PSD Misconduct and Complaint Transparency Data - January to March 2024
Northamptonshire Police currently comprises of 1,491.15 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Police Officers, 75.86 FTE Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), 981.96 Other Members of Police Staff, together with a further 115 Special Constables; a total of 2,548.97 FTE individuals.
During the fourth quarter of the year 2024, the Force dealt with 43,488 reported incidents and investigated 14,451 crimes which led to 2,795 arrests.
During this period the Professional Standards Department (PSD) recorded a total of 311 new Complaint cases (public complaints) and 31 new Misconduct cases (internal matters).
During this period PSD formally investigated and finalised a total of 19 cases of Misconduct, involving 14 Police Officers and 3 members of Police Staff and 2 Special Constables (NB: some of these matters may have been recorded in previous reporting period):
- 1 case resulted in a finding of no case to answer
- 10 cases resulted in a case to answer for which Reflective Practice was the outcome
- 7 cases resulted in a case to answer and were assessed as amounting to Misconduct (1)
- 1 case resulted in a case to answer and were assessed as amounting to Gross Misconduct (2)(3); these related to 1 Police Office, 0 Special Constables and 0 members of Police Staff who attended a Gross Misconduct hearing
- 0 cases resulted with no action due to the individual leaving the Force
(1) Misconduct is defined as a Breach of Standards of Professional Behaviour so serious that if either admitted or proven, a Written Warning could be justified, as described in Schedule 2 to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. These matters are heard at a Misconduct Meeting.
(2) Gross Misconduct is defined as a Breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour so serious that if either admitted or proven, dismissal from the Police Service would be justified. These matters are heard at a Misconduct Hearing.
(3) Note that where Officers or Members of Police Staff are dismissed because of misconduct proceedings or who resign or retire during misconduct proceedings, appropriate vetting records are maintained and can and will be disclosed in the event such an Officer or Member of Staff seeks employment with another Law Enforcement Agency.
During this period PSD had cause to arrange additional disciplinary proceedings under the Police Reform Act, in respect of Complaint cases being finalised:
- 2 cases resulted in a case to answer and were assessed as amounting to Misconduct (2)
- 0 Gross Misconduct went through the HR Dismissal process
Misconduct Meeting Outcomes during this period:
| Date | Breach of Standards | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 2024 |
It was alleged that a Police Officer was vaping in Police Vehicles 4 months post receiving PRI for the same issue. If proven, this is a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and responsibilities. Taking everything into consideration, the chair found the matter to be proven for misconduct and determined that the appropriate outcome was a written warning for a period of 18 months. |
Proven Outcome: Written Warning |
| Feb 2024 |
It was alleged that two Officers did not record a crime and no positive action was taken. If proven, this is a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities. Taking everything into consideration the chair found the case not proven, as they considered more could have been done therefore the chair feel PRI is an appropriate outcome in this matter. |
Not Proven Outcome: PRI |
| Feb 2024 |
It was alleged an Officer made comments of a sexual nature to a junior staff member. If proven, this is a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy. Taking everything on board the comments made by the fed rep around the lowest possible sanction and the intention of the 2020 regulation, it is my opinion that this is misconduct, and an outcome of written warning is appropriate. |
Proven Outcome: Written Warning |
| Feb 2024 |
It was alleged that an Officer breached the standards of behaviour relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy regarding his Use of Force. As Chair of this Misconduct meeting, it is my responsibility to ensure that the procedure is fair. It is my judgement that Misconduct is proven, and a written warning will be issued. |
Proven Outcome: Written Warning |
| Mar 2024 |
It was alleged that an Officer breached the Standards of Behaviour relating to Use of Force used on the complainant. Taking everything into consideration the chair found the misconduct prove, on the balance of probabilities and the outcome is to be a written warning. |
Proven Outcome: Written Warning |
| Mar 2024 |
It was alleged an Officer had not cautioned the suspect after arrest and the authority of the searching of a bag. If proven, this is a breach of the Standards of Behaviour relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy. Taking everything into consideration the chair found the misconduct proven on the balance of probabilities and the outcome is a written warning. |
Proven Outcome: Written warning |
| Mar 2024 |
It was alleged that the Officer breached the Standards of Behaviour relating to Use of Force. I have considered the CoP guidance and home office Guidance which states that we should look to deal with Misconduct at the lowest level. Whilst the incident is significant, the Officer has reflected on the matter a great deal and shows significant remorse. It is for those reasons that I have determined that a written warning is the most appropriate outcome. |
Proven Outcome: Written Warning |
| Mar 2024 |
It was alleged an Officer breached the smoking Policy despite being given clear instructions previously. If proven, this is a breach of the standards of behaviour relating to Order and Instructions also Duties and Responsibilities. Considering the facts, I conclude that the most appropriate outcome is a written warning. |
Proven Outcome: Written Warning |
| Mar 2024 |
It was alleged a staff member breached the Standards of behaviour relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy involving colleagues from the Crime and Justice command Team. I find these are a breach of misconduct and therefore I am limited to a Written Warning and Final Written Warning. I do not feel this is so serious that is justifies a FWW and therefore I am issuing a written warning. |
Proven Outcome: Written Warning |
Misconduct Hearing Outcomes during this period:
| Date | Breach of Standards | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
|
Jan 2024 Appeal Hearing |
The Tribunal considered that the ground of appeal had not been made out and upheld the decision of the Misconduct Panel that the Appellant should be dismissed without notice. |
Proven Outcome: Dismissal |
|
Feb 2024 Appeal Hearing |
The officer concerned breached the standards of professional behaviour relating to Honesty & Integrity, Orders & Instructions, Duties & Responsibilities and Discreditable Conduct. The Panel have concluded that the officer should receive a final written warning for 2 years. |
Proven Outcome: Final written warning for 2 years |
Special Case Hearing Outcomes during this period (chaired by the Chief Constable):
| Date | Breach of Standards | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
|
Feb 2024 Resigned prior to hearing |
The Officer breached the Standards of behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct, Honest and Integrity and Confidentiality regarding sending indecent images to person A. His phone also held notes of personal data. The Chief Constable considered the available evidence and found Gross Misconduct. The Chief Constable determined that, had the officer still been serving, he would have been dismissed. |
Proven Outcome: Would have been dismissed |