officer on 12th July 2026, the full particulars of which are set out in section J.

25.  The Appropriate Authority’s position was that if the allegations were found proved the conduct would engage the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of

• Authority, Respect and Courtesy
• Honesty and Integrity
• Orders and Instructions
• Discreditable Conduct.

26.  The Standards of Professional Behaviour are all set out in Schedule 2 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, as amended, which states as follows:

• 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.

• Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

• Orders and Instructions

Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions.

Police officers abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders.

• 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.

27.  The Appropriate Authority contended that if the allegations were proved, the conduct would amount to gross misconduct.

F.     The former Officer’s position

28.  The former Officer did not comply with the obligation under Regulation 31, either to provide a written response to the allegations against him within the required timeframe or indeed at all. He provided no formal written response in any format, either with regards to individual allegations or whether he accepted that his conduct breached any of the Standards, or whether his conduct might amount to misconduct or gross misconduct.

29.  The former Officer was interviewed on three occasions in the course of the investigation into these allegations.

30.  In his criminal interview of 24thFebruary 2025 the former Officer exercised his right to make no comment in response to all relevant questions.

31.  In his criminal interview of 29thJuly 2025 the former Officer provided a detailed account of his relationship with Ms A. He also gave an account of his conduct with regards to specific allegations. In particular he denied any intentional assaults and maintained that any physical contact with Ms A was with the intention of preventing her damaging his property, or for her welfare. He provided details of counter-allegations and described using restraint techniques only to prevent harm. He denied controlling or manipulating Ms A. He did however accept checking some police systems and allowing some police material to be disclosed to Ms A and another person.

32.   In his conduct interview of 26thJanuary 2026 the former Officer confirmed his responses in the second criminal interview, adopted these for the purpose of the conduct investigation and expanded on them. He was questioned more widely, including about bail breaches and messages concerning police colleagues. His answers provide his justifications and reflections on each aspect of this case. Some concessions were made, particularly regarding messages sent between him and Ms A. He volunteered that he could provide documentation in relations to compensation claims he said he had made. This was potentially relevant to the matters of viewing videos when not on duty. A formal request was made for him to provide such documentation, but none was forthcoming.

33.  As the former Officer was not present at the hearing the Panel was cognisant of his position during those interviews and took his comments into consideration at each stage of their deliberations, both with regard to his potential defence of the allegations and/or appropriate mitigation.

34.  The LQA gave advice to the Panel regarding the fact that the former Officer did not give evidence on his own behalf.

G.    Evidence considered

35.  The Panel carefully considered the bundle of evidence presented in the case, all of which had been read in advance of the hearing. This extended to 560 pages, plus a technical addendum bundle. In addition to this, Ms Kane provided a detailed Opening Note which helped to summarise the evidence for the Panel, and opened the case in full during the hearing.

36.  A great deal of the evidence in this case was provided by the complainant, Ms A. Although she was not called to give live evidence and her evidence was not subjected to cross-examination the Panel had the advantage of seeing her give her accounts on ABE (achieving best evidence) videos. She gave detailed accounts on 7th March 2025, 9th April 2025, and 7th July 2025.

37.  The video evidence of the ABE interviews with Ms A and the videos of the former Officer’s interviews together total almost eight hours of viewing time, all of which was viewed by the Panel.

38.  In addition to the respective accounts of the former Officer and Ms A there were extensive extracts of messages between them and with others, witness statements from two witnesses, photographic and contemporaneous video evidence, and unchallenged technical evidence regarding the accessing of police systems etc.

39.  The Panel was not able to assess either Ms A or the former Officer giving live evidence or being cross-examined. Their recorded accounts were compared with messages they had sent and contemporaneous accounts from others, where these existed. There were clear challenges regarding credibility in some areas, and the Panel looked for corroborative evidence where this was available.

H.    Approach to decision making

40.  These proceedings were held to determine whether the conduct of the former Officer breached any Standards of Professional Behaviour, whether such conduct amounted to misconduct, gross misconduct or indeed neither and whether disciplinary action should be imposed.

41.  The approach taken by the panel was to:

(i)              Firstly, ascertain the facts, bearing in mind what was and what was not in dispute.

(ii)            Determine, on the basis of those facts, whether any Standards of Professional Behaviour had been breached.

(iii)          To decide whether any breach as found amounted to Misconduct, Gross Misconduct or indeed neither.

(iv)           As appropriate, to decide what the outcome should be.

I.      Burden and Standard of Proof

42.  In making its decisions the Panel was mindful of the fact that the burden of proving the case was on the Appropriate Authority.

43.  The standard of proof applied by the Panel was the balance of probabilities, the civil standard – ‘Conduct will be proved on the balance of probabilities if the Panel is satisfied by the evidence that it is more likely than not that the conduct occurred. The balance of probabilities is a single unvarying standard’. The Panel understood that the seriousness of the allegations and/or the seriousness of the consequences for the former Officer do not require a different standard of proof, merely careful consideration by the Panel before it is satisfied of the matters which have to be established.

J.      First Stage Findings

44. The Panel’s decisions in respect of each allegation in the Regulation 30 Notice are as follows:

1.During the course of your relationship with Person A:

a) You were violent towards her on multiple occasions

b) Caused injuries to Person A

The Appropriate Authority invited the Panel to consider 1a) and b) as linked allegations. The timeframe for this pair of allegations is the duration of the relationship between the former Officer and Ms A, namely March 2021 to May 2025. The Panel was asked to specifically consider the dates mentioned within the narrative of Allegation 3, and did so. These were:

27.1.22

The Panel looked first at the available evidence regarding an application of violence and possible injuries on or around 27.1.22. The only available evidence appeared to be the messages sent by Ms A, as outlined in Allegation 3 a). These are messages which refer to being grabbed and having possible injuries but do not reference a date. The response message from the former Officer does not contain any kind of acceptance of what is referred to.

