IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2012 AS AMENDED

NOTICE IN RESPECT OF A POLICE OFFICER

Following a Misconduct Hearing the following determinations were made by the Legally Qualified Chair pursuant to Regulation 36 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 as amended-

1. That the Appropriate Authority should publish a Notice under the provisions of Regulation 36 as amended following the determination of the Misconduct Hearing and that the following information should be in that notice.

2.
a) That the name of the police officer should not be given.

b) The conduct of the officer concerned was alleged to be (in the Regulation 21 Notice, redacted to preserve the anonymity of the officer) as follows:-

1. Breach of the professional standard of honesty and integrity on or about 14th April 2018. The particulars of which are that in November 2017 the officer reported that he was sick and unable to perform his duty because of an injury to his back received on the previous day. He was required to provide details of his sickness, the treatment he received and how it was affecting his ability to perform his duty to his line manager. On 14th April 2018, in performance of this obligation he sent his line manager, an e-mail in which he stated, “I am aware that physio is available at HQ via the benevolent fund but that would be around 50 minutes drive each way for me and I would struggle using the clutch on the car for that amount of time.” As he knew, this statement was not the truth because between 26th February 2018 and 6th April 2018 he had driven vehicles to various distant destinations on several occasions. This amounted to gross misconduct

2. Breach of the professional standard of honesty and integrity on or about 19th April 2018. The particulars of which are that, pursuant to his duty to monitor the officer’s sickness, treatment and ability to perform his duty, his line manager visited the officer at his home address on 19th April 2018 and the officer told him that he, the officer, could attend for restricted duties but could not drive a car. As the officer knew, this statement was untrue because between 26th February 2018 and 6th April 2018 he had driven vehicles to various distant destinations on several occasions. This amounted to gross misconduct.

3. Breach of the professional standard of honesty and integrity on or about 17th May 2018. The particulars of which are that on 17th May 2018 pursuant to his duty to monitor the officer’s sickness, treatment and ability to perform his duty, his line manager telephoned the officer about his attendance at an appointment with Healthworks at Police Headquarters in Winsford on 18th May 2018. On being asked how he would be attending and being offered a lift, the officer told his line manager that he was arranging for a relative to drive him in. That was false, misleading or inaccurate information because in fact, on 18th May 2018 the officer drove himself to that appointment, arriving at Headquarters at 09.35 hours unaccompanied and leaving after his appointment at 10.29 hours, his vehicle then being driven to a distant location at 20.27 hours that same day. This amounted to gross misconduct.

4. Breach of the professional standard of honesty and integrity on or about 18th May 2018. The particulars of which are that on 18th May 2018 the officer attended an appointment with Healthworks at Police Headquarters and was seen by an Occupational Health Physician, who asked him about his health and abilities and in particular asked him questions about his ability to drive. The officer told the physician that a relative had driven him to the appointment and the officer told the physician that he was unable to drive for longer that 10 to 15 minutes due to the aggravation of his symptoms. Both of these answers which he gave were untrue as he had driven himself to the appointment in his car, unaccompanied, and the journey had taken more than 10 to 15 minutes. This amounted to gross misconduct.

5. Breach of the professional standard of honesty and integrity on or about 14th July 2018. The particulars of which are that on 14th July 2018, 2018 pursuant to his duty to monitor the officer’s sickness, treatment and ability to perform his duty, his line manager asked the officer whether he required any assistance to get to his session of physiotherapy and the officer told him that the officer did not need help as either a relative took him or else he arranged for someone else to take him. The officer’s answer was untrue as on the three previous occasions that he had attended for physiotherapy, he personally had driven there. The only time that a relative took him for treatment was on 18th July 2018. This amounted to gross misconduct.

6. Breach of the professional standard of honesty and integrity on or about 14th July 2018. The particulars of which are that on 14th July 2018 pursuant to his duty to monitor the officer’s sickness, treatment and ability to perform his duty, his line manager, spoke to the officer on the telephone and asked him about getting away to his caravan in a distant location and the officer told him that his partner drove there. This was untrue as the officer drove there and also rode there on his motorcycle. This amounted to gross misconduct.

c) The findings at the Misconduct hearing were:-

i) That the first allegation was proved as to a lack of integrity but not as to dishonesty (in that he did struggle with the use of the clutch); that it amounted to gross misconduct;

ii) That the second allegation was proved as to both dishonesty and lack of integrity; that it amounted to gross misconduct;

iii) That the third allegation was proved as to both dishonesty and lack of integrity; that it amounted to gross misconduct;

iv) That the fourth allegation was proved as to both dishonesty and lack of integrity; that it amounted to gross misconduct;

v) That the fifth allegation was proved as to both dishonesty and lack of integrity; that it amounted to gross misconduct;

vi) That the sixth allegation was proved as to both dishonesty and lack of integrity; that it amounted to gross misconduct.

d) The sanction imposed was dismissal without notice.