PC Tristan Hankins

NOTICE OF OUTCOME OF PUBLIC HEARING

Legally Qualified Chair: Mr Derek Marshall

Dates of Hearing: 16 May 2022
Officer: PC 17099 Tristan Hankins

Panel Findings

NOTIFICATION AND REPORT OF THE OUTCOME UNDER REGULATION 40
OF THE POLICE CONDUCT REGULATIONS 2020

1. This is the decision of the Police Conduct Panel convened on Monday 16 May 2022 to consider the allegations of professional misconduct brought against PC 17099 Hankins of Devon and Cornwall Police (“the Officer”). The panel comprised Derek Marshall LLB MCIArb (Legally Qualified Chair), Superintendent Ryan Doyle (Professional Member) and Jennifer McDonald (Independent Member). At the outset of this decision we wish to express our thanks to both Counsel, Mr Jenkins for the Appropriate Authority and Mr Pakrooh for the Officer for the careful, focussed and business-like manner in which they presented their respective cases and assistance they gave us when we raised enquiries of our own.

Legal and Regulatory Background

2. The statutory and regulatory basis of the panel lies in Section 51 of the Police Act 1996 and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (“the Regulations”). In addition we are to have proper regard to the Statutory Guidance on Professional Standards, NOTICE OF OUTCOME OF
PUBLIC HEARING Performance and Integrity in Policing Issued by the Home Office also issued in 2020, known as the “HOG”.

3. The 2020 HOG states at paragraph 1.4: The procedures described in this guidance are designed to accord with the principles of natural justice and the basic principles of fairness. The process and procedures covered by this guidance, along with the accompanying legal framework, should be administered accordingly and applied fairly and consistently to everyone. The guidance on the individual procedures is designed to further the aims of being fair to the individual who is subject to the process, as well as all parties involved. It is intended to assist with arriving at a correct assessment of the
matter in question and providing public and policing confidence in the system.
Later in the HOG the duty of the Panel is summarised thus: The persons conducting misconduct hearings will consider the facts of the case and will decide the facts (on the balance of probabilities) and whether the officer’s conduct amounted to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither. Having determined the facts and decided what they amount to, the Panel is then enjoined to decide what to do about them. We therefore proceed in accordance with this basic structure.

4. The aim of misconduct proceedings is not primarily punitive although they can have that effect on the officer concerned. The overriding objective is to set and maintain the highest standards of professional integrity, to ensure public confidence in the Police and for the public to see that these things are done in a fair, open and transparent manner.

5. The appropriate standards of professional behaviour for Police Officers are set out in Schedule 2 of the 2020 Regulations (which differ slightly from the previously listed standards) and the elements engaged in this case are as follows:
Honesty and Integrity
Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.
Authority, Respect and Courtesy
Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of individuals. Police officers ensure that any relationship at work does not create an actual or apparent conflict of interest and do not engage in sexual conduct or other inappropriate behaviour when on duty.
Duties and Responsibilities
Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities.
Discreditable Conduct
Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.
The College of Policing Code of Ethics (which has not yet been updated to meet the new regulations and HOG) expands on this and states at paragraph 2.1.1
Every person working for the police service must work honestly and ethically. The public expect the police to do the right thing in the right way. Basing decisions and actions on a set of policing principles will help to achieve this.

6. Regulation 41(15) of the 2020 Regulations provides as follows:
The person or persons conducting the misconduct proceedings must review the
facts of the case and decide whether the conduct of the officer concerned
amounts—
(a) in the case of a misconduct meeting, to misconduct or not, or
(b) in the case of a misconduct hearing, to misconduct, gross
misconduct or neither.
And sub-rule 16 states
The person or persons conducting the misconduct proceedings must not find
that the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to misconduct or gross
misconduct unless—
(a) they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this is the
case, or
(b) the officer admits it is the case.
“Misconduct” is defined in the 2020 regulations as
a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to
justify disciplinary action and “Gross Misconduct” is defined as
a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to
justify dismissal

The allegations and our findings

7. The allegations against the Officer are set out in full in the Regulation 30 Notice at page 1 of the hearing bundle and the documents in the file which have been served upon him and they are and always have been admitted. It is also admitted by the Officer that collectively, they amount to gross misconduct and it is very much to his credit that he admitted as such when the matters were put to him at the hearing. It is nevertheless important that we should record our findings in writing and state what they amount to.

8. The background to the case is that very sadly, at the end of May 2020 the Officer’s wife suffered a distressing medical issue. This put an understandable strain on the marriage. In order to help his wife in her recuperation and her general wellbeing, the Officer had bought a hot tub for home use, but this had come with a missing part, the mat that went underneath it, so that water spilled onto the floor. This was a nuisance and he therefore contacted Homebase (the shop where it had come from) on the evening of Monday 1 June and they confirmed that the mat would be available for collection over the next 48 hours.