There is no obvious reference to this in Ms A’s ABE interviews.

There are no photos exhibited with reference to this date.

There is no part of the former Officer’s interview in which this is specifically put to him.

There is no other or independent evidence relating to this.

On balance, the Panel are unable to find that the former Officer used violence towards Ms A on that date, causing her injuries.

7.2.22

The Panel then looked specifically at 7.2.22. There was a 999 call from Ms A on this date.

The Storm log records hearing possible crying from the caller. There is a message from Ms A on this date in which she references him being stronger and her not wanting to keep getting hurt and in response he says that he promises “never to do anything like that again” and later says “I’m really sorry, I honestly am”. The message from Ms A on 23.2.22 is also consistent with this.

On balance the Panel finds that there was an application of violence or force which caused at least some injury to Ms A on 7.2.22.

23.2.22

Although the Panel has been invited to consider an incident on 23.2.22 there is no evidence of violence on this actual day, merely a message sent on this date referring to previous violence. There is accordingly no finding with reference to this date.

15.4.22

The Panel looked for evidence of violence on 15.4.22. There is a message on this date which references use of violence over the “last few days”. This is in the context of a long exchange of messages between the parties. The allegation is no more specific and is certainly not conceded at any point. It is referenced in the ABE of Ms A on 7.3.25 and appears to be in the context of using police defensive skills to push her to the ground.

It cannot be proved that violence was used or injury was inflicted on that day.

27.5.22

So far as 27.5.22 is concerned there is a message accusing him of throwing her to the floor the previous night and there is some acknowledgement that something occurred and that he regretted it, although there is an attempt to justify it. This is also covered in Ms A’s ABE interview where there is some detail about this. There is also mention of the general use of police defensive skills in the statement of PC Thorne, as recounted to her by Ms A.

On balance the Panel is prepared to find that there was a use of force on 27.5.22.

14.6.22

The Panel then considered 14.6.22, noting there is a message from Ms A on this date which states “you can’t assault me anymore”. There is no detail of concession in relation to this. There is nothing else to back this up. The Panel was not able to conclude that violence was used on this day.

12.11.22

The Panel notes that on 12.11.22 there is a further message from Ms A which references being the victim of violence and to be being bruised by him. However, there is nothing further to support this and the Panel could not conclude that violence was used on this particular day.

21.12.22

With regard to 21.12.22 Ms A sent a series of messages, which include references to her being assaulted on that day in specific ways. She also says that she has called the police, although there is no evidence of this. The former Officer responds in a full way in his message back, with no concessions or admissions. In her ABE interview Ms A speaks about being put outside by him on 21 December 2022.

The Panel was able to conclude that some force was used on that day in order to eject her from the house for a short time. There is no evidence of injuries being caused that day.

3.1.23

The Panel then considered the use of violence on 3.1.23. There are a series of messages sent by Ms A that reference a specific use of violence, and an injury caused. There is also a photograph of a corresponding injury, which the metadata places on this date.

This matter is found proved.

14.3.23

Finally, the Panel has been invited to specifically consider events on 14.3.23. There is a message from Ms A on this date which refers to the prior use of violence. There is no more about this date however, and the Panel were not able to conclude that violence was used on this particular day.

This was clearly a volatile, emotionally charged relationship producing lots of accusations, and counter allegations and obvious unhappiness, against a background of stress. The relationship appeared to be highly dysfunctional. The Panel accepted that some violence was used by the former Officer towards Ms A, as identified above. The Panel are prepared to accept that sometimes violence may have been used in a proportionate restraint or defence, but where a finding has been recorded here it has been done so on the basis that it is not considered to be lawful or proportionate. (in other words, the matters found proved above are those not negated by the matters raised by the former Officer in his interviews).

The Panel findings in respect of allegation 4 can also be counted as another specific example of the use of violence (though not to duplicate these findings). These are merely examples of what must be regarded as a course of conduct over a substantial period of time, including during [REDACTED TEXT].

c) You were abusive and controlling towards Person A

This is an invitation to the Panel to apply a blanket label to a whole relationship, and to effectively categorise it as ‘abusive and controlling’. The Panel has taken the timeframe of this allegation to cover the duration of the relationship up to the point when the former Officer became subject to police bail, as there is conduct within that latter period which is dealt with elsewhere.

The Panel considered that allegations 1 c) and 1f) were closely related and has therefore considered the evidential matrix for them in a combined way.

The relationship did contain elements of abuse, but there are allegations and counter-allegations within this which raise wider issues of credibility.

Abusive language was used by both parties at various times, but this does not mean that the whole relationship can necessarily be categorised as an abusive relationship.

The Panel note that many of the features of a wholly abusive or controlling relationship were largely lacking in this case. Ms A appeared to enjoy a degree of financial freedom, the ability to socialise with her family and friends and to pursue her own career. Her movements were not monitored, and she had [REDACTED TEXT].

Overall, whilst not wishing to downplay the unhappy and dysfunctional nature of much of this relationship, the Panel were not able to simply apply a label of ‘abusive and controlling’ to this relationship as a whole.

d) Showed her videos of your restraining women in the course of your work

The statement of Ms A in March 2026 details being shown some videos by the former Officer. She specifies watching a video of him being bitten, of his falling in a hole and of him restraining a male, but she does not refer to being shown videos which showed him restraining women in the course of his work.

There is a general discussion in his interview about him accessing a video whilst at home off duty which shows him restraining a female, but he does not make any admissions regarding showing this to Ms A.

The Panel was not able to find this allegation proved.

Allegations 8 and 9 are similar in nature to this, but are dealt with later on their own merit.

e) Used restrain techniques on her

It is alleged by Ms A that such techniques were used, and there is evidence from PC Thorne that Ms A told her that he had used them. The former Officer accepts during his interview that he had used such methods whilst restraining Ms A. He justifies this in the context of proportionate defensive skills, and needing to prevent Ms A from harming him or herself.

