PC Benjamin Norfolk outcome report

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE ACT 1996 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020 BETWEEN THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF ESSEX POLICE Appropriate Authority (AA) AND PC BEN NORFOLK Relevant Officer

DETERMINATION OF THE PANEL

Before: ACC Glen Pavelin (Chair)
Dr Julie Lafferty
Mr Kevin Rogers
LQP:    Mr Andrew Hearn

Representation: Ms J Kane (counsel for the AA);
Mr N Barraclough (counsel for the Officer)

Dates of hearing: 26 to 29 October 2026

1. In these proceedings against PC Norfolk (“the Officer”) the allegations are set out in the Regulation 30 Notice dated 27 August 2026 to which the Officer responded in his Regulation 31 Response dated 17 September 2026. For convenience a summary of the allegations (using the paragraph numbers from the Regulation 30 Notice) and the Officer’s response to them as set out in the Regulation 31 Notice) are set out in the table below, all of them relating to the period between July 2024 and May 2025 during which the Officer was an officer of Essex Police[1]:

Regulation 30 Allegation 1.

He was in a relationship with Person A .

Regulation 31 Response

Accepted. The officer accepts he was in a formal consensual relationship with Person A and describes it as a loving relationship, albeit with difficulties. It was not a relationship characterised by control or coercion

Regulation 30 Allegation 2.

His behaviour towards Person A was controlling and coercive, including:

(a) checking her phone; (b) creating false messages with Person C; (c) progressing a house purchase without her full knowledge/consent including by

(i) making a mortgage application without her knowledge (ii) contacting a mortgage adviser without including her in the correspondence (iii) repeatedly asking her to access savings in her father’s name for the property deposit (iv) making an offer on a house without her knowledge and

(v) trying to obtain her passport details in order to support the application; (d) questioning her about previous relationships; (e) raising concerns about her social life; (f) creating arguments when she went out with friends.

Regulation 31 Response

Not accepted that his behaviour was controlling and coercive but (a) Accepts checking her phone and says that he admitted this to her at the time and that it arose from insecurity, not a desire to control or coerce. (b) Accepts creating false messages but says it was done out of desperation to save the relationship and says that he admitted his actions to both Persons A and C. (c) Denies attempting to buy a house without her knowledge or consent, saying she was involved in the process and aware of it. He says the most he did was to progress matters without checking with her first and that this was done out of misunderstanding or a failure of communication (d) Accepts asking about other men but denies it was controlling. He says it was the result of insecurity and that he did not do it constantly. (e) Denies trying to restrict her social life or contact with other people. (f) Denies creating arguments as a matter of course; accepts discussions took place but not as controlling behaviour.

Regulation 30 Allegation 3.

During the relationship he attended work incidents to see Person A when not allocated to them, including an incident on 18 March 2025.

Regulation 31 Response

Denied. The officer says he attended incidents in his role as a dog handler and did not deliberately attend incidents to place himself in Person A's presence. Regarding the 18 March incident, he accepts later commenting that her lack of acknowledgement was “a bit of a kick in the teeth” but says he attended in the course of his operational duties.

Regulation 30 Allegation 4.

After Person A ended the relationship on 10 April 2025 and asked for no contact, (a) the officer persisted in contacting her directly and indirectly, including (b) via his sister and (c) via her mother.

Regulation 31 Response

Not accepted as characterised. He accepts some limited contact occurred but denies persistent unwanted contact and says that at times Person A said that she missed him; (a) He says that he made limited and not persistent contact and that some contact was responsive to Person A's own messages; (b) The message via his sister related only to concert tickets and that he had deliberately avoided direct contact with

Person A on that occasion, and (c) the message to Person A's mother is accepted but it was simply to thank her for her kindness.

Regulation 30 Allegation 5.

He met Person B in the course of his duties on 20 November 2024: (a) sending her a Facebook friend request; (b) exchanging Facebook messages with her;(c) requesting sexual photos from her; (d) sending her sexual photos in his police uniform; (e) some photos of a sexual nature appeared to be taken in the workplace; (f) he followed her to an incident on 9 January 2025 which did not require a dog unit.

Regulation 31 Response

Accepts meeting Person B in the course of his duties but denies the characterisation of their relationship: (a) he accepts sending her the Facebook friend request which was accepted; (b) he accepts messaging her via Facebook but only to a limited extent and in the course of a mutual exchange of messages; (c) he accepts that he requested sexual photos, but says this formed part of a mutual and consensual exchange of photos; (d) he denies sending sexual photographs of himself in police uniform; (e) he denies taking sexual photographs in the workplace; (f) he denies following Person B to an incident, saying his attendance was operationally justified as a dog handler.

Regulation 30 Allegation 6.

He met Person C online and during the period when they dated each other:

(a) he proposed sexual acts in portacabins at Essex Police Headquarters during her break from work;

(b) he became angry/stormed out when she received a message from a former partner.

Regulation 31 Response

Mostly denied. He accepts meeting Person C online: (a) he accepts that whilst in a short-term sexual relationship with her they were alone in a portacabin at Essex Police Headquarters but denies that there was any specific suggestion or request regarding any actual sexual act taking place there; (b) he does not recall storming out on seeing a message from a former partner on her phone but accepts that he did not pursue the relationship because she was still in contact with ex-partners.

Regulation 30 Allegation 7.

He displayed a pattern of seeking relationships with female Essex Police officers/staff[2] who were young in service.

Regulation 31 Response

Denied. The Officer rejects the suggestion he targeted young or vulnerable females and states that he did not act predatorily or target anyone. He notes that Persons B and C were not young police officers in the way alleged.

Regulation 30 Allegation 8.

His behaviour towards Persons A, B and C included controlling and coercive behaviour.

Regulation 31 Response

Denied. The officer says neither the individual allegations nor the allegations taken together establish a pattern of controlling or coercive conduct.

[1] Shortly before the hearing the parties provided to the panel an agreed summary of the allegations and responses to them in a similar, but slightly expanded, form. That agreed summary appears as annex 1 to this Determination

[2] The AA applied at the prehearing to amend paragraph 7 of the Regulation 30 Notice to include reference to police staff. This was unopposed and the application was accordingly granted.

2. It is alleged that the above conduct breached the Standard of Authority, Respect and Courtesy in that:

2.1. the conduct demonstrated conduct of a controlling and coercive nature [in relation to each of Person’s A, B and C];

2.2. the Officer used his role as a police officer to attend incidents when it was not necessary to do so in order to make contact with female officers [in relation to both Persons A and B];

2.3. the Officer suggested engaging in acts of a sexual nature in a work environment [in relation to Person C]; and

2.4. the Officer contacted Person A despite being aware of her wishes that she did not want him to contact her [in relation to Person A].

The Officer denies the above.

3. It is further alleged that the above conduct amounted to discreditable conduct in that:

3.1. it demonstrated conduct of a controlling and coercive nature [in relation to each of Persons A, B and C];

3.2. the Officer used his role as a police officer to attend incidents when it was not necessary to do so in order to make contact with female officers (in relation to both Persons A and B];

3.3. the Officer suggested engaging in acts of a sexual nature in a work environment [in relation to Person C]; and

3.4. the Officer sent photos of a sexual nature in his police uniform and these appeared to be taken in the workplace [in relation to Person B].

The Officer denies the above.

4. It is further alleged that the above conduct, if proved, amounts to gross misconduct. This is also denied by the Officer.

Preliminary matter

5. No objections having been received from any party, the Chair’s direction at the prehearing held on 21 October 2026 that Persons A, B and C would not be referred to by their full names in any publication or reporting of these proceedings was confirmed. Further, the hearing would take place in private to the extent that any reference was made to matters of health or well-being.

