PSD Misconduct and Complaints Transparency Data - April to June 2026

It was alleged that an Inspector conducted checks on the Police system regarding a domestic incident.

The applicable breaches of the Standards of Professional behaviour were Duties and Responsibilities, Confidentiality, Orders & Instructions.

The chair determined a written warning for 18 months as the appropriate sanction.

Proven

Outcome: Written warning for 18 months

It was alleged two officers made unprofessional and misogynistic remarks about a call handler.

The officers breached the standards of behaviour relating to Equality & Diversity, Authority, Respect & Courtesy.

The Chair determined the most appropriate action would be PRI for both officers, both officers also completed a college learn package in relation to this incident.

Not Proven

Outcome: PRI for both officers

It was alleged the officers concerned had contributed towards a grossly offensive group chat, had not challenged inappropriate comments and instigated others. The comments were of a prejudicial and discriminatory nature towards women, race and disabilities.

The officers breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Equality & Diversity, Challenging & Reporting improper conduct.

The Chair considered a written warning, given the above and considering the college of policing and home office guidance.

Proven

Outcome: Written warning for 18 months

It was alleged that an Officer on patrol engaged with a male walking on a busy A road at night and told him to get out of the road. The Officer left the scene without conducting proper welfare checks or enquiries and minutes later the male is struck by a vehicle which resulted in him receiving fatal injuries.

The officer breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities.

The chair determined the outcome was proven and final written warning given.
Outcome Final Written Warning for 2 years.

Proven

Outcome: Final written warning for 2 years

It was alleged Officers showed no evidence of recognising the importance of building an evidence-led investigation, following a victims withdrawal of complaint nor had they considered the lack of progression made regarding the collection of evidential material. Additionally there was no evidence of considering honour-based violence as a factor in the risk assessments conducted.

The Officers were alleged to have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities.

The Chair determined this was not proven and therefore no resulting sanction.

Not Proven

Outcome: NFA

It was alleged a staff member authorised an Out-of-Force Speeding Exemption without conducting efficient and proper checks to verify the accuracy of the rationale provided for the Exemption.

The member of staff was alleged to have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties & Responsibilities and Discreditable Conduct.

The Panel determined that the allegations were upheld, however they felt that the decision to authorise without checking was not malicious nor allowed the staff member to gain from what happened. The outcome was therefore Reflective Practice.

Not Proven

Outcome: PRI

It was alleged that the staff member whilst off duty had an interaction with a group of youths and subsequently engaged in behaviour that included verbal abuse, the use of highly inappropriate language and, according to several accounts, kicking out at one of the group.

The member of staff was alleged to have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct and Authority, Respect and Courtesy.

The panel determined that the allegations were upheld, and the outcome was a Final Written Warning for 2 years.

Proven

Outcome: Final written warning for 2 years

It was alleged the Officer accessed a Niche record where one of the recorded persons involved was someone who the officer had previously had some form of relationship with.

The officer breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Orders & instructions and Duties & Responsibilities.

The Chair determined a written warning was a suitable sanction.

Proven

Outcome: Written warning for 18 months

It was alleged that the officer concerned breached the standards of professional behaviour when they were involved in a Road traffic collision with an individual and or their electric scooter, engaged in a pursuit when not authorised or trained to do so, provided information which was false and/ or deliberately misleading in relation to the collision.

It was alleged that the officer concerned breached the standards of professional behaviour relating to
Orders and Instructions, Honesty and Integrity, Discreditable Conduct.

The Panel determined in following the three-fold statutory purpose of the proceedings, concluded the most appropriate and proportionate sanction was dismissal without notice.

Proven

Outcome: Dismissed without notice

It was alleged the officer concerned was on duty and tasked to attend a domestic related disturbance to check on an individual’s welfare. Thereafter they contacted the individual via social media application and exchanged messages, therefore failing to maintain a professional boundary.

The Officer breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Integrity, Authority, Respect & Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct.

The Chief Constable determined that the most suitable outcome was dismissal without notice noting “The only appropriate sanction in this case is dismissal without notice.

Proven

Outcome: Dismissed without notice

It was alleged the former Officer concerned received sexual services in return for payment on more than one occasion.

The Officer breached the Professional Standards of Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct.

The Chief Constable determined that “the conduct is too serious and the risk of reputational harm too high for this to be appropriate. This was a clear and repeated breach, contrary to police guidance, which fundamentally threatens the trust and confidence the public places on the police. I find therefore that the appropriate outcome in this case would have been dismissal had the officer still be serving.”

Proven

Outcome: Would have been dismissed