The Panel finds that these techniques were used. As drafted however, this matter does not of itself infer culpability. The Panel was not persuaded that the use of these techniques was anything other than lawful and proportionate and therefore will not engage the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

f) You used degrading language, particularly in relation to Person A, which included calling her a “slut”, a “whore” and referring to her as “stupid”.

The direct evidence for this is solely contained within Person A’s ABE Interview of 7 March 2025 but the Panel noted that PC Thorne directly witnessed different offensive language from former Officer towards Person A. The Panel is satisfied that such language was used but refer to the context of 1 c). above.

g) Used degrading and violent language in respect of police colleagues

Ms A states that he used such language in her ABE. There are text message exchanges, referred to in allegation 6 which evidence the nature of the language. When interviewed the former Officer said that whilst he used such language to Ms A about his colleagues, he did so out of frustration rather than any intention to actually act on his words. He agreed that it was not appropriate to use this language in relation to his colleagues.

The Panel is satisfied that such language was used, that it was highly inappropriate and was found to be proved

h) Made her feel unable to speak to anyone or report your behaviour

Ms A threatened to report his behaviour many times. She was working in an environment where she had the opportunity to seek advice or make a report without him knowing. The statement of PC Thorne makes it clear that aspects of his conduct were communicated to her, and ultimately, Ms A did make a report. Whilst his conduct clearly did not encourage such reporting, the Panel considered that the evidence fell short of persuading them that he actually made her feel unable to speak to anyone or report his behaviour. So, this is not proved.

i)      You brought a knife to your bedroom following an argument

The evidence of this comes solely from Ms A’s ABE’s statement. She does not say that the knife was used to threaten her. She says that she photographed it, but no photo is available.

This does not appear to have been put to the former Officer in interview.

There is no response to this allegation.

On balance the Panel held back from finding this as proved.

j) You made comments about being forensically aware of how to deal with a crime to evade detection.

The evidence of this comes solely from Ms A’s ABE.

Again, this is not put to the former Officer in interview. There is no corroboration of this.

Again, the Panel has held back from finding this proved.

At their height, the facts alleged in i) and j) would not in any event equate to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

2. On 22nd March 2021, you were on duty and tasked with constant observations of a vulnerable individual. You were engaged in sending messages of a personal and sexual nature to Person A during this time.

The Panel was satisfied that the former Officer was on duty at Southend custody suite on this date and that he was tasked with this observational duty. This was during the early stages of his relationship with Ms A. The Panel noted from page 398 of the evidential bundle that the constant observation instruction document for this particular tasking specified “no mobile devices”. The guidance referenced on page 399 also says that no mobile phone or other electronic devices should be used. At 10.42 hours the former Officer signed to say that he had read his instructions and understood his task. This is counter-signed by the Sgt who has delivered his briefing. The Custody record is consistent with this.

Page 383 of the bundle shows the messages that the former Officer sent, which include a specific reference to sitting with the detainee. Further messages exchanged with Ms A are within pages 393 onwards. They go far beyond anything that might be considered personal but necessary or functional and are certainly of an intimately sexual nature.

In interview the former Officer accepted sending and receiving these messages, and to opening an accompanying video, although he downplayed the risk that this conduct might have caused.

It is notable that during this task the former Officer was supervising a probationary officer of only six weeks’ experience and the detainee that he was supposed to be constantly observing was vulnerable, with many markers recorded against him, highlighting various risk factors.

The Panel is satisfied that this allegation is proved.

3. You and Person A exchanged multiple messages in which included that you had assaulted her (exact wording used below)

Relevant exchanges include:

a)     On 27th January 2022, you received a message from Person A which stated:

i. [14;43] “Okay well I will then. I’ll tell her about you grabbing my neck and roll my sleeves up and show her the bruising…we’ll all go from there. But you’ve f***** up and unfortunately this response is not satisfactory”.

ii.[14;44]: “I’ve warned you. You’ve had plenty of time to prevent this from happening. And I’m not gunna not do it when you’re mugging me off. About time people see what’s happening”.

iii. You responded with the following message: [15:06]: “It’s entirely up to you what you do isn’t it…I’m not gonna make any attempt to control what you do/say…At the end of the day, you’ve ignored me too today…I came down to get a coffer and you shut the door…I took that as you ignoring me’.

b)     On 7 February 2022 you received the following message from Person A[17:05]:

i. “…Yeah maybe..I dunno I just feel a bit worried now. At the end of the day you’re stronger than me and I don’t wanna keep getting hurt and it’s not like can really fight you off is it xxxxxxxxx”

ii. You responded to this message stating, [17:07]”.. I promise I’ll never do anything like that again…I’d rather you cut up all my clothes that you get hurt xxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

iii. After further messages were exchanged you sent a further message [18:01] stating “I’m really sorry, I honestly am xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

c)     On 23rd February 2022, Person A sent you a message [04:18] referring to telling your sergeant that “you assaulted me the other week…”

d)     On 15th April 2022, Person A sent you a message [04:18] which included “….You promised after last time you wouldn’t be violent of grab me and then again you’ve done it multiple times over the last few days. I don’t want that anymore…”

e)     On 28th May 2022, you exchanged the following messages with Person A:

i.Person A stated, “im sorry but you know the one thing that you do that it can’t deal with is when you’re violent towards me. I don’t sleep properly, the stress makes me unwell and I need it to be enough now because I said this last time and you’ve done it again xxx”

ii.You responded, “I’m sorry too…I do need you to stop destroying, damaging and threatening to damage my stuff please xxxxxxxxxx”

iii.Person A wrote back, “Okay but Tom I didn’t have anything of yours when you threw me on the floor last night. So that’s not relevant to this. It affects me more than you realise and does make me physically ill xxxxxx”

f)      On 14th June 2022, Person A sent you a message which stated, “You can’t assault me anymore”

g)     12 November 2022 refers to being the victim of violence.