The Officer’s Response to the Allegations

6. Prior to his Regulation 31 Response, the Officer was interviewed twice during a criminal investigation into his conduct (initially on 21 October 2025 and then on 27 October 2025) and he was subsequently interviewed again for the purposes of these proceedings on 26 February 2026. Brief summaries of these interviews are set out below:

The 21 October 2025 interview

7. The Officer provided an account of his relationship with Person A, describing it as initially positive but later affected by mutual insecurities and arguments about previous relationships and colleagues. He denied engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour, although he accepted certain individual actions, including looking through Person A's phone and creating false messages purporting to be from Person C. He stated these actions arose from insecurity and concerns about the relationship rather than any attempt to control. He maintained that plans to purchase a house were a joint enterprise carried out with Person A's knowledge and participation. He also denied deliberately attending incidents to monitor or contact her, asserting that his attendance was consistent with his role as a police dog handler. He accepted limited post-breakup contact, including contacting family members and arranging the transfer of concert tickets, but denied persistent unwanted contact.

The 27 October 2025 interview

8. This interview focused largely on evidence from other witnesses, including PS Horne and Person C, and on incidents said to demonstrate a pattern of attendance at incidents involving Person A. The Officer said that his attendance at incidents arose from operational considerations and the nature of his dog-handler role. He denied targeting or following Person A and rejected suggestions that his activities in Basildon were motivated by a desire to monitor her. He also denied sending messages to Person C in October 2024 which allegedly initiated contact with her, maintaining that the messages were not sent by him. He repeated his denial that he sought out young female officers and rejected any suggestion that he behaved in a predatory manner. He accepted creating the fabricated messages attributed to Person C during the relationship breakdown but maintained this was an act of desperation rather than malice.

The 26 February 2026 interview

9. The misconduct interview concentrated on allegations concerning Person B and the broader allegation that the Officer pursued relationships with young-in-service female officers. He accepted that communications with Person B became flirtatious and sexual, that photographs were exchanged, and that there was a degree of mutual attraction. He described the exchanges as consensual and reciprocal. He stated that he developed genuine feelings for Person B and did not regard their interactions as exploitative or predatory.

10. He denied targeting women because they were young in service or vulnerable and said that his contact with officers arose naturally through his role as a dog handler, trainer and tutor. He maintained that he never used his position as a police officer to pursue relationships and denied any deliberate pattern of targeting female colleagues. He emphasised that he viewed himself as approachable and sociable with many colleagues and maintained that his conduct was not motivated by any abuse of authority.

The Panel’s Approach

11. The Panel adopted the following approach to determining the relevant issues before it:

11.1. first it ascertained the facts whether admitted or found proven;

11.2. it then proceeded to determine whether, based on the proven facts, the Officer had breached any of the Standards alleged and, if so,

11.3. it would then proceed to decide whether such breach constituted misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.

Dependent on the Panel’s conclusions on the above, it would then proceed to decide on the appropriate outcome

Summary of the evidence before the Panel

12.  The Panel read and carefully considered the hearing bundle comprising 345 pages; an addendum bundle comprising 79 pages; a further photograph produced by the Officer; a written statement from PC Peek served on the second day of the hearing (which addressed the patrol expectations of dog handlers, and specifically of the Officer during the relevant period), and a bundle of character references served on behalf of the Officer on the third day of the hearing. In addition, it had access to video recorded interviews with the Officer both in relation to the criminal investigation and these proceedings. The Panel also heard live evidence from Persons A, B and C and from the Officer.

13. The Panel received written legal advice from the LQP to assist it in its deliberations, that advice having first been sent to, and approved by, both counsel (“the Advice”). The Panel accepted the Advice and applied it to its deliberations. For ease of reference a copy of the advice appears as annex 2 to this determination.

14. Whilst many of the discrete factual allegations contained in the Regulation 30 Notice were admitted by the Officer, the conclusions that could be drawn from the facts is very much in issue. Accordingly, the Panel considers it important to set out what it considered to be the most relevant written/oral evidence placed before it. This follows in the paragraphs below.

15. Person A

15.1 When Person A gave live evidence to the Panel, which she did from behind a screen, she confirmed that she had read her written statement and its exhibits and the accuracy of what she had said. Her written statement stood as her evidence in chief and the below summarises her written evidence and, insofar as material, what she said in cross-examination.

Allegation 1

15.2 Person A confirmed that she was in a relationship with the Officer from approximately September 2024 until April 2025. Her account was that they had met in person at Basildon police station and she believed she had initiated contact with him via Instagram. In cross-examination she said that the relationship between them developed such that they became boyfriend/girlfriend within 1 or 2 months of their meeting around June or July, ie by about September 2024, and that she had ended the relationship on 10 April 2025. During the course of their relationship she agreed that they had exchanged explicit photographs of each other. She agreed that for between a couple of weeks and a month before she had terminated the relationship, there had been a period when the relationship was on and off.

15.3 Person A said that she had thought that the Officer would be her long-term partner and that there had been talk of buying a house together but that there came a time when her superiors and members of her family and friends had raised concerns about his behaviour. She agreed that when people were saying things to her about the Officer, he had not been present to give his side of the story.

Allegation 2

(a) - Phone checking

15.4.  Person A stated that on 16 October 2024, whilst at an evening at the Shard in London, she had asked the Officer to hold her phone in his pocket for her; the Officer had then gone to the toilet with her phone with him, and had gone went through it without her knowledge, and then admitted doing so. In cross-examination she said that she could not recall if he had been apologetic about this. Person A was taken to messages exchanged between the two of them on 17 October 2024 (the day after the phone incident) in the course of which she thanked the Officer in effusive terms for the lovely few days they had spent together including for the drinks and meal that he had organised and paid for,

(b) - Creating false messages

15.5. Person A described how the relationship ended after the Officer had sent screenshots purporting to be messages from Person C. She contacted Person C who denied sending them, and the Officer subsequently admitted creating the messages himself.

(c)(i)-(v) - House purchase / mortgage matters

15.6. Person A said that the Officer progressed mortgage applications, communicated with mortgage advisers, sought access to money held in her father's name, made an offer on a property and sought her passport details despite her not wishing to proceed at that stage. She said that she repeatedly had to challenge or halt the process.

15.7. In cross-examination Person A said that discussions about buying a house together started by about March 2025 and that it was the Officer who had suggested it from the previous December or January, which she had regarded as a sign of commitment on his part. She had not been against buying a house with him but had expressed concerns about the fact that he would not be contributing anything to the deposit and about the interest rates they would have to pay on a mortgage as she had learnt that he had a County Court Judgment against his name which affected the rates adversely. She agreed that the plan had been that both of them would take responsibility for mortgage repayments and that the Officer had said that his parents would pay for the legal fees in connection with the proposed purchase. However, she said that when she expressed any concerns, it would always lead to an argument, and the Officer would accuse her of being negative. Person A said that the Officer had blamed her in relation to the proposed house purchase.

15.8. Person A said that she had been “up for” the house purchase when she was involved in making decisions, but she had not been listened to when she had raised concerns about, for example, having to put her life savings up for the deposit. She said that they never discussed the deposit coming back to her if anything happened in their relationship.

15.9. When on 9 March 2025 the Officer had shown her an email from the agent congratulating him on the offer being accepted, she had raised concerns about her not having been copied into correspondence, about the absence of any mortgage offer, and about the fact that she had wanted to look at other houses before proceeding on this one. Her account was that she had previously told the Officer that she had wanted to look at other houses before making an offer on this house but he had gone ahead without her regardless. She could not recall if he had asked her whether she wanted him to withdraw the offer, but she was referred to messages between her and the Officer in which he had asked whether he should do that and she had said that she did not want to cancel everything. Her explanation for this was that it would cause arguments if she was the one getting in the way. But she explained that she had not wanted to go ahead with the offer without first having a mortgage offer in place and knowing the precise extent of her savings.

15.10. Person A’s perception was that the Officer had been deceptive in relation to the making of the offer on the house. She agreed that later on, the Officer had copied her into emails with the estate agent and she was taken to one email in which the Officer had written to the agent that they wanted documentation to establish that if anything happened between the two of them, Person A would get her deposit back. She agreed that by that point the Officer was dealing with her concern about the deposit; that when he suggested opening a joint account for the purposes of the proposed mortgage, she had been happy with that proposal; and that when the Officer had sent her messages suggesting various improvements that they could make to the proposed house, she had responded to one by saying it was a really good idea which was what she had thought at the time.

(d) - Questioning about previous relationships and male friends

15.11. Person A stated that the Officer regularly questioned her about previous partners and male friends and would challenge her about males with whom she had contact.

