PSD Misconduct and Complaints Transparency Data - July to September 2025
Northamptonshire Police currently comprises of 1,446.22 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Police Officers, 77.3 FTE Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), 1090.57 Other Members of Police Staff, together with a further 90 Special Constables; a total of 2,634.09 FTE individuals.
During the second quarter of the year 2025, the Force dealt with 49,574 reported incidents and investigated 15,099 crimes which led to 2,734 arrests.
During this period the Professional Standards Department (PSD) recorded a total of 458 new Complaint cases (public complaints) and 21 new Misconduct cases (internal matters).
During this period PSD formally investigated and finalised a total of 21 cases of Misconduct, involving 14 Police Officers and 7 members of Police Staff and 0 Special Constables (NB: some of these matters may have been recorded in previous reporting period):
- 3 cases resulted in a finding of no case to answer.
- 8 cases resulted in a case to answer for which Reflective Practice was the outcome.
- 1 case resulted in a case to answer and were assessed as amounting to Misconduct (1).
- 8 cases resulted in a case to answer and were assessed as amounting to Gross Misconduct (2)(3); these related to 5 Police Officer’s, 0 Special Constables and 3 members of Police Staff who attended a Gross Misconduct hearing.
- 1 case resulted with no action due to the individual leaving the Force.
During this period PSD had cause to arrange disciplinary proceedings under the Police Reform Act, in respect of Complaint cases being finalised:
- 1 case resulted in a case to answer and were assessed as amounting to Misconduct
(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.
Misconduct Meeting Outcomes during this period:
| Date | Breach of Standards | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| July 2025 |
It was alleged that an Officer failed to assist and check on person A's welfare after discharging PAVA and failed in their use of force. If proven, this is a breach of the Standards of Professional behaviour relating to Discreditable conduct, Duties & Responsibilities. Taking everything into consideration, the chair assessed the seriousness of the Misconduct as requiring a written warning. |
Proven Outcome: Written Warning (18 months) |
Misconduct Hearing Outcomes during this period:
| Date | Breach of Standards | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
|
August 2025 Hearing |
It was alleged that a member of staff sent anonymous letters to home addresses to two colleagues which were insulting and threatening causing distress to the colleagues. The member of staff also accessed personal information without a policing purpose and made false allegations to the DVLA about their colleagues. The member of staff breached the Standards of Behaviour relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Discreditable Conduct, Orders and Instructions & Confidentiality. The panel determined on the evidence presented that all allegations were upheld, and the outcome was gross misconduct, resulting in dismissal without notice. |
Proven Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
|
August 2025 Hearing |
It was alleged that the member of staff entered a police premises and stole laptops, and thereafter they lied about this during an investigation conducted by PSD. The staff member breached the Standards of professional behaviour relating to Honesty & Integrity and Discreditable Conduct. The panel determined on the evidence presented that all allegations were upheld, and the outcome was gross misconduct, resulting in dismissal without notice. |
Proven Outcome: Would have been dismissed |
|
August 2025 Hearing |
It was alleged that the staff member was suspected to be under the influence of alcohol at work. Following a breath test, they were found 7 times over the fit for work limit. The member of staff breached the Standards of Behaviour relating to fitness at work and Discreditable Conduct. The panel determined on the evidence presented and given the staff members admittance of attending work whilst under the influence of alcohol, that the allegation be upheld and the outcome was gross misconduct dismissal, resulting in dismissal without notice. |
|
Special Case Hearing Outcomes during this period (chaired by the Chief Constable):
| Date | Breach of Standards | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
|
July 2025 Accelerated Hearing |
It was alleged that a Police Officer breached the Standards of Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct, Authority, Respect & Courtesy and Integrity when the Officer instigated an emotional relationship with a vulnerable child. This included attempts to evade detection by using specific social media applications. The Chief Constable determined that, had the officer still been a serving Police Officer, he would have been dismissed without notice. |
Proven Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
|
August 2025 Accelerated Hearing |
It was alleged that a Police Officer posted a video on his personal TikTok account and Instagram which was inappropriate and or offensive and or discriminatory and or derogatory. The Officer breached the standards of professional behaviour with regards to Authority, Respect & Courtesy, Orders and Instructions, Equality Diversity and Discreditable Conduct. The Chief Constable determined that the Former Officer's behaviour was incompatible with that of a police officer and found the matter proved as Gross Misconduct noting that had the officer not already resigned, they would have been dismissed without notice. |
Proven Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
|
September 2025 Accelerated Hearing |
It was alleged that the Officer used his personal mobile phone to send a picture of a person which depicted injuries to a private WhatsApp group. The officer also sent a text with the photograph which was inappropriate and or derogatory. The Officer breached the standards of professional behaviour with regards to Authority, Respect & Courtesy, Orders and Instructions, Confidentiality and Discreditable Conduct. The Chief Constable determined that, has the former officer still been a serving Police Officer, he would have been dismissed without notice. |
Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
|
September 2025 Accelerated Hearing |
It was alleged that the officer concerned Breached Police Bail conditions on two occasions and attempted to contact an individual he was prohibited from contacting. The officer concerned breached the standards of professional behaviour with regards to Discreditable Conduct, Authority, Respect and courtesy and Integrity. The Chief Constable considered the available evidence and found Gross Misconduct. The Chief Constable determined that the most suitable outcome was dismissal without notice. |
Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
|
September 2025 Accelerated Hearing |
It was alleged that the officer searched and accessed confidential information using Force systems for which he had no policing purpose and no lawful authority. The conduct was otherwise in accordance with Northamptonshire Police's Data Protection Policy and undermines public confidence in the police. The officer concerned breached the standards of professional behaviour relating to Discreditable conduct, Confidentiality and Orders and instructions. The Chief Constable considered the available evidence and found Gross Misconduct. The Chief Constable determined that, had the officer still been a serving Police Officer, he would have been dismissed without notice. |
Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
The PDF version of this document can be found below.