h)     Person A sent the following messages to you on 21 December 2022:

i. [10:50] Well that’s caught on camera

ii. [10:50] You’re f***** now [laughing emojis]

iii. [10:50] I’ll be ringing the police

iv.[10.51]: And you can get f*****. Sick of your violence.

v.[11:04]: Police have been called. I’ve begged you to stop hitting and strangling me for months and today is the last time.

    i) You exchanged the following messages on 3rd January 2023:

 i. Person A stated, “There’s never an apology or anything when you injure me. This means days of pain and biting my lip and not being to eat and drink properly. This won’t be let go and this will have consequences. Because you will never learn otherwise.”

ii. You responded, “So is the expectation that I just allow you to smash up my stuff?? I never hurt you deliberately however I am entitled to defend my property…You have to realise as well that you cant always get your own way, that’s not how a relationship works…Also, when do you apologise for damaging my stuff??”

iii. Person A wrote, “I didn’t have anything that belonged to you in my hands, You threw me on the floor and smacked my face is the process. So don’t say it was defending yourself. You’ve said before that if you can walk away ect it doesn’t count as self-defence so there was nothing that meant you needed to do that”

iv.Person A wrote, “You can get your stuff and get out tonight. I’ll come and speak to Emma shall I about my fat lip. You wanna make our relationship issue everyone’s f****** business then I f****** will.”

v.Person A wrote,”You beat me up” followed by “And then try to make me feel awkward at work”.

vi. Person A wrote, “And I’ll be making it heard in custody about you hitting me shortly”

j) On 17th December 2022, Person A sent you a message in which she described you had threatened to rape her.

k) On 4th January 2023 a message from Person A sent to you included, “I’ sick of being injured and pushed about”

l) On 23rd January 2023, Person A sent a message to you which said, “Because you’re abusive and I have photos. So If you carry on I’ll call the police and you’ll get conditions not to come here”

m) On 14th March 2023, Person A sent the following message to you “I’ve got a nice massive bruise on my arm from where you grabbed and smacked me about the other day”

n) On 9th April 2024 you exchanged the following messages with Person A:

i.[Person A to you]:They know about the violence Tom. Lay a f****** finger on my dog and I’ll go straight to the police.

ii.[You to Person A]: So you’ve lied to them then…OK

iii.[Person A to you]: No I told them you had your hands around my neck. That’s not a lie. So don’t kid yourself.

iv.[You to Person A]:Ok whatever.

o)Person A sent further messages on 16th July and 17th July referring to being assaulted while [REDACTED TEXT] and being “thrown…around the house” while [REDACTED TEXT] and to violence and threats of violence.

p) On 1st August you exchanged further messages with Person A in which she referred to you being violent towards her [REDACTED TEXT].

q) You had an exchange with Person A you threatened to burn the home. You did so in a video and the topic is addressed in messages on 16th November 2023.

r) On 5th December 2023 Person A sent messages stating you had “grabbed hold of her and refers to violence [REDACTED TEXT].

s) On 8th March 2024, Person A referred to you pushing her in a message to you.

Allegation 3 relates to multiple messages sent and received between the parties between January 2022 and March 2024. It relates to a series of different incidents or events during this time and provides context to the nature of the relationship during this period.

However, the individual Allegations at 3a) to 3s) are worded in such a way that the allegations are not, for example, that the former Officer assaulted Ms A on the occasions referenced, but that he exchanged messages with Ms A which referenced such wrongdoings. The conduct alleged is the exchange of messages, not the acts of assault.

The Panel consider therefore that Allegation 3 is not of itself an allegation of conduct which is capable of engaging the Standards of Professional Behaviour. Although the exchange of the various messages is generally accepted by the former Officer, the messages themselves are not necessarily probative of the conduct complained of within them.

The Panel find that all of these messages were sent and received as alleged, but rather than being conduct which itself attracts culpability, they comprise a factual matrix against which some of the other allegations can be measured. So, whilst the Panel accept the exchange of messages they do not find that Allegation 3 is proved as any form of conduct capable of being assessed as misconduct. The Panel’s comments with regards to the individual subsections of Allegation 3 are as follows:

a)     This is about receiving a message, and there is nothing wrong with his reply.

b)     His responses to messages received on 7th February 2022 may be corroboration of an event on that day, but do not of themselves represent a conduct matter.

c)     Refers to a message received. Again, he cannot have any culpability for this in itself, although the message may be significant for corroborating the allegation on 7th February 2022.

d)     This is only the receipt of a message. It may be supportive of something more, but of itself is not a matter of culpability. The passage quoted is part of a succession of longer messages, to which the former Officer does respond, but not in a manner which itself represents a conduct matter.

e)     This relates to an exchange of messages regarding an allegation of assault on Ms A on 28th May 2022. The Panel found this useful when considering whether or not an assault took place on this date. However, the mere exchange of messages did not of itself establish any wrongdoing.

f)      This is the receipt of a message only and cannot of itself be probative of culpable conduct on the part of the former Officer.

g)     This is a statement of fact, not an allegation. The messages of 12th November 2022 do reference violence, which is denied and has been considered in the context of that specific date, as part of allegation 1.

h)     This references a series of messages sent to the former Officer my Ms A. It is not of itself an allegation.

i)      This is an exchange of messages about an allegation of violence on or immediately prior to 3rd January 2023. The Panel found it useful in their deliberations on Allegation 1, but again, of itself it does not constitute an allegation of anything except the exchange of messages. The significance of the correlation of this exchange and the metadata which dates the photograph of the injury to Ms A’s lip was not lost on the Panel.

j)      This is the receipt of a message only. It cannot of itself attract any culpability. P 261 evidences the context in which this was sent and in which there are no admissions of wider liability.

k)     The same comments apply.

l)      The Panel consider that the receipt of this message of itself cannot attract liability.

m)   Again, this is the receipt of a message only. It does provide some evidence which is useful in the context of an allegation within that timeframe. He does not acknowledge any injury or event.

n)     This is an exchange of messages on 9th April 2024. Those messaged do not include any admission on the part of the former Officer, and are not of themselves matters that attract culpability.

o)     This is a message received again, which contains an allegation which is denied.

p)     The same comments apply as above.

q)     This is not an allegation of threatening to burn down the house; it is an allegation of exchanging messages about a threat that may or may not have been made. The Panel do not doubt that there was a conversation that made reference to comments of the nature alleged, but the context in which it was said is far from clear. And that is not the allegation.

r)      Again, these are messages merely received by the former Officer; this is not a substantive allegation.

s)      This is another message received, not a substantive allegation. There is reference to Ms A being pushed on 8th March 2024, and this has been referenced by the Panel in their consideration of allegation 1 a).