(e) - Concerns about her social life

15.12.  Person A stated that the Officer frequently raised concerns about her social activities and socialising with others.

15.13.  She said that by September 2024 she had understood the two of them to be in a committed relationship. Prior to that she was due to go on a preplanned holiday with friends to Ibiza and the Officer had expressed concerns about her going on that trip. He had not said that she should not go on the trip, but he had expressed concerns about it. It was only after she came back that their relationship became a committed one.

15.14.  It was put to her that in the early days of their relationship with the Officer had been insecure and would question her in a normal way. She said that, reflecting on it, he had brought up his insecurity a number of times, but this had in her view added to a bigger picture relating to his behaviour. At the time she had not been concerned about that aspect of his behaviour, and she agreed that she had not been forbidden from doing anything during the course of their relationship.

15.15.  Person A was taken to a message which the Officer had sent her saying that he did not want to be the one stopping her from seeing her friends and it was put to her that this reflected his attitude at the time. Person A responded that he had never said that he did not want her going out but that every time she had gone out, it had caused an argument. She could not remember whether there was a time when she did not go out because of anything the Officer had said to her. She said that she had not been too upset about this aspect of his behaviour at the time but, looking back, she saw it differently. However, she had not mentioned to the Officer that anything was wrong.

(f) - Arguments when she went out

15.16. Person A described arguments arising when she went out with friends, including issues concerning Winter Wonderland in December 2024 and the presence of males. She said that the Officer had faced timed her during her visit and saw that there was a man at her table which had made him unhappy as she had not told him about this man being present.

Allegation 3

Attending incidents to see Person A

15.17. Person A described the Officer attending incidents at which she was present despite not being allocated to them. In cross-examination she agreed that as a dog handler he had a roving role with a discretion as to what incidents to attend.

15.18. In relation to the 18 March 2025 incident, she said that the Officer attached himself to the incident and later criticised her for not acknowledging him. In cross-examination she said that the incident had been in a residential area in Basildon, and she believed that he had been in the area at the time.

15.19. She could not recall how many times the Officer had turned up at jobs that she was on,

15.20. In cross-examination Person A was asked about messages between her and the Officer, relating to him showing up at the Chequers pub and the friendly exchanges between them. She said that at this time they were now in the separation phase of their relationship, but it was put to her that the messages did not suggest that he was coercing her. She agreed that at the time she had not seen his behaviour that way (i.e. as controlling) but more recently had realised that things were not right.

15.21. Person A said that she had not seen how much the various incidents involving the Officer had been affecting her. She had never said anything to the Officer about her feelings beyond what was revealed in the various messages which passed between them.

Allegation 4

Continued contact after relationship ended

(a) 

15.22. Person A stated that she ended the relationship on 10 April 2025 as a result of discovering that he had faked messages between Person C and him (as he subsequently admitted), and she had then blocked the Officer and told him she wanted no further contact. She describes subsequent direct messages from him after she had blocked him.

(b)

15.23. Person A stated that the Officer’s sister contacted her on 19 April 2025 and forwarded a message from him about concert tickets. She agreed that he had not followed up on that message from his sister.

(c)       

15.24. Person A stated that the Officer messaged her mother on 21 April 2025 after the relationship had ended and after she had asked for no further contact. However, she agreed that neither this message nor the one from his sister to Person A were nasty or offensive.

15.25. She said that she had discussed her concerns with supervisors only after they had approached her (perhaps in March 2025) following their becoming aware of the Officer’s behaviour relating to attending jobs that she was present at.

16 Person B

16.1. Person B attended and gave live evidence to the Panel, confirming the accuracy of her written statement which stood as her evidence in chief. She said that she had started work in recruitment for Essex police in November 2023 and had also become a special constable.

16.2. She said that she had had a version from the Officer as to why he had been suspended and she believed that she had been contacted by PSD after which she provided a statement to them.

Allegation 5

Relationship with Person

 (a) - Facebook friend request

16.3. Person B stated that the Officer sent her a Facebook friend request shortly after meeting her.

16.4. In cross-examination she said that she had been on duty as a special constable when she had met the Officer although she had not spoken to him at that point. She had then received the Facebook friend request from him and had asked a sergeant who he was; after being told, she had accepted the friend request.

(b) - Facebook messages

16.5. There had been extensive messaging through Facebook Messenger.

(c) - Requests for sexual photos

16.6. Person B stated that the Officer repeatedly requested sexual, naked and other revealing photographs from her, such requests forming a recurring feature of their communications.

16.7. In cross-examination she said that the exchange of explicit photos was initially consensual but there reached a time when he had continued to ask for them and she had said no. She said that the Officer always asked her to delete the explicit photos and she had done that and she assumed that he did the same with regard to photos that she had sent him.

16.8. She was referred to messages from April 2025 when she had contacted the Officer, and he had asked for intimate photographs and videos of her which she had proceeded to send him. She said that she did that because she liked him and felt sorry for him and had been young and naïve (she is now 26). During the course of the messages, she had asked what time he was finishing work and thought that maybe she had been thinking of meeting up with him which did in fact seem to be the case. She agreed that she had not been compelled or forced to send him further explicit images but said that he had been persistent in his requests and she had been embarrassed. She was asked why she was prepared to go and see him at his home, and she said that she obviously cared too much about him.

(d) - Sexual photographs in police uniform

16.9. The Officer had sent her photographs of a sexual nature whilst wearing police uniform. In cross-examination she said that she was 100% sure that about 3 or 4 images had been whilst he wore police uniform and she recognised for example a stab vest, taser, police trousers, handcuffs and PPE. In the photographs he was seen holding his trousers down and revealing a bit of his underwear which was being pulled down.

16.10. She identified an image of the sort that she had also received from the Officer in the form of a Video, this time when he was not in uniform and was in his bedroom. She said that this was one of two strip videos that she received from him, the other being when he had been wearing police uniform

(e) - Images apparently taken at work

16.11. Person B stated that some of the images appeared to have been taken in police premises or the workplace. In cross-examination she said that one of the photographs had been taken in a police toilet which she recognised from the white and teal tiles and a sign visible in the photograph; another she thought may have been taken in a locker facility.

(f) - Following her to two incidents

16.12.  On 9 January 2025 the Officer had attended a call where she was present and then attended a second incident which she also attended and which she said did not require a dog unit. She interpreted this as him following her.

16.13.  In cross-examination Person B agreed that in relation to the first incident (an intruder alarm) it was not unusual, and in fact to be expected, that a dog officer would attend. She found it a bit strange though for the Officer to have attended the second incident (3 or 4 youths looking over garden fences) as that was an incident which she would have thought she and her colleague could have dealt with alone.

Other aspects of Person B’s evidence

16.14. In cross-examination Person B said that she had not felt particularly worried initially regarding her relationship with the Officer but later on she had become more worried: she had been on duty as a special constable and had spoken to a local Inspector who had asked about her relationship with the Officer. She told the Inspector about the Officer having asked for explicit photos from her and of him having sent her a video of him stripping. Person B maintained that the Inspector had been made aware that she had also sent him explicit photos. The Inspector had said she would have to do something about the photos which the Officer had sent her and Person B was told her of her concerns about her seeing the Officer due to his previous behaviour. She trusted this inspector and this led her to become concerned about his behaviour. She said that after that date she had been significantly put off from speaking to the Officer and could not remember sending him further explicit images after that date. She said that his persistent requests for explicit pictures made her feel that she was just there to provide photographs to him for his benefit and to make him happy.

16.15. She described a voice note recording which the Officer had sent her, and she said that it was clear to her that he was doing something to himself during the recording (i.e. masturbating). She had found this disgusting and had gone home and cried but she had never told the Officer that she viewed the voice note as disgusting. Nor had she retained the voice note or passed it on to anyone. She had though told the Inspector about this when she next saw her, and it was after that that PSD had become involved.

16.16. She described a subsequent occasion when she had met with the Officer in a car during which she had kissed him. This had come about because the Officer had told her that he had broken up with Person A and that he was distraught. Person B said that she cares about people and the absence of people he could talk to. She had agreed to meet up with him but not for a sexual reason even though as it transpired, they had kissed. Her account was that he had then removed his penis from his trousers and asked her to touch it which she had declined to do. She had then said that she needed to leave to get to work on time. She said that a dog walker had effectively interrupted them and nothing further happened.

