Former Officer Sarah Trewern

NOTICE OF OUTCOME OF PUBLIC HEARING

I have determined that an outcome notice in relation to the misconduct hearing of the below
named officer will be published

Legally Qualified Chair: Mr James Rickard

Dates of Hearing: 26 – 29 April 20222
Officer: Former Officer Sarah Trewern

Panel findings

Breach of professional standard as in the bundle (pages 1
and 2) was found proved in respect of Allegations 1.In
respect of allegation 2 misconduct was admitted by the
officer. The Panel found the circumstances to be so serious
that it was gross misconduct, and had the officer still been
serving would have justified immediate dismissal.

Outcome

The Panel considered the outcome adopting the College of
Policing Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct
Proceedings 2017 and followed the Home Office Guidelines
in coming to our conclusion on outcome.
1. The Panel considered paragraph 2.3 to re-establish for
ourselves the purpose of the police misconduct regime.
We considered the three-fold process that is stated in
that paragraph.
2. Having heard the Appropriate Authority who has drawn to
our attention to what they consider to be the relevant
matters to consider under this guideline we have heard
no mitigation due to the officer’s nonparticipation, we
have gone onto apply the relevant guidelines.
3. We have assessed the three stages as we are required
to determine the appropriate sanction.

4. We have considered paragraph 4.4 of the College of
Policing Misconduct Guidelines as set out below to
assess the seriousness of the proven misconduct.
Firstly, we must assess seriousness and the 3 stages to
determine the appropriate sanction as set out in para 4.2 of
the guidelines.

Culpability
The panel assesses the culpability of the officer is high. The
officer’s actions significantly misled in respect of Allegation 1.
In respect of allegation 2 the officer was drunk and
responsible for her actions.
Harm
The Panel find that the risk of harm was high in respect of
both allegations. In respect of allegation 1 The conviction in
Elche Court Spain shows on PNC that it was a violent
offence.
The incident in Redruth where Sarah Trewern was well
known in the community as a police officer would cause
reputational harm to policing within the community.
Aggravating factors
The list of aggravating factors is not exhaustive.
The officer continued in a deceit from February 2020 to the
interview under caution.
The former officer concealed her wrongdoing (i.e., the
conviction in Spain).
The officer was violent to a member of the public in Redruth
and abusive. She was abusive to police officers and about
the Police service in general. She was in a public place and
in a place where people knew her to be a Police officer, but
in any event any reasonable person would have been
offended by her behaviour.
The panel have considered para 4.5 of the guidelines and
applied it to the officer’s case.
Having considered all the above factors, we have returned to
para 2.3 of the guidelines and Bolton v The Law Society
(1994). The panel have at the forefront of our mind the
purpose of the police misconduct regime to maintain public
confidence and the reputation of the police service and to
uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct
and to protect the public.
The officer was convicted of a serious criminal offence in
Spain. The offence for which she was convicted was a
violent offence and the fact of that conviction should have
been reported.
Allegation 2 did not give rise to a criminal offence being
recorded but Sarah Trewern was arrested in respect of a
criminal offence of violence. We have evidence of violence
by a member of the public. The body worn video shows what
was said and how drunk the former officer was. This conduct
and where it took place are aggravating factors.

Mitigation
We as a panel have considered all the mitigation put forward
as we are obliged to do.
The Panel are of the view that: -
The officer has served for 17 years and appears to be well
liked and well thought of both within the community and by
former colleagues.
[Section removed]
We are asked to accept that at the relevant time the officer
was not “in a good place” and we take that to mean “Low in
mood”.
That is understood by the panel.
The letters of support and the statements have been read by
the panel.
The mitigation does not reduce the seriousness of these
breaches.

Outcomes
We are aware of the limited outcomes available to us under
the 2020 Regulations. The officer has resigned. We do find
had the former officer still been a serving officer immediate
dismissal would have been justified for either or both
breaches.