4. In October 2022 you:

a) Threw her (Ms A’s) phone which hit her mouth and caused a cut to the inside of her lip

b) Shoved Person A onto the bed

c) Struck Person A with you elbow

d) Instructed Person A to delete photos she has taken of her injuries.

The evidence about this is primarily from Ms A in her ABE interview of 7.3.25. She recalls an incident in October 2022 when she threatened to call 999 and the former Officer took her phone off her. She says that whilst she was sitting on the floor of her dressing room, she demanded her phone back and he threw it to the floor close to her, from where it bounced up and hit her in the face. This caused an injury to her lip. She then went into the bedroom, where she says she was shoved onto the bed. She also thought she was hit in the face, and recalls that he said he merely caught her with his elbow. She says that she took photos of her injuries, but that he made her delete them.

In his interview the former Officer refers to the same allegation, but maintained that he purposefully threw the phone to the floor and it accidentally bounced and hit her in the face. He denied using any more than lawful force in respect of his contact with her.

There are no messages evidenced in the bundle which appear to relate to this incident, or photographs of injuries available to view.

The Panel finds that the phone was thrown, that it bounced on the floor and that it hit her in the mouth, causing a minor injury. It is accepted that this was not a deliberate direct strike to her mouth, although it can be viewed as reckless in the circumstances.

It is considered that he probably did shove her onto the bed, and that he did strike her with his elbow.

Given the findings the Panel has made with regards to other incidents relating to the use of phones, it was also found on the balance of probabilities that the former Officer also instructed Ms A to delete photographs of one or more injuries sustained during this interaction.

In summary, all aspects of this allegation are found proved.

5. You were at your home address on 24th February 2025. On that date:

a) You grabbed [redacted text], Person A, around the neck/throat

b) You moved Person A backwards while grabbing her neck/throat

c) You put liquid from the toilet in your hands and held it to her face causing the water to land on her.

There is no doubt that an incident took place between the parties on this date.

It involved physical confrontation, albeit with different interpretations. This was a highly charged incident which culminated in the arrest of the former Officer.

It is common ground that Ms A made contact with the former Officer with the hoover, and that she dropped something valuable of his into the cloakroom toilet, which he retrieved, thereby getting his hands wet.

The account of the former Officer in his last interview is quite compelling around this particular incident and is overall preferred by the Panel to the account given by Ms A.

The Panel considers that the acts in a) and b) took place, but that such contact did not amount to the unlawful use of violence. It may well have been no more than was necessary in self-defence/ or defence of property. It is not found, on balance, to be a use of violence that would engage the Standards of Professional Behaviour. The Panel consider that when contact between them occurred Ms A felt water from the toilet on her face, but this was the logical consequence of him having a wet hand, rather than him having deliberately put toilet water in his hands and held it to her face.

This allegation is consequently not found, in the sense that any culpability attaches to it.

6. You used language of a violent and derogatory nature about colleagues. You wrote the following messages to Person A;

a) On 12th January you referred to the fact that another officer was “gonna get punched”

b) On 3rd May 2024 you said “Honestly i’m gonna slap someone in a minute, these officers are f****** incompetent…”

c) On 20th October 2024 you sent a message to Person A saying that you were “gonna f****** strangle” a colleague and you referred to her as a “cunt”

These messages are evidenced on pages 404-6. The former Officer accepts in interview that he wrote and sent these messages, albeit he played down the meaning or significance of them. He put it down to frustration at the competence of his colleagues. He denied that there was ever any intention to actually inflict any violence towards his colleagues. He said that he was not a misogynist.

The Panel finds these allegations proved, and they are concerning in content.

7. On 7 February 2022, you accessed an incident log (reference EP-20220207-0103) on three occasions. This incident log referred to an abandoned 999 call which took place. The incident was linked to [redacted test] Person A.

a) You were off duty at the time

b) You had no lawful purpose and no legitimate policing purpose for doing so.

Ms A gives evidence in her first ABE interview of an incident at home following which she called 999 (at 03.23 hrs). She said that the former Officer forcibly ended the call and instructed her to call 101 to explain that the call was a mistake, which she did. The call was recorded as abandoned, although the Storm log records that she could be heard possibly crying or breathing heavily. She said that he then accessed the Storm log.

The former Officer accepts in his interview that he viewed the log, and spoke to Ms A about the record, although he denied coaching her with regards to the 101 call.

The Panel find this matter proved.

The accounts of both parties are somewhat consistent and there is independent evidence of the system being accessed. The former Officer accessed the Storm record from his mobile device three times (09.36, 10.04 and 10.20am) the same morning. He would have been able to see how the initial call was assessed and the fact that it was left open awaiting resolution, then how her subsequent contact was recorded and how the incident was resolved. That would have given him the reassurance that there was no outstanding police concern for Ms A arising from the incident. It was entirely for his own purpose. He was off duty at the time and he had no legitimate policing purpose for doing so.