16.17.  Subsequently Person B agreed that she had gone to his house because she had felt sorry for him and she knew that he was low. But she had made clear that she was going to his house just as a friend.

16.18.  She agreed that she had never blocked the Officer as a friend and that she had gone to see him at his house when he had been suspended which, she said, she had done as a friend out of concern for his welfare. She did though say that at one point there had been messages from her saying that she did not want any further contact with him.

16.19. Prior to closing submissions the Panel was told as an agreed fact that, in the course of a welfare check after she had given her evidence, Person B said that she felt sorry for the Officer.

17  Person C

17.1.  Person C attended and gave live evidence before the Panel when she confirmed the accuracy of her written statement which stood as evidence in chief. She said that she had met the Officer independently of work and they had had a short but intimate relationship.

Allegation 2

(b)  Creation of false messages

17.2.  Person C stated that on 10 April 2025 Person A contacted her regarding WhatsApp screenshots purportedly sent between Person C and the Officer. She stated that the messages were not genuine, that she had not sent them, that the profile image used was outdated, and that the Officer subsequently admitted creating the electronic conversation.

Allegation 6

Suggestion of sexual acts in police premises

17.3. Person C stated that while she and the Officer were seeing each other, he suggested they engage in sexual activity in the Portakabins at Essex Police Headquarters.

17.4.  In cross-examination she maintained that they had been standing outside the Portakabins, with the Officer having his dog with him, when he had said something like “how dirty would it be”

i.e. if they had sex inside the Portakabin. She had replied “no”. He had then said, “why don’t we?” And she then repeated “no.”

17.5. It was put to her that the Officer’s account was that they had been walking around outside the Portakabins when she had touched him in a suggestive way and he had reacted by saying “as hot as it would be, no way.” Person C disputed his account, which she said had shocked her, and maintained her version. She had not made a note of what had happened and said that she had just dealt with the matter as an adult by saying “no.”

(c) Reaction to message from former partner

17.6. Person C said that her relationship with the Officer had come to an end when he had been put out because, at a time when they were physically together, he had seen her exchanging messages with an ex-partner of hers. This had caused the Officer to leave.

18  PS Horne

18.1. For perfectly understandable reasons PS Horne was unable to attend the hearing. It was agreed that the Panel should read and take account of his written statement except that the AA agreed that there was no evidence that a restriction had ever been placed on the Officer from working in Basildon and accordingly the Panel would disregard the section of his statement on page 133 of the bundle which suggested otherwise.

18.2.  PS Horne stated that between 2024 and 2025 Person A raised concerns with him and another supervisor regarding the Officer’s behaviour, including allegations that he attended incidents to which she was assigned and concerns surrounding a proposed house purchase using her savings. PS Horne states that support and guidance were provided to her, and the matters were escalated to PSD. He described various incidents as follows:

18.3. On 18 March 2025 at an emergency incident in Basildon, PS Horne observed the Officer in the vicinity despite not being allocated to the incident. He regarded this as consistent with concerns previously raised by Person A about the Officer’s presence in the Basildon area.

18.4.  On an unknown date, following a request by the Officer for assistance with a broken-down vehicle, PS Horne diverted Person A from attending. Shortly afterwards the Officer had reported that assistance was no longer required.

18.5. On 8 April 2025, during a domestic incident involving a reported knife, PS Horne stated that the Officer had attended despite not being required. The Officer had remained at the location and later approached Person A, commenting on jewellery he had purchased for her, which caused her embarrassment in front of colleagues.

18.6.  Ongoing concern: PS Horne was concerned that the Officer was deliberately making his presence known when working in Basildon, and he viewed this as consistent with a pattern of behaviour described to him by Person A.

19 The Officer

19.1. The Officer gave evidence to the Panel which lasted for the entirety of the second day of the hearing. At the outset he indicated that he stood by everything that he had said during the course of his various interviews. He said that he had been 9 years in service and that being a dog handler was his dream. He explained the competitive and arduous way in which he had become and been trained to become a dog handler which was something he loved and hoped to continue as his career. Below is a summary of the evidence that he gave to the Panel, broken down between the various paragraphs/allegations in the Regulation 30 Notice.

Paragraph 1

19.2. This was admitted and the Officer said that he did not see anything wrong having a relationship with another police officer which was something that happened.

Paragraph 2

19.3. His relationship with Person A had its ups and downs, particularly in the early days. He had been worried about her trip to Ibiza and was insecure as to what she might do on the trip as he viewed it as a party island where people went to look for sex. He had not prevented her from going but had expressed his concerns about it. Person A had reassured him, and he expressed gratitude to her for that.

19.4. Later in the relationship further issues popped up including when a serving police officer had asked her for a lift home and when he was told by others that Person A was cheating on him. They had had discussions about these matters and tried to move on from them. He had never asked her to stop talking to anyone.

19.5. In relation to the Winter Wonderland event, he had understood this to be a girl’s trip but Person A then sent him photographs which included one or more men and he had asked her who they were. She had become irritated by the question and initially said that there were no men present. His account was that he had not intended to come across as overreacting, but he could see why she might have felt that she was being placed under scrutiny. However, he maintained that this had not become an issue going forward.

19.6. As to Paragraph 2(a), the Officer said that the incident in question occurred when they were out in London and Person A had asked him to look after her phone which he had therefore had in his pocket. He said that something had felt off about her and his insecurity at the time had led him to check her phone as he thought she was cheating on him. He said that he had always had her pin number just as she had his. His account was that this was the only time he checked her phone, and he had told her about it straight away. She had been aggravated but sympathetic because there were messages on her phone that had concerned him. He denied that he had been controlling or coercive and said that he had never forced her to do anything she did not want to do, nor threatened violence or been violent towards her.

19.7. In cross-examination the Officer said that Person A could tell when he had returned from the bathroom that he was not his normal self and after some time they had left. On the way home he had told her about some explicit messages that another male officer had sent to her, for which purpose he necessarily had had to reveal that he had been through her phone. He did not accept that he was being controlling in relation to her contact with this male officer; he had not told her to stop talking to him. Rather he was asking questions and trying to form boundaries within their relationship. He denied that these sorts of discussions led to arguments.

19.8. As to paragraph 2 (b), the Officer said that this had been at the end of his relationship with Person A and that he had acted as he did out of desperation as he had wanted the relationship to continue. He described it as an impulsive action but acknowledged it had been a mistake. He said that he had not done it to control or coerce Person A and said that when she had challenged him about the fake messages, he had apologised to her and admitted it straight away as it had been wrong.

19.9. In cross-examination he said that a friend had created the forged messages for him, but he had directed their content and provided his friend with a photograph of Person C. It was put to him that what he had done was hardly impulsive: he said that the decision to do it had been impulsive, but what he did to carry out his decision had been considered and deliberate. He denied that his behaviour had anything to do with coercion and control. He said that the creation of the messages had been for the purpose of persuading Person A to stay in their relationship. When he realised that Person A did not believe the forged messages to be genuine, he had admitted to her what he had done. It was put to him that his message to Person A in which he portrayed himself as being honest was in the circumstances ironic and he agreed that he had been wrong to portray his admission as evidence of his honesty.

19.10. As to paragraph 2 (c), the Officer maintained that he had not tried to buy the house without Person A’s knowledge. His account was that they had discussed buying a house for about 1 or 2 months prior to the Polish trip which Person A had given evidence about. He accepted that he had been keener than her about purchasing the house but said that he had not been overbearing in that regard, and she had never said that she did not want to buy a house together.

19.11.  His evidence was that when they were in Poland, he had emailed the offer to the estate agent without copying Person A into the email, but he had been sitting next to her at a table in a bar at the time. He thought it had happened at about 8pm. She had said yes to the making of the offer, and he had sent the email. His evidence was that the two of them had written out the email together with Person A suggesting some changes to the text and her being happy for him to send it to the estate agent. At the time that he did so they had both been drinking and he thought he had been about 4 out of 10 in terms of drunkenness and did not appear to disagree with Person A’s assessment that she was somewhat more drunk. He agreed that it had not been the best time to send an email to an estate agent offering to buy a house or even to be discussing a house purchase with each other.

