PSD Misconduct and Complaints Transparency Data - July to September 2026
Northamptonshire Police currently comprises of 1,457.60 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Police Officers, 85.56 FTE Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), 1142.31 Other Members of Police Staff, together with a further 81 Special Constables; a total of 2685.47 FTE individuals.
During the first quarter of the year 2026, the Force dealt with 53,117 reported incidents and investigated 14,728 crimes which led to 2,919 arrests.
During this period the Professional Standards Department (PSD) recorded a total of 537 new Complaint cases (public complaints) and 22 new Misconduct cases (internal matters).
During this period PSD formally investigated and finalised a total of 18 cases of Misconduct, involving 6 Police Officers and 10 members of Police Staff and 2 Special Constable (NB: some of these matters may have been recorded in previous reporting period):
- 4 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.
- 1 case resulted in a case to answer and were assessed as amounting to Misconduct (1).
- 2 cases resulted in a case to answer and were assessed as amounting to Gross Misconduct (2)(3); these related to 1 Police Officer, 1 Special Constable 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:
- 2 Gross Misconduct went through the HR Dismissal process.
- 2 Gross Misconduct went through the Accelerated Hearling 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 |
|---|---|---|
| August 2026 |
It was alleged an Officer used their position as a police officer to obtain the member of public's trust and hand over money to her partner who was doing building work. Also, the officer did not put in a business interest. The Chief Inspector determined that the misconduct was not proven in respect to either allegation, the officer should receive PRI. |
Not Proven Outcome: PRI |
Misconduct Hearing Outcomes during this period:
| Date | Breach of Standards | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| July 2026 |
It was alleged a member of staff deliberately used a work avoidance tactic known as 'key jamming' in order to keep their laptop active, knowing that they were not at their device and working, they were away dealing with personal matters. The staff member concerned breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Honesty and Integrity, Instructions, Work and Responsibilities, and Discreditable Conduct. The panel determined that on the balance of probabilities the allegations were upheld, and the outcome is dismissal without notice. |
Proven Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
| July 2026 |
It is alleged the officer involved was a member of a WhatsApp group into which they sent a video which was inappropriate and/or denigrating and/or offensive. The officer concerned breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Integrity, Authority, Respect & Courtesy, Equality & Diversity, Discreditable Conduct and Challenging & Reporting Improper Conduct. The panel determined that had the former officer still been a serving police officer, the only proportionate and appropriate sanction to fulfil the purpose of misconduct proceedings would be instant dismissal. |
Proven Outcome: Would have been dismissed without notice |
| August 2026 |
It was alleged the staff members, following proactive lawful business monitoring, had been identified as routinely 'key jamming' daily for lengthy periods of their shift. The staff member concerned breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Honesty & Integrity, Duties and Responsibilities, Orders & Instructions, and Discreditable Conduct. The panel determined that all breaches were upheld and evidenced within the investigation report, and the appropriate outcome was Summary Dismissal. |
Proven Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
| September 2026 |
It was alleged that the Special Constable was stopped by police officers whilst driving, asked to conduct a roadside breathalyser test and returned a reading of 79 micrograms, 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 partner's address and drive to where they had been stopped as they feared for their safety because their partner had been verbally abusive and assaulted them. The Special Constable concerned breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct. 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." |
Proven Outcome: 2 Year final written warning |
| September 2026 |
The Police Staff Member was dismissed for breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Honesty & Integrity, Orders & Instructions, Confidentiality, Discreditable Conduct after the staff member was suspected of accessing police systems with no lawful purpose prior to sharing information with a third party, who is unconnected with the service and had no right to know such information. This has led to significant criminal case disclosure concerns for investigators. The panel determined that the allegations were upheld and the outcome is Gross Misconduct Dismissal, which is Dismissal without notice. |
Proven Outcome: Dismissed without notice |
Accelerated Hearing Outcomes during this period (chaired by the Chief Constable):
| Date | Breach of Standards | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| July 2026 |
It was alleged that the Special Constable exchanged messages with a number associated with a sex worker and sought to use their services. The Special Constable concerned breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct. The Chief Constable found that the most appropriate outcome in this case would have been dismissal without notice if the Special Constable was still serving. This was serious misconduct which would have a clear impact on the public trust and confidence in the police. |
Proven Outcome: Would have been dismissed without notice |
| August 2026 |
It is alleged that the former officer discussed taking illegal drugs, including Class A Controlled drug. The Officer failed to attend duty as required for a shift, stating to their Sergeant they had a family emergency, when in fact they had been drinking heavily the night before. A friend asked the officer to conduct a PNC check on a vehicle which they did without a policing purpose. The officer concerned breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct, Orders & Instructions, Confidentiality, and Honesty & Integrity. The Chief Constable determined that had the former officer still been a serving police officer, they would have been dismissed without notice. |
Proven Outcome: Would have been dismissed |
The PDF version of this document can be found below.