8. You showed body worn footage of an incident to Person A and to PC Thorne at your home.

The statement of PC Thorne says that the former Officer once showed her BWV of him being assaulted at work. The former Officer accepted in interview that he once showed Ms A and PC Thorne BWV of him being bitten at work during an arrest. The audit log shows that he accessed this on 23.3.24 at 20.34. It is not disputed that this was off duty, at home in the evening.

The Panel finds this proved as there was no legitimate policing purpose for this.

9. You showed body worn footage to Person A on 13th May 2024.

This is footage of the former Officer falling down a hole, when he becomes injured. Ms A refers in her ABE to being shown this footage, on the day that she collected him from hospital. She makes further reference to this in her statement, in which she describes the content of the video. The viewing is further corroborated by messages she sent to PC Thorne with reference to this. The former Officer accepts in his misconduct interview that he did this, saying he considered it to be a light-hearted moment. The technical data confirms that the video was accessed by the former Officer, but that this was on 12th May, not 13th May as alleged. The Panel noted that was unfair to the officer to amend the Regulation 30 in his absence, even in respect of what appeared to be a typographical error. For this reason, the allegation is not found to be proved. However, see the Panel’s findings in respect of Allegation 11 e).

10. You read aloud from a STORM log to Person A.

The Panel notes from the evidence of Ms A that she says the former Officer would regularly open Storm logs from home and inform her about policing activity. The Panel make no finding with regard to this general assertion from Ms A, but have assessed this allegation as being a specific one which relates to the same incident described at Allegation 7, namely the events of 7.2.22. The former Officer says explicitly in interview that she was crying down the phone, which is information he could only know if he had read the log. This allegation is not that he read the log, which is effectively captured by Allegation 7, but that he read it aloud, sharing the information from it with someone else, who happened to be Ms A.

The Panel find this proved.

11. You accessed body worn video while off duty on the following occasions:

a) Incident 1:21st July 2024 (21:35)

This relates to the former Officer arresting a female at a property. The incident happened on 12.1.24 and the former Officer viewed the video on 21.7.24. At that time records show that he was off duty.

b) Incident 2: 21st July 2024 (21:38)

Counsel for the Appropriate Authority expressed concern about the exact time (not date) of this alleged viewing, but the Panel did not consider this as material to the allegation.

This is a video of the former Officer restraining a female in a cell. The incident happened on 2.2.24. It was viewed on 21.7.24 at 21.38.35. At that time records show he was off duty.

The former Officer accepted in his interview that he watched this at home, and this was a common practice which he said enabled him to reflect on his performance in past incidents.

c) Incident 3: 23rd March 2024 (20:34)

This is video of the former Officer arresting a male who bites him. The event happened on 4.2.24. It was viewed on 23.3.24 whilst the former Officer was off duty. He accepted viewing this in interview. This relates to the viewing referred to in allegation 8.

At the time that he accessed this video there is also a record of him accessing other police systems, such as Athena and Custody images.

d) Incident 4: 9th March 2024 (rest day) (18:30), 21st July 2024 (21:38) and 5th November 2024 (21:02)

This is an allegation of accessing the same video on three occasions. The video relates to events of 5.2.24, when the former Officer arrests a drunken male who spits at him. There is a clear record that he was off duty and that he viewed this video on all three dates.

e) Incident 5:12th May 2024 (21:02)

The comments made with respect to Allegation 9 are relevant here.

Counsel for the Appropriate Authority said in Opening that this viewing was actually on 13th May 2024.

However, the Panel consider that the system was accessed on 12.5.24 at 20.12 and this is corroborated by texts from Ms A to PC Thorne, which reference her having just viewed the video. There is no record of this video being accessed by the former Officer on 13th May 2024. The Panel conclude that the video was accessed as alleged on 12th May, as drafted, and that the former Officer showed the contents of the video to Ms A. (This now effectively includes the facts as the Appropriate Authority intended on Allegation 9).

So, all aspects of Allegation 11 are found proved. The Panel was greatly assisted by the Addendum bundle, which provides an independent detailed audit trail of these matters.

12. You told Person A about an incident involving her friend’s partner in relation to an allegation of assault. This is referenced in a message on 8th December 2024 to Person A.

There is a record of messages exchanged between the former Officer and Ms A which reference him driving an arrested person, who was known to him and Ms A on a personal basis. The individual was the partner of a friend of Ms A’s [REDACTED TEXT]. The former Officer accepted both the sending and the content of these messages, albeit he tried to justify sharing the confidential information as a safeguarding concern.

The Panel finds this matter proved.

13. You breached your bail conditions on the following dates

a)5th April 2025 when you met with Person A

b) 5th May 2025 when you answered a call from Person A

c) 28th May 2025 when you made contact with/spoke to Person A from your vehicle

During part of the investigation into these matters the former Officer was placed on police bail, with conditions not to contact Ms A. This is fully accepted by the former Officer in interview. P 181 onwards show a series of messages exchanged between the former Officer and Ms A’s mother. An initial meeting takes place between them on 3rd April, then two days later a further meeting takes place at which Ms A is also present. Her mother leaves the former Officer and Ms A together, during which time Ms A states they discuss their relationship and the investigation. The former Officer accepts this much in interview. This allegation is proved. It is premeditated and deliberate.

It appears that Ms A rang the former Officer on more than one occasion, and one of these was on 5th May 2025. Rather than decline the call, the former Officer accepts that they had a long conversation. This allegation is also proven.

On 28th May 2025 there was another fleeting meeting, albeit this may have been unplanned. The former Officer says that he saw Ms A whilst in his car and took the opportunity to update her about a matter they had previously discussed. He made a proactive decision to speak to Ms A, and this left her shocked. He also said in interview that he had reflected and probably should not have instigated contact in that way. This too is proved.

Whilst it could be said that Ms A or her mother were complicit in at least two of these breaches of bail, the obligation to abide by bail conditions lay squarely with the Officer, who accepted as much in interview. 

14. You made attempts to persuade Person A to lie to police in respect of the allegations she had made.

This is regarded as a reference to the former Officer’s conversations with Ms A and her mother during the period of his police bail.