19.12.  In cross-examination it was put to him that during his interviews he had never mentioned that Person A had made amendments or suggested amendments to the email to the estate agent and that the reason for this was that this allegation was untrue.

19.13. He said that the following day he got the email from the estate agent saying that the offer had been accepted. He said that both of them had been happy and she had raised no concern. He said that whilst they were on a bus that day on a day trip in Poland, he had shown her both the email to the estate agent and the acceptance email. He referred to the messages he had sent her subsequently suggesting possible improvements they could make to the property, and she had seemed excited by them. However, she had messaged him expressing concern about not having been copied into correspondence even though (he said) she had been sitting next to him when the email offer to the estate agent had been sent. In light of her concern, though, he then copied her into all correspondence going forward. Although he had not copied her into all correspondence, he was not trying to hide anything or to deceive her during the process of trying to buy the house.

19.14. In cross-examination the Officer was asked why he had not reacted to Person A expressing concern about not being copied in, or knowing about the offer that had been made, by saying “what are you talking about – we did this altogether.” His answer was that she had known what had happened and that he had said this to her. His view was that it was just a misunderstanding; and, in any event, going forward he made sure she was copied into everything.

19.15. He maintained that he had not taken steps concerning the obtaining of a mortgage without her knowledge and in cross-examination the Officer said that the two of them had discussed their finances and it had been agreed that he would make contact with the mortgage adviser, Person A knowing what was going on.

19.16. The Officer said that he had wanted to protect the money that she was going to provide for the purposes of the deposit and that an email that he had sent to the estate agent on that subject had been his idea. He said that it had been agreed that each of them would pay off the mortgage equally and jointly own the property.

19.17. He agreed that Person A had indicated that she wanted to view other properties. He had said to her that they both loved the house they had viewed, and he suggested that they stick with it and not risk losing it. His account was that he had never tried to force her into anything or made decisions without reference to her and that she had been able to speak her own mind.

19.18. The Officer agreed that he had been involved in a sexualised relationship with Person B whilst at the same time pushing to buy the house with Person A and he acknowledged the double standard in simultaneously questioning Person A about who she was seeing.

19.19.  As to paragraphs 2 (d, e and f), the Officer agreed in cross-examination that he had frequently questioned Person A about previous relationships or her friendships with other men but said that this had not been constant. He made no effort to control her social life. He did not agree that he had created arguments when she went out with friends although there had been some discussions around that subject. He denied that her going out led to him creating a hostile environment for her.

19.20. In cross-examination the Officer said that he had told Person A that he would not embark on an exclusive relationship with her until after the trip to Ibiza. Getting that trip out of the way made him feel that they could then embark on a relationship.

19.21. He denied that he dealt with his own insecurity by controlling and coercing women. He said that when he had questioned Person A in order to gain reassurance he had not done so in a confrontational way but he agreed that you could be controlling without being confrontational.

19.22. It was put to him that when he told Person A in a message that the only person he talked to was her, and so why was she texting other people, that had not been true: during his relationship with her he had been involved in intimate exchanges with Person B.

Paragraph 3

19.23. The Officer said that his role as a dog handler meant that he had a discretion to be anywhere in the county and would choose locations where he thought it was useful to have a dog. In addition, he was not restricted to attending incidents where a dog was obviously required. During his mentorship as a dog handler, he had been focused heavily on the Basildon/Grays/Southend corridor.

19.24. He denied the allegation in this paragraph and said that he had never attempted to see Person A, or to check on her or follow her, when attending work incidents. The incident on 18 March 2025 had been a domestic incident, and he had been close by to it and so he had attended and had been the first person there. Another officer had then arrived on the scene followed by Person A. He could not recall if he had known that Person A was going to be present at the incident at the time when he got himself attached to it but there had been no contact between the two of them at the incident. It was later that he had spoken to her and said that it had been a kick in the teeth not getting any acknowledgement from her. He thought that she had been sympathetic about that, and he had said it to tell her how he felt rather than to coerce her. He denied that he had had a go at her or that he had gone to the incident to try to get some form of acknowledgement from her.

19.25. He described another incident in which he had stopped and helped a broken-down car. He had requested another unit attend as the car was near traffic lights and needed to be moved. Person A had been assigned to the incident, and he had heard that on the radio, being already on the scene at the time.

19.26. He then described a domestic violence incident on 8 April 2025 which he had been asked to attend. When he had got there, he had been told that the suspect had left the property. He had stayed outside the property, and the suspect had returned but then driven off. Person A had then come out and told him that the suspect did not have a knife but that they were looking at possible threats to kill. In answer to a question from the Chair, the Officer said that he had been told that he should not pursue the suspect, and he believed that such would have been updated on the Storm incident report.

19.27. The Officer’s account was that he had not gone to the incident, or hung around there, because of Person A’s presence. He had stayed at the location as it was not uncommon for a domestic violence perpetrator to return to the scene and because he did not know if there was any hostility inside the building for which assistance might be required. Whilst he denied that he had “confronted” Person A at the scene about not wearing his necklace, or that his behaviour had been controlling when remarking about her not wearing the necklace, he accepted that it had not been the right time to bring that up.

19.28. He described an incident at a pub on 3 April 2025 when Person A had messaged him to say that things were kicking off. He had been on duty and went to the pub to see what was happening. When he got there everything was fine and Person A had come out with some of her friends, one of whom was a male officer. He had become concerned because he thought she and the male officer were whispering to each other and at the time he had been in a state of mind where he did not know where he stood with her. He had asked her who he was but had not been cross. She had told him who he was and had apologised for appearing secretive and they had moved on, the issue never being raised again. In answer to a question from the Chair, the Officer said that his involvement in the incident should appear on the Storm report.

19.29. His account was that he had not changed his working pattern because of Person A’s whereabouts. After he had met Person A, his work as a dog handler had drawn him to the Basildon area as a natural place to focus on. He had gone there in the normal course of his work, sometimes when she would have been there and sometimes not.

19.30. The Officer did not agree with some of the content of PS Horne’s evidence and maintained that he had not allocated himself to incidents in the hope of seeing Person A.

Paragraph 4   

19.31. The Officer said that he had been heartbroken when Person A ended their relationship. At that point she had asked about some festival tickets, and he had told her that she could have them when they arrived or the money for them. He had also got tickets for a Chris Brown concert as a present for her but as Person A had blocked him, he had written out a message for his sister to send to her saying that she was welcome to the tickets and he would pass them on if she contacted him. He had refrained from visiting her to tell her this and had not pursued this offer.

19.32. His account was that he had at one point sent Person A a message to say that he no longer wanted to talk to her, that being an allegation that was not put to Person A when she gave evidence.

19.33. His message to Person A’s mother was being simply to thank them for their generosity and welcome towards him.

19.34. He denied that the message which he had had his sister send to Person A and the message which he had sent to her mother were made in an effort to re-establish contact with her.

19.35. His account was that he had harboured some hope that the relationship with Person A would be rekindled even after she had blocked him but, in his heart, and mind he realised the relationship was over in April 2025 when PSD had brought him in for questioning.

Paragraph 5  

19.36. The Officer said that he had met Person B initially at a garage. She had not told him her name but he had found it out and had sent her a Friend Request as she had popped up as a suggested friend. She accepted the request and they had started messaging each other about work matters. There had come a point when they started sending each other explicit images (something he said that he and Person A also did). He did not recall how that had come about but their messaging had become more flirtatious in both directions. He and Person B had a mutual understanding that they would not retain each other’s explicit images on their phones.

19.37. He had never sent sexualised photographs of himself in uniform, whether to Person B or otherwise. He had sent her non-sexualised photographs of himself in uniform, including one taken on police premises in a disabled toilet which he believed she had requested as she liked seeing him in uniform (this being produced to the Panel). He had sent her sexualised photographs taken when he was at home and not in uniform including a video which he said ended up with his penis being exposed. As far as he had been aware she was consenting to receiving these images and had sent him similarly explicit photographs. He had never sensed that she had been unhappy about this. In answer to a question from the Chair, the Officer was not sure why he had chosen to take a photograph in the disabled toilet. However, when he was re-examined on this point, he pointed out that he had taken the photograph into a mirror and that there were no other mirrors elsewhere on the premises.

