DC Daniel Arnold

NOTICE OF OUTCOME OF PUBLIC HEARING

Legally Qualified Chair: Mr James Rickard
Dates of Hearing: 27-28 June 2022
Officer: DC 10213 Daniel Arnold

Panel findings

The officer has breached the standard of professional behaviour. Discreditable conduct was admitted by the Officer. Gross misconduct found proved by the panel. The Panel found that the breach was so serious that dismissal without notice is justified.

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 purpose that is stated in that paragraph.

2. Having heard the Appropriate Authority who has drawn to our attention what they consider to be the relevant matters to consider under this guideline we have heard mitigation, 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.
a) Culpability -
The panel assesses the culpability of the officer as high. There was no necessity for the officer to drive having consumed alcohol. The officer accepted drinking and driving. The reading was high. He was solely responsible for that act.
b) Harm -
The Panel find that the risk of harm was high in respect of the allegation. We as a panel must consider actual and possible harm in this matter. The officer was driving the car whilst drunk. His blood alcohol reading was 81mg which is twice. The legal limit. He had passengers in the car, who were unable to stop his behaviour. The danger to them and to other road users was obviously high. Therefore, the harm was high.
Reputational harm. It is a matter of public importance that the roads are policed safely, and it is a reasonable expectation of police to confront the harm caused by drink driving as well as other road traffic offences. Driving having consumed excess alcohol is a serious imprisonable offence. Should a police officer commit such an offence the reputational harm to policing is great. A police officer who has dealt with drinking and driving and the often life changing and fatal outcomes that are linked with the offence is aware the public are
entitled to expect sobriety from officers who are driving both on and off duty, there was a clear risk to others, In this instance passengers in his car and other members of the public. If the circumstances of this case are considered in full
there is nothing that detracts from the gravity of this offence.

5. Aggravating factors.
The list of aggravating factors is not exhaustive. The panel have considered para 4.5 of the guidelines and applied it to the officer’s case.

1. He was convicted of a criminal offence. It was heard at a magistrate’s court where it was accepted that he was twice over the legal limit.

2. He had passengers in the car that were vulnerable by virtue of age.

3. He attempted to frustrate one of his passengers’ efforts to ring for help by making a 999 call.

4. He left one of the passengers in a place with which they were unfamiliar.

5. He left his vehicle at a time when he must have known his vehicle was being looked for.

6. He sought to frustrate and delay the breath test procedure. 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

(6) Mitigation
The Panel are of the view that: -
The officer has served for 16 years and appears well liked and well thought of by his peers.

[Section Removed]

The letters of support and the UPP documents have been read by the panel.

Outcomes
We are invited to consider that a final written warning is the appropriate outcome rather than immediate dismissal.
We as a panel have considered this carefully. We have reminded ourselves again of the purpose of misconduct proceedings and that the object is not to
punish the officer but to maintain the high standards that the public expect of its police officers. Drinking and driving is serious enough as an offence but when you add the aggravating features of this case as outlined above, the strongest personal mitigation as there is in this instance cannot allow the panel to consider that there is any alternative but immediate dismissal as the appropriate outcome.