Ms A says in her ABE that there was a general background within their relationship of him telling her that if the police were ever involved in their domestic disputes there would be various adverse consequences for them as a family.

Ms A says that whilst walking at Danbury Lakes on 5 April 2025 he laid out for her the option of telling the police that her account had not been accurate, and reminded her of the consequences of not doing so. He also provided other information to her which can best be described as passive aggressive, at worst emotional blackmail. It is significant that he expressed the view that there could not be a victimless prosecution in the case.

The statement of PC Thorne establishes that Ms A told her there had been an attempt to make her lie to the police and drop the investigation. It is appreciated that what PC Thorne was told can only be hearsay evidence about what actually happened, but it is consistent with what Ms A says in her ABE at page 139 of the bundle.

The former Officer accepted speaking with Ms A about their relationship but denied that he ever tried to persuade her to lie about the allegations she had made. He accepted however (on page 484) that he said to her if she wanted to stop it the only way was to retract her statement.

It is incontrovertible that he repeatedly communicated with her in breach of his bail conditions. It has to be a reasonable assumption that such communication would not be undertaken lightly or without purpose on his part.

The Panel find that he did make intentional attempts to influence her position as a complainant, including encouraging the option of retracting. To retract her allegation would amount to a lie and he did make attempts to persuade her that this was the more attractive option. So, this allegation is found proved.

To summarise the Panel’s findings on facts, the allegations that have been found to be proved are: 1a) and 1b), 1f) and 1g), 2,4,6,7,8,10,11,12,13 and 14.

K.    Breaches of the standards of professional behaviour:

45.  The Panel went on to consider the application of the Standards of Professional Behaviour to the facts and context as found.

The Standard of Authority, Respect and Courtesy is engaged with respect to

Allegations 1 a), 1b), 1f) and 1g) – the former Officer failed to treat Ms A with respect and courtesy.

Also – allegation 2, - there was a lack of respect and courtesy towards the vulnerable person he was supposed to be observing.

And allegation 4, - as 1 above

And allegation 6, there was a lack of respect and courtesy towards police colleagues

And 7, - as 1 above

And 8, - an abuse of police powers to show this BWV

And 10 – as 1 above

And 12 – a lack of respect and courtesy towards the individual in custody

The Standard of Honesty and Integrity is engaged with respect to

Allegations 2 (integrity only), 7 (integrity only), 8 (integrity only), 10 (integrity only), 13 (integrity only) and 14 (both honesty and integrity)

The Standard of Orders and Instructions is engaged with respect to

Allegations 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

The Standard of Discreditable Conduct in engaged with respect to

Allegations 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8,10,12,13 and 14. (all matters found proved, save 11)

L.     Misconduct, Gross Misconduct or neither:

46.  The Panel went on to consider under Regulation 41 (15) (b) of the 2020 Conduct Regulations whether the conduct as found amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct or neither.

47.  The Panel reminder itself that for a former officer ‘Misconduct’ means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is not so serious that the officer concerned would have been dismissed if the officer has not ceased to be a member of the police force, whist “Gross Misconduct” means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious that the officer concerned would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be a member of a police force.

48.  The Appropriate Authority submitted that the conduct found proved overall amounted to gross misconduct. In his conduct interview the former Officer made no concessions on this point.

49.  In reaching an assessment on the seriousness of the proven conduct the Panel has considered the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes (2023), which states consideration should be given to an officer’s culpability, any harm caused and the existence of any aggravating factors or mitigating factors.

50.  The approach taken was that identified by Mr Popplewell J in Fuglers LLP V SRA [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin)which is in these terms: “In assessing seriousness, the most important factors will be (1) the culpability for misconduct in question and (2) the harm caused by the misconduct…..(3) aggravating factors……and mitigating factors…”

Culpability

51.  The Panel reminded itself that culpability denotes an officer’s blameworthiness or responsibility for their actions. The Panel found the following to be relevant in their assessment of culpability;

The conduct proven included planned conduct (such as at least one of the bail breaches), deliberate conduct (such as the access to the Storm log and other data breaches) and targeted conduct (in the form of the comments made regarding Ms A and other female police officers).

The breach of bail conditions is particularly serious; as para 4.17 of the Guidance says, it is unacceptable for police officers, who are responsible for enforcing the law, to break the law themselves.

Paragraph 4.20 also applies; there is a breach of both honesty and integrity with regard to his conduct whilst on police bail, which is particularly troubling.

Paragraph 4.34 applies to all the misuse of police systems matters, and to the breach of confidentially with regards to allegation 12. Some of the former Officer’s accessing of police systems was for his own personal benefit, particularly the accessing of the Storm log. There were multiple instances of accessing of confidential police information without a legitimate policing purpose. Not only was information accessed when it should not have been, but some of it was shown or passed on to other people who should not have been privy to it.

The interference with his own investigation by his communications with Ms A also had the potential to compromise this investigation.

The use of violence towards a female in a domestic context is viewed as serious and would undermine public confidence in policing. [REDACTED TEXT] There is a misogynistic theme to the comments made about members of his team.

Given the range of different types of proven conduct, the Panel consider that culpability is high.

Harm

52.  The Panel noted that Ms A suffered some physical injuries, including bruising and cuts. She also suffered psychological distress during the relevant period, and whilst no medical evidence has been provided, a common-sense view strongly suggests a causal link with the former Officer’s conduct. [REDACTED TEXT]. Conduct which has gone on over a long period of time is considered likely to have contributed to a general deterioration in her health, both physical and mental. The Panel are however cognisant that [REDACTED TEXT] other personal factors are also likely to have contributed to Ms A’s condition.

There is wider reputational harm in that these matters would undermine public confidence in the police. The public expect those who uphold the law to abide by it.