19.38. On one occasion he and Person B had shared a kiss when in his car, this being a few weeks after he had broken up with Person A. The background to this was that Person B had contacted him to ask if he was okay and they had agreed to meet up. Initially he said that nothing had happened beyond the kiss. However, he was then taken to messages which revealed otherwise: they revealed that he had started to undo her trousers and that he had removed his penis from his. In cross-examination he was asked why he had not said that immediately and he said that it had been a mistake and that by saying nothing had happened beyond the kiss, he had been referring to them not having had sex. It was put to him that this reflected a pattern of behaviour with him only admitting to things when confronted with clear evidence. In any event he denied that the liaison between him and Person B in the car had been interrupted by a dog walker. His account was that they had stopped as they were not in a suitable place and that he had been going to suggest they went back to his place, but she had said that she was going to get changed for work. He denied her account which was that he had asked her to touch his penis and she had refused.

19.39. After this incident Person B continued to visit him and had never said that she had any concerns about his behaviour towards her. He accepted that he had been messaging her flirtatiously and exchanging explicit images with her whilst he remained in a relationship with Person A and that Person A had not known that this was happening. He considered that this had been morally wrong.

19.40. As for paragraph 5 (f), he had attended the incident which involved an intruder alarm and said that calls like that were a dog handler’s bread-and-butter. He did not know that Person B was or would be present there. Once he was confident that there was no suspect present at the premises, he had put his dog in the car and spoken to another police officer who was present. At that point another similar incident was being reported down the road. The Officer thought the same suspects might be involved and had gone to attend the second incident, the other officer going there along with Person B. The Officer said that he had not gone to the incident thinking that she might be there and that her presence was irrelevant to his attendance at both incidents.

19.41. In cross-examination the Officer denied that he had used traumas that Person B had experienced at work to try to get closer to her but he agreed that that is what in fact happened. He also agreed that a lot of the time it was she who was comforting him and being supportive. He had asked her to cheer him up by sending more explicit messages to him. As she had made clear that she wanted only to be friends with him, he could not explain why he had continued to ask her for explicit photos although he denied that he had been persistent in doing so or that he had been almost begging for photos.

19.42. The Officer agreed that on occasions he asked Person B to wear a skirt as he liked her doing so.

19.43. He had told her that he had broken up with Person A and she had said that she was available to talk which they had done. He had asked her for photographs, and he could see how it could be perceived that by regularly presenting himself as upset, and asking for photographs to cheer him up, this was putting her in a difficult position. However, he did not see this as coercive behaviour; they were both open and communicated well and what they did was consensual and she was not made to feel that she had to send him photographs.

19.44. The Officer said that he had never fallen out with Person B and did not think there was any bad blood between them. She had never said that she did not want to speak to him anymore. He did not think she had any reason to make anything up about him. He said that he had never got the impression that she was uncomfortable sending him explicit photographs (if indeed she was).

19.45. The Officer had told Person B that he had attended a fatal road traffic accident and was feeling low but denied that he had told her this so as to manipulate her or to keep their relationship going. He agreed that he had asked her to send him photographs to cheer him up, but he denied that he had asked her to pull over and remove her trousers and take and send a photograph to him.

19.46. He denied that he had ever sent her a voice note of the sort that she had alleged or at all.

Paragraph 6   

19.47. The Officer agreed that he had met Person C online and that their relationship had lasted about 1 or 1 ½ months and had been of a sexual nature. It had come to an end when immediately after intimacy she had been messaging with her former partner. The Officer had said that he was not comfortable with her still being in contact with him. They had discussed this and he had decided to leave. He had not tried to prevent her from contacting her former partner and his departure had been amicable. He had not stormed out or gone mental. He denied that he had sent her manipulative text messages to try to make her feel sorry for him.

19.48. His account of the Portakabins incident was different to that of Person C. His account was that they were at the Portakabins at police headquarters and he had just walked his dog. He put the dog in the car and was then looking in the Portakabins to do a risk assessment. Person C had been with him and had touched his genitals, to which he had responded that as hot as it would be, there was no way. Nothing sexual had taken place.

Paragraphs 7 and 8

19.49. The Officer maintained that he had not targeted young officers or police staff and had not been predatory. He had never made any of the females do anything they were unwilling to do; there had never been any violence nor attempts to control them or cause them distress. He accepted that he had made mistakes but denied that they amounted to controlling or coercive behaviour and did not feel that his mistakes were such as to justify him losing his job.

19.50. In answer to a question from the Chair, the Officer said that his understanding of controlling and coercive behaviour was that examples of it would be if someone put extreme pressure on another person not to see family or friends, or took control of their finances, or isolated them, and caused a serious impact on their life.

Determination

20. The Panel considered all of the submissions made to it on behalf of respectively the AA and the Officer. Having done so and having carefully considered all of the evidence before it, including the character evidence submitted on behalf of the Officer, and applied the Advice to its deliberations, the Panel reached the following overarching conclusions as to the credibility of the witnesses who gave live evidence:

20.1. Each of Persons A, B and C were credible witnesses whose evidence remained consistent throughout. They gave balanced accounts and, in the case of Persons A and B, their evidence was largely consistent with the contemporaneous documents, and they were prepared to make concessions in their evidence when appropriate, being prepared to give evidence even when it painted them in a less attractive light. Person B in particular made admissions concerning various personal matters and gave evidence demonstrating that she felt sympathy for the Officer during the time of their interactions (and, as she indicated subsequently during the welfare call that was made to her after she gave evidence, she still does).

20.2. In contrast, and whilst making every allowance for the stress which these proceedings and the process of giving evidence will have placed him under, the Panel did not find the Officer to be an entirely satisfactory or candid witness. Amongst the reasons for this were the following:

a) when asked by the Chair why he had chosen to take a “selfie” (of his reflection in a mirror wearing a police uniform) in a disabled toilet at a police building, he could not give an answer, only then to offer an answer when prompted by his counsel’s re-examination that it was the only place in the building that had a mirror;

b)  as elaborated on below, during his evidence he also said that Person A had contributed to the email to the estate agent making an offer on the property before the email was sent but this was not something he had mentioned in his interviews or put to Person A when she gave evidence;

c) he gave an answer in evidence as to whether anything further had taken place when he and Person B had exchanged a kiss in a car which was objectively incorrect when judged against the contemporaneous documentation. Whilst in that instance it might have been that the stress of giving evidence led him into confusion, his explanation for saying that nothing else had happened between them that night (that he thought the question was about whether they had had intercourse) was a curious one;

d)  the Panel considered the Officer’s credibility also to have been jeopardised by his previous admitted misconduct in (i) going through Person A’s phone without her permission and (ii) forging documents to attempt to achieve his own aim. Whilst it is true that he admitted to Person A (and to Person C) his forgery of messages, and admitted to Person A that he had gone through her phone, he only did so in each case when he was left with no choice.

20.3. Whilst the Panel was prepared to accept some of the Officer’s evidence, for the most part it preferred the evidence of respectively Persons A, B and C where there was a conflict of evidence.

21. Having regard to the conclusions of the Panel set out above as to the relative credibility of the live witnesses, it went on to determine as follows by reference to the paragraph numbers in the Regulation 30 Notice (as also set out in the table under Paragraph 1 above).

Paragraph 1

21.1 Proved by admission.

Paragraph 2

21.2  Paragraphs 2(a), (b) and (d) are each proved by admission.

21.3.  As to paragraph 2 (c), the Panel was satisfied that the Officer had attempted to buy a house without Person A’s full knowledge and consent. In that regard, it preferred the evidence of Person A as against the evidence of the Officer. The Panel repeats its overarching considerations on credibility set out above but dealing with the sub paragraphs of paragraph 2 (c):

21.3.1  The Panel was not satisfied that subparagraph (i) had been proved. There was insufficient evidence before the Panel that a mortgage application was ever made as opposed to communications taking place concerning a mortgage in principle.

