Gross misconduct hearing outcome - September 18
In accordance with the Police Conduct Regulations we are required to publish the following information –
An accelerated gross misconduct disciplinary hearing chaired by Chief Constable Ivan Balhatchet, was held by Northamptonshire Police at Force Headquarters on September 18, 2026.
The officer, who was a special constable, was granted anonymity in advance of the hearing which remains in place.
It was alleged that the officer concerned:
Breached the standards of professional behaviour when on February 13, 2026 they were stopped by police officers whilst driving, asked to conduct a roadside breathalyser test and returned a reading of 79 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, exceeding the legal limit of 35 micrograms. The Officer was arrested on suspicion of driving over the prescribed limit for alcohol. On arrest the Officer told officers they had left their partners address and driven to where they had been stopped as they feared for their safety because their partner had been verbally abusive and assaulted them.
On March 31, 2026, the Officer pleaded guilty to the offence of driving a motor vehicle over the prescribed limit of alcohol and subsequently made a special reasons argument whereby the District Judge was satisfied that there was a genuine emergency and the Officer had no other option than to drive.
As a result of that finding, no driving disqualification was imposed, however, the Officer was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of £300, costs of £85 and a statutory surcharge of £120.
It was alleged that the officer concerned breached the standards of professional behaviour relating to:
- Discreditable conduct
The officer was present at the hearing and admitted the allegations resulting in the Chief Constable finding the matter proved as Gross Misconduct.
The Chief Constable determined that the most suitable outcome was a 2 year final written warning noting “I accept that SC had a legitimate and honestly held fear of domestic violence that caused her to leave the address immediately… I also note that it is, of course, unacceptable for police officers, who are responsible for enforcing the law, to break the law themselves.
“I accept that this course of conduct, while still amounting to gross misconduct, took place in circumstances which are highly unusual…. I have considered that this is a case involving violence against women and girls,…The sum of these factors mean that, in my determination, the officer’s dismissal is not necessary to maintain the three-fold purpose of the police misconduct regime, and exceptionally for a case of criminal misconduct, I instead impose a 2-year final written warning upon the officer.”