There are risks associated with some of this conduct. With regard to allegation 2 there was a deviation from duties which could have resulted in harm to a highly vulnerable adult.

The conduct towards Ms A [REDACTED TEXT] also exposed her to associated additional risks.

The impact regarding violence against women and girls is particularly important. The public need to have confidence that complaints of this nature will be taken seriously, and the course of justice will not be undermined.

Overall, harm is considered to be high.

Aggravating factors.

53.  In considering aggravating factors the Panel were careful not to double count but found the factors below to be relevant;

• Repeated or sustained conduct over time
• Vulnerability of Ms A [REDACTED TEXT]
• A depth of concern on a national level about violence against women and girls
• A degree of premeditation to some of the conduct
• Multiple proven breaches over a range of different types of conduct, and breaches of multiple Standards of Professional Behaviour

Mitigating factors

54.  The Panel was careful to remind itself of the distinction between mitigating factors relating to the conduct and personal mitigation.

• There were some limited admissions in interview
• The videos of the former Officer’s interview showed that he has reflected on his position, but this falls short of a demonstration of real insight or remorse

Mitigating features were largely lacking in this case.

The Panel concluded that the totality of the proven allegations amounted to gross misconduct.

M. Second Stage Decision on Outcome

55. Notwithstanding the assessment of seriousness leading to a finding of gross misconduct, and the absence of the former Officer from the proceedings, the Panel approached the Second Stage of their decision making in the usual structured manner.

56.  The approach taken by the Panel when considering sanction was that identified by Mr Popplewell J in Fuglers LLP v SRA [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin) which is in these terms:

“There are three stages to the approach which should be adopted (by a solicitor’s disciplinary tribunal) in determining sanction. The first stage is to assess the seriousness of the misconduct. The second stage is to keep in mind the purpose for which sanctions are imposed by such a tribunal. The third stage is to choose the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.”

57.   In reaching its decision regarding the disciplinary outcome, the Panel gave due consideration to all the evidence and submissions made on behalf of the Appropriate Authority. These reminded the Panel that conduct concerning data protections and misuse, and conduct of violence, including violence against women and girls is to be considered as “especially serious”.

58.  No submissions were made by or on behalf of the former Officer. The Panel also considered the interests of the public and of Essex Police.

59.      In coming to its conclusion as to the appropriate outcome, the Panel had regard to the College of Policing Guidance, the Home Office Guidance and relevant legal authorities

Seriousness

60.      The Panel reassessed the seriousness assessment made at the First Stage of the Findings and considered that the assessment of seriousness remained the same, namely high.

Personal Mitigation

61.  The 2020 Home Office Guidance says that the purpose of misconduct proceedings is to be “fair to the individual who is subject to the process, as well as all parties involved” in order to arrive “at a correct assessment of the matter in question and [provide] public and policing confidence in the system.” The Panel therefore considered carefully the scope for personal mitigation in this case. 

62.  The Panel considered this only after forming an assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct, as recommended by paragraph 6.2 of the Guidance on Outcomes. The Guidance reminded the Panel that personal mitigation is always relevant and should always be taken into account.

63.      No details of personal mitigation were put forward by or on behalf of the former Officer. No character witness evidence was available. The Panel were able to glean some information from the former Officer’s interviews, but this was of a general nature.  

Purpose of Misconduct Proceedings

64.      Having assessed seriousness, the second stage of the structured approach required the Panel to reminded themselves of the purpose for which sanctions are imposed.

65.      The three-fold purpose of sanctions is explained in the Guidance at (2.3):

• Maintaining public confidence in and the reputation of the police service
• Upholding high standards in policing and deterring misconduct
• Protecting the public

66.      The first two of these purposes have obvious relevance to this case. In considering the protection of the public the Panel was concerned about the willingness of victims of domestic violence in particular to engage with the police, which would impact on their protection.

67.  The Panel also took account of the comments of Lord Carswell in the decision of the House of Lords in R (Green) v Police Complaints Authority [2004] UKHL 6 at paragraph 78:

“Public confidence in the police is a factor of great importance in the maintenance of law and order in the manner which we regard as appropriate in our polity. If citizens feel that improper behaviour on the part of police officers is left unchecked and they are not held accountable for it in a suitable manner that confidence will be eroded.”

68.      The Panel, having reminded itself of the purpose of misconduct proceedings, was required to determine the sanction that most appropriately met the purpose of the regime.

69.      The panel reminded itself of paragraph 2.8 of the Guidance, which includes the instruction to consider less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes.

70.  As this was a case concerning a former officer, the Panel could only consider two outcomes: disciplinary action or no disciplinary action. Where the finding is Gross Misconduct and disciplinary action is imposed, this can only be that the former officer would have been dismissed if still serving. No other sanction can be enforced. If the finding is Gross Misconduct but the Panel determines that dismissal is not justified, then no action will be taken, and the Gross Misconduct will simply be recorded.

71.  The least severe outcome that would have been available if the former Officer had still been serving would have been a Final Written Warning. The Panel concluded that based upon the collective seriousness of the proven conduct the imposition of a final written warning would not fulfill the purposes of police misconduct proceedings. In particular, it would not be adequate to maintain public confidence. The Panel considered that the threefold purpose of the misconduct regime could only be satisfied, by the imposition of a sanction that if the former Officer was still serving, he would be dismissed without notice from Essex Police.

Summary on outcome

72.  The Panel, having considered all the issues and the serious nature of the misconduct, imposed the only disciplinary action available for a former Officer, namely a declaration that if he had still been serving, he would have been dismissed from the police service without notice.

73.  The Panel considered the sanction as the only proportionate means of achieving the legitimate purpose of the proceedings.

N.    Ancillary matters

74.  The direction concerning Ms A’s anonymity continues.

75.  No representations will be made to the College of Policing, so the former Officer’s details will go on the publicly accessible part of the barred list in the usual way.

Chair of Panel
ACC Glen Pavelin
Date 25/09/2026