21.3.2  The Panel was satisfied that subparagraph (ii) had been proved. It accepted Person A’s written statement in this regard and that she had only been included in correspondence with a mortgage adviser after she had complained to the Officer about having been excluded from correspondence.

21.3.3 The Panel was satisfied that subparagraph (iii) had been proved based on the written and oral evidence from Person A which the Panel accepted.

21.3.4 The Panel was satisfied that subparagraph (iv) had been proved. In this regard the Panel preferred the evidence of Person A to that of the Officer. It was satisfied that at the time the Officer sent the email making an offer on the property, Person A had not known that an offer was being made. It considered that her messages to the Officer sent soon after their return from Poland reflected the true position. The Panel rejected the evidence of the Officer to the effect that Person A had suggested amendments to the email which made the offer on the property. That was not something which had been mentioned by the Officer in interview, and it was something of sufficient importance that the Panel would have expected him to have mentioned it then if it were true. Further, this allegation was not even put to Person A when she gave evidence and she thus had no opportunity to respond to it.

21.3.5 The Panel was satisfied that subparagraph (v) had been proved by the contemporaneous messages from the Officer to Person A.

21.4.  As to paragraph 2 (e), the Panel was satisfied that this had been proved. It was satisfied from both the documentary evidence and from the evidence given by Person A (some of which was consistent with evidence given by the Officer) that he had raised concerns about aspects of her social life including: her preplanned trip to Ibiza; her conversations with PC Deacon at Chequers; her interactions with one or more males at Winter Wonderland, and her interactions with a Sergeant from the Metropolitan Police called Tanner (referred to during the hearing as “skipper”).

21.5. As to paragraph 2 (f), the Panel was satisfied that this had been proved. It preferred Person A’s account and considered that the Officer had made the environment uncomfortable on occasions when she went out with friends and that this led to arguments.

Paragraph 3    

21.6. The Panel was not satisfied that this had been proved. It accepted that the Officer was carrying out normal operational duties as a dog handler which inevitably took him into Basildon. Whilst it considered that he made ill-advised remarks to Person A on occasions when he encountered her when performing work tasks at which she was also present which caused the upset, the Panel was not satisfied that the Officer made decisions to attend incidents just because she was, or might be, present there.

Paragraph 4

21.7. The Panel was satisfied that on 10 April 2025 Person A ended her relationship with the Officer and told him that she did not want contact with him anymore and was blocking him from being able to contact her. Dealing with the sub paragraphs of paragraph 4, the Panel was satisfied that there was some, but limited, direct contact made by the Officer to Person A and that the two indirect contacts referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c) also took place.

Paragraph 5

21.8. Paragraphs 5, 5(a), (b) and (c) are each proved by admission.

21.9. The Panel was satisfied that subparagraphs 5 (d) and (e) had each been proved. In each case it preferred the evidence of Person B to that of the Officer whose evidence on these matters the Panel felt unable to accept. As to Person B’s evidence she had no obvious axe to grind (to the contrary she was expressing sympathy for the Officer after she gave evidence) and, as the Officer himself said in his evidence, he could think of no reason why she would lie.

21.10. Whilst it was accepted that on 9 January 2025 the Officer had attended an incident at which Person B had been present, the Panel was not satisfied that subparagraph 5 (f) had been proved insofar as it sought to allege a deliberate decision to follow Person B to another incident and that such had not required a dog unit. Again it considered that the Officer was carrying out normal operational duties as a dog handler and the Panel accepted the Officer’s evidence in this regard.

Paragraph 6   

21.11. The allegation that the Officer met Person C online is proved by admission.

21.12. The Panel was satisfied that paragraph 6 (a) had been proved. It preferred the evidence of Person C to that of the Officer. It considered that she was genuinely shocked when it was put to her in cross-examination that she had instigated sexual contact with the Officer when she was with him at the Portakabins and that the reason for her shock was that that was simply untrue.

21.13. Whilst the Panel did not doubt that the Officer had been upset when Person C was communicating with a previous boyfriend soon after the two of them had been intimate and that he had left, the Panel was not satisfied that paragraph 6 (b) had been proved. It did not seem to the Panel consistent with the Officer’s behaviour in other instances that he would have “stormed out” or been “angry,” as alleged.

Paragraph 7

21.14. The Panel was not satisfied that this had been proved: first, the evidence appeared clear that the Officer had met Person C on Hinge, rather than through work; second, there was no evidence before the Panel of the length of service of Person A or of Person B’s length of service as a staff member; and, finally, it seemed to the Panel not unreasonable – and indeed common – for people to form relationships within their workplace.

Paragraph 8

21.15.  The Panel was not satisfied that the behaviour of the Officer towards Person C included behaviour of a controlling and coercive nature. It reached the opposite conclusion in relation to his behaviour towards Persons A and B.

21.16. Dealing with Person A, its conclusion was based on his conduct in variously: surreptitiously checking through her phone without her permission; questioning Person A about, and his other behaviour concerning, her interactions with male and other friends; creating arguments when she went out with friends; the procuring and then sending to Person A of the forged series of messages purporting to be between him and Person C; and the conducting of an attempted house purchase, and associated raising of finance for it, without the full knowledge and agreement of Person A. The Panel was satisfied that all of this behaviour caused distress to Person A and that that was something which the Officer was either aware, or certainly should have been aware, was likely to be the result.

21.17. Dealing with Person B, its conclusion was based on his conduct in variously: instigating and persisting in requests for explicit photos/videos from her, often preying on her emotions and using emotional blackmail and being manipulative in his attempt to get what he wanted. The Panel was satisfied that at least some of his behaviour had an effect on her emotionally: she gave evidence about a voice note message which he had sent her during which she was sure he had been masturbating and that this had caused her distress leading her to go home and cry. Whilst the Officer denied ever sending a voice note message to her, the Panel accepted Person B’s evidence over his in that regard.

Which if any of the Standards have been breached?

21.8. The Panel concluded that the Standard of Authority, Respect and Courtesy had been breached by the Officer demonstrating conduct of a controlling and coercive nature towards Persons A and B in the various ways described above and by his suggestion to Person C that they engage in sexual acts within the workplace.

21.9. The Panel concluded that the Standard of Discreditable Conduct had been breached by the Officer demonstrating conduct of a controlling and coercive nature towards Persons A and B in the various ways described above; by his suggestion to Person C that they engage in sexual acts within the workplace; and by his sending of sexualised images of himself in police uniform which were taken within the workplace.

Misconduct or Gross Misconduct

22. The Panel reminded itself of the purpose of misconduct proceedings and that gross misconduct is a breach of the Standards so serious that it could justify dismissal. Applying that definition, the Panel was satisfied that the breaches of the Standards referred to above collectively amount to gross misconduct. Both culpability and harm were high and his actions were deliberate, involved numerous different incidents and three different complainants. The Panel will elaborate on those conclusions when it deals with outcome.

Outcome

23. Having considered the Officer’s record of police service and heard submissions from respectively counsel for the AA and for the Officer, the Panel went on to consider the appropriate sanction in this case.

24. In determining sanction, the Panel followed the structured approach set out in Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin) (“Fuglers”). The approach involved the Panel assessing:

a) The Officer’s culpability;

b) The harm he has caused or risked causing;

c) The aggravating features of the case; and

d) The mitigating features of the case.

25. The Panel considered the purpose of imposing sanctions in this form of proceedings; those purposes are ([2.3] of the College of Policing’s Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings (“ Outcomes Guidance”):

a) To maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service;

b) To uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct; and

c) To protect the public.

As the Outcomes Guidance sets out, at [4.4], “The most important purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions is to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the policing profession as a whole”.

26. The Panel reminded itself that it is for it to decide what weight to give to the individual factors enumerated in the Outcomes Guidance when conducting the Fuglers analysis. The presence of a single factor, if given a great deal of weight by the Panel, can sometimes make a decisive difference to the outcome of case. If the Panel finds that multiple factors are present both aggravating and mitigating the matter (or increasing/reducing seriousness), then the Panel must decide where the overall balance in the case lies between all those various factors.

