PSD Misconduct and Complaints Transparency Data - January to March 2026
Northamptonshire Police currently comprises of 1,478.66 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Police Officers, 81.07 FTE Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), 1121.92 Other Members of Police Staff, together with a further 85 Special Constables; a total of 2681.65 FTE individuals.
During the fourth quarter of the year 2026, the Force dealt with 44,964 reported incidents and investigated 13,196 crimes which led to 2,568 arrests.
During this period the Professional Standards Department (PSD) recorded a total of 480 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 13 Police Officers and 7 members of Police Staff and 1 Special Constable (NB: some of these matters may have been recorded in previous reporting period):
- 3 cases resulted in a finding of no case to answer.
- 7 cases resulted in a case to answer for which Reflective Practice was the outcome.
- 3 cases 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 3 Police Officer’s, 0 Special Constables who attended a Gross Misconduct hearing.
- 0 cases 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:
- 0 Case resulted in a case to answer and were assessed as amounting to Misconduct
- 5 Gross Misconduct went through the HR Dismissal process.
(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 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 |
|---|---|---|
| January 2026 |
It was alleged that a Police Officer took it upon themself to work from home when an operation they were working on was cancelled ahead of their duty. When challenged by the Sergeant on why they did not turn up for work, it transpires that they had not logged on to their laptop and was completing a 'kit admin'. The applicable breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour were Duties and Responsibilities. The Chair determined a final written warning for 24 months as the appropriate sanction. |
Proven Outcome: Final written warning for 24 months |
| February 2026 |
This was an IOPC investigation. Both officers failed to appropriately communicate with child A, and listen to their concerns, failed to appropriately communicate with child A's carer, and failed to recognise child A's state of mind. The applicable breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour were Duties and Responsibilities. The Chair determined the outcome is a written warning for both officers. |
Proven Outcome: Written warning for 18 months |
| March 2026 |
It was alleged the officer used excess force on two separate occasions. The applicable breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour was Use of Force. The Chair determined that the public should be able to trust police officers to make good decisions all the time - regardless of the situation they find themselves in. Outcome written warning for 18 months |
Proven Outcome: Written warning for 18 months |
Misconduct Hearing Outcomes during this period:
| Date | Breach of Standards | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| January 2026 |
It was alleged that the staff members used a work avoidance tactic known as key jamming, on their laptop on repeated occasions over a sustained period. Additionally, the staff member had more likely than not taken illegal drugs for their own benefit and when confronted they refused to provide a urine sample for a 'with cause' drugs test. The applicable breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour were Honesty and Integrity, Discreditable Conduct, Fitness for Work, and Work and Responsibilities. The panel determined on the evidence that all allegations were upheld, and the outcome was gross misconduct dismissal without notice. |
Proven Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
| February 2026 |
It was alleged a staff member had made a voluntary disclosure to their line manager following the release of a vlog about key jamming activity being identified in Force. They disclosed use of the tactic to keep their laptop active when they were away from the device so not to miss any calls. The applicable breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour were Duties and Responsibilities. The panel determined due to no dishonesty being found and good PDR evidence that the sanction would be a final written warning for two years. |
Proven Outcome: Final written warning for two years |
| March 2026 |
It was alleged that a staff member during September 2025 was found to be the highest key stroke user that month. On reviewing over 14 million keystrokes, it was found they had utilised a tactic known as key jamming repeatedly and deliberately to give the impression of productivity. The member of staff also told their line management they intended to ignore the refusal of additional leave (paid or unpaid) and take the leave regardless, demonstrating deliberate disregard and a lack of respect. The applicable breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour were Honesty and Integrity, and Instructions. The panel concluded, based on the evidence presented, that the allegations were upheld. A Gross Misconduct finding meant the appropriate outcome was dismissal without notice. |
Proven Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
| March 2026 |
It was alleged that a staff member took a call from a member of the public who was a known persistent caller but also a vulnerable person. During this call they made derogatory, inappropriate and unprofessional remarks, including profanities, whilst the caller was on hold. They allowed their frustrations to impact their handling of the call, their professionalism and ultimately the service provided was not as expected. The panel determined on the evidence presented that all allegations were upheld, and a Final Written Warning for two years was the most appropriate outcome. |
Proven Outcome: Final written warning for two years |
| March 2026 |
It was alleged the officer concerned breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour by demonstrating a lack of respect and courtesy for members of the public and/or police colleagues, made comments which were offensive and/or inappropriate, which were likely to undermine public confidence and were discriminatory. The applicable breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour were Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Discreditable Conduct, Equality and Diversity. The panel determined had the officer still been employed they would have been dismissed. |
Proven Outcome: Would have been dismissed without notice |
Special Case Hearing Outcomes during this period (chaired by the Chief Constable):
| Date | Breach of Standards | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
|
January 2026 Accelerated Hearing |
It was alleged that a Police Officer sent messages into a WhatsApp group that were inappropriate, demeaning, denigrating, offensive, derogatory, and/or discriminatory language when referring to both members of the public and colleagues. The officers' behaviour was alleged to have breached the Standards of Behaviour relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Equality and Diversity, Discreditable Conduct, Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct. Chief Constable Balhatchet stated, "These factors lead me to believe that the only proper outcome in this case would have been dismissal without notice, had the officer not resigned." |
Proven Outcome: Would have been dismissed |
|
February 2026 Accelerated Hearing |
It was alleged the former officer whilst off sick, accessed force systems and reviewed information in which they had no policing purpose at that time. Chief Constable Balhatchet noted that the Former Officer's self-referral to PSD was a significant mitigating factor in his decision making. Accordingly, the Chief Constable considered that the unusual circumstances of the case were such that they did not consider dismissal would be justified. As the Former Officer had resigned from service, there was no need for the Chief Constable to make any additional findings. |
Proven Outcome: Would not have been dismissed |
|
March 2026 Accelerated Hearing |
It was alleged that the officer concerned was convicted of two sexual assaults contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and on December 19, 2025 sentenced for those offences. The Officers' behaviour was alleged to have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct. The Chief Constable determined "I have no hesitation in finding that disciplinary action would have been imposed had the officer not resigned; and the only sanction that could have preserved confidence in the Police Service in this case would have been dismissal without notice." |
Proven Outcome: Would have been dismissed |
The PDF version of this document can be found below.