27. The Panel directed itself that it must not consider that the Officer’s conduct is more serious simply because the same action on his part involved him breaching multiple Standards of Professional Behaviour – we accept that it is the conduct proven that matters, not the number of Standards of Professional Behaviour that he has breached. The Panel also cautioned itself against double counting, in particular because there are features of the case which are relevant to culpability or harm but might also be considered as aggravating factors. The Panel bore this well in mind

28. In its earlier determination the Panel assessed both culpability and harm as high. In that assessment, which is explained below, the Panel reminded itself – again - that it must not speculate and that it must reach its assessment based only on the evidence it heard in the hearing room or read in the hearing bundles or on inferences that could be drawn from the same.

29. The Panel directed itself that it must test the appropriateness of the least onerous sanction first before going onto consider a more onerous sanction. Per the Outcomes Guidance at [2.7]-[2.8],

“Misconduct proceedings are not designed to punish police officers. As stated by Lord Justice Laws in Raschid v General Medical Council:

‘The panel then is centrally concerned with the reputation or standing of the profession rather than the punishment of the doctor.’

However, the outcome imposed can have a punitive effect, which should therefore be no more than is necessary to satisfy the purpose of the proceedings. Consider less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes. Always choose the least severe outcome that deals adequately with the issues identified, while protecting the public interest. If an outcome is necessary to satisfy the purpose of the proceedings, impose it even where this would lead to difficulties for the individual officer”

30. The Panel directed itself that the more serious the Panel took the Officer’s gross misconduct to be, the less weight it would be able to place on any personal mitigation that he advanced.

31. In assessing the severity of the gross misconduct, the Panel also reminded itself that it was concerned with the Officer’s actions and the effect that those actions have had (or the risks that they involved), not with placing or comparing the findings the Panel has made in this case with other major recent events in British policing. We now turn to explain our findings on culpability and harm.

Culpability

32. The more culpable the behaviour of an officer, the more serious the misconduct and the more severe the likely outcome (paragraph 4.9 of the Outcomes Guidance). The Panel consulted paragraphs 4.14 and 4.40 to 4.43 of the Outcomes Guidance. Paragraph 4.14 refers to certain types of misconduct as ones which should be considered especially serious and paragraph 4.40 goes on to say that misconduct involving sexual impropriety can significantly undermine public trust in the profession.

33. The Panel regarded the type of gross misconduct in this case as particularly serious: it was intentional, deliberate and targeted and involved repeated misconduct directed towards three different females. The Officer was responsible for his actions and his behaviour towards Persons A and B was persistent. It was said on his behalf that the Officer never intended to cause harm to the three females. The Panel was unable to accept that submission. In particular, as a police officer of nine years standing who had dealt with cases of coercive and controlling behaviour, the Officer must have known, or certainly ought to have known, that his coercive and controlling conduct towards Persons A and B risked causing them distress. In both cases the Panel considered that his behaviour towards them was calculated to seek to change or influence their behaviour even if, for some reason, the Officer failed to see that such was causing or might cause upset to them. It is hard to see how the Officer could not have seen that he was upsetting or risking upsetting these females: for example, he was made aware that Person A was unhappy that he had been through her phone during the evening at the Shard but that did not lead him to take steps to control his behaviour towards her (albeit there appears to have been no other occasion when he went through her phone).

34. The Officer could reasonably (and should) have foreseen the risk of his actions causing harm to them and, further, that if members of the public knew of it, it also risked causing material harm to the reputation and standing of the police service as a whole, and to public trust and confidence in the police.

35. During the hearing the Officer sought to explain much of his misconduct by reason of the insecurities that he felt at the time. That might be a partial explanation for his behaviour but the Panel makes it clear that it would not, and does not, in any way excuse his misconduct.

36. It was submitted on behalf of the Officer that he has shown a level of insight and remorse. Again, the Panel was unable to place any significant weight on this. Whilst it read the character statement tendered on his behalf by his current partner, and through his counsel he sought to indicate insight and remorse during submissions on outcome, his evidence during the hearing did not suggest the presence of any significant and genuine insight or remorse in relation to his misconduct.

37. The Panel thus assessed culpability as high for the various reasons already indicated: the misconduct included sexual impropriety; there were number of instances of misconduct and they took place over a significant period and involved three different complainants. Even if the Officer had shut his eyes to the impact that his behaviour was having, or might have, on particularly Person A and Person B, his behaviour towards them was deliberate. Indeed in the case of one egregious aspect of his misconduct (the decision to create and deploy a forged series of messages between him and Person C, apparently in the hope of trying to salvage his relationship with Person A), its execution had had to be carefully planned and thought through.

Harm

38. The Panel referred itself to paragraph 4.74 of the Outcomes Guidance which states that

“Where gross misconduct has been found and the behaviour has caused – or could have caused – serious harm to individuals, the community and/or public confidence in the police service, dismissal is likely to follow. A factor of the greatest importance is the impact of the misconduct on the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole.”

39. The Panel viewed the misconduct in this case as having caused or risked psychological distress to at least Persons A and B and significant reputational harm to the police. So far as harm to the individuals is concerned, it was submitted on behalf of the Officer that various of his misconduct towards Person A (such as the phone incident, the forgery incident and the dealings with regard to the house purchase) caused low-level harm. The Panel could not accept this submission as it appeared to ignore the impact on Person A that was caused by the Officer’s persistent misbehaviour which served to wear her down. The Panel also had no doubt that the Officer’s actions served to undermine public confidence in policing and that, were the public to know about them, it would be appalled. It concluded that the level of harm caused or risked in this case was high.

Aggravating factors

40. There were numerous aggravating factors present. Whilst the Panel once again cautioned itself against double counting given that some of the factors identified below were already taken into account in the assessment of culpability and harm, relevant aggravating factors were:

a) premeditation;

b) the planning and taking of deliberate or predatory steps (in each case relating to Persons A and B);

c) the Officer’s malign intent (in this case sexual gratification and getting himself onto the property ladder irrespective of the wishes of his then partner, Person A);

d) attempting to blame Person C for the breakdown in his relationship with Person A by showing Person A forged messages which he had procured for that purpose;

e) repeated behaviour towards both Persons A and B over a period of time;

f) continuing his behaviour towards those females after he realised, or should have realised, that it was improper;

g) the presence of three victims of his misconduct;

h) the fact that he had served as a tutor constable and was a specialist officer both mean that he was aware of leadership responsibilities and, on his account, he performed that role in relation to Person B (who was younger in service) at the outset of their relationship;

i) his deviation from the Code of Ethics, which requires professionalism on the part of police officers, including by his taking and distribution to Person B of sexualised photographs of himself in police uniform when on police premises;

j) the multiple proven allegations and

k) the scale of national concern about sexual misconduct within the police force.

Mitigating factors

41. To his credit, the Officer did respect and participate fully in these proceedings. He also made open admissions on numerous facts at an early stage although it is right to say that he continued to deny the misconduct which was said to arise from those facts.` Beyond that, there was, in the view of the Panel, little mitigation in this case.

Conclusion

42. The Panel considered this to be a serious case of gross misconduct by the Officer involving significant aggravating factors.

43. It considered whether a final written warning would be an adequate sanction. Following careful consideration of all the circumstances, and the submissions and evidence put forward on behalf of respectively the AA and the Officer (including his bundle of character evidence), and in particular chapter 4 of the College of Policing Guidance, the Panel concluded that a final written warning would not be an adequate sanction having regard to the purpose of these proceedings, the seriousness of the misconduct, the numerous aggravating factors present in this case, the lack of insight and remorse shown by the Officer when he gave evidence, the risk of him behaving in a similar fashion in the future towards fellow police officers or police staff and the fact that the Panel did not consider that any measures could be put in place to guard against the risk of a recurrence. In addition, and importantly, the Panel was concerned about the impact on public confidence if the sanction imposed for this level of misconduct was a final written warning in circumstances where there is a justifiable focus on violence against women and girls (including controlling and coercive behaviour towards them), a need to ensure that a career in the police force provides a safe working environment for everyone, and the need to maintain trust and confidence in the police.

44. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the only appropriate outcome was dismissal without notice.

45. The Officer will be given full details of his right of appeal against the Panel’s determinations and how he can appeal if he wishes. A copy of this decision will be sent to the College of Policing and his name will be placed on the police barred list