9. The Officer started his shift on Tuesday 2 June at 15.00. He was on patrol in his police vehicle with SPC Pascoe. He tells us (and we have no reason to doubt) that he was showing her the boundaries of his area of responsibility but there is no doubt – and he admits – that he decided to go about 3 miles “off patch” in order to collect the mat from Homebase. This was running a personal errand whilst on duty, which of course he ought not to have been doing. The seriousness of the case arises out of the fact that as he was setting off in the direction of the shop, an emergency call came through from Control which required his immediate attention. A young female (who we assume to be a teenager) with mental health difficulties was in a highly agitated condition and was threatening suicide. However, instead of abandoning his planned trip to Homebase and setting off promptly to answer the call, using the emergency blue light on his car, he told controller that he would be free to attend the emergency “very very shortly” and proceeded to Homebase to collect his mat before answering the emergency. That was plainly untrue. He therefore arrived at the scene of the incident somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes later than he would otherwise have done.

10. The key chronology in the case is as follows:
Date/time Event Bundle ref
1995 Joined D&C Police
Late May
2020
Mrs Hankins suffers a medical issue
01.06.2020 21.48 Homebase notify that item ready for collection email
02.06.2020 Index incident:
15.00 Comes on duty
15.22 Deployed on unrelated matter
15.54 Resumed patrol
16.07 999 call to control room
16.14 Control room message to PC Hankins
16.18 Arrives at Homebase
16.22 Leaves Homebase and deploys
16.54 Arrives at incident
18.00 Homebase closed that day
24.00 Goes off duty
78
82
82
30.10.20 Reg 17 notice 5
18.11.20 Response 9
26.02.20 Second reg 17 notice 12
18.05.21 Second response 14
18.08.21 Interview under caution (recorded)
The reason why there are two regulation 17 notices is because initially, there were only the first two allegations to be answered, and those only on the basis of “misconduct”. It was not appreciated that the Officer had received the message from Control prior to getting to Homebase, which is where he initially thought that it had been received. However it was later discovered that he had received it beforehand and an additional allegation of gross misconduct was added. The Officer accepts this as factually correct and for its part the AA accepts that his initial response was an error rather than a deliberate untruth.

11. Having read the file and heard the case outlined by Mr Jenkins, we find as facts theevents and chronology previously set out. We also conclude that as admitted by the Officer, these matters amount to a breach of the required standards of professional behaviour with regard to duties and responsibilities, authority and respect, discreditable conduct and especially, honesty and integrity. As such, in our judgment these matters amount to gross misconduct and that is what we conclude has been proved as well as admitted in this case.
Outcome

The Outcome – Disciplinary Action
12. Regulation 42 sets out the outcomes available to us in these circumstances:
(i) a written warning
(ii) a final written warning;
(iii) reduction in rank, where paragraph (5) or (6) applies;
(iv) dismissal without notice, where paragraph (5) or (6) applies;
The outcome of dismissal with notice is not available with respect to a finding of
Gross Misconduct.

13. In approaching this part of the decision we have had firmly in mind the guidance given by Mr Justice Popplewell in Fuglers LLP v SRA [2014] EWHC which is usefully summarised in the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes in Misconduct Proceedings. We have to keep at the forefront of our minds the purpose and objective of these proceedings, which is to maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the Police, uphold high standards and deter misconduct and to protect the public. We appreciate that the objective is not to punish the officer (although it may have that effect) and that we should therefore do no more (although also no less) than that which is necessary to satisfy the key objectives of the proceedings. We must (and we have) considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the purpose of sanctions and chose an outcome which most appropriately meets that purpose. Assessing the seriousness is to be approached in terms of four factors, which we have carefully considered.

14. Before coming on to this we need to summarise the law on dishonesty in an
operational context. It is accepted by Counsel for the Officer that this is what is
engaged in this case, and that it is not merely a “lapse of integrity” case. A finding of “operational dishonesty” has particularly serious ramifications for a Police Officer (or other professional person for that matter) in that it is likely to lead to a dismissal from the force, for the reasons set out in the judgment of Mr Justice Underhill in R (Bolt) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police 2007 EWHC 2607: “While not every untruth or half-truth told by a police officer, however trivial and whatever the circumstances, would necessarily constitute misconduct justifying dismissal, the misconduct found by the panel, and B's subsequent lies about it, constituted deliberate dishonesty in an operational context. As paragraph 1 of the police code of conduct rightly emphasised, integrity was a fundamental requirement for a police officer.”

15. It is the same principle that applies to others for whom integrity is central to their profession, such as lawyers and doctors. The solicitor’s case of SRA v Sovani Ramona James [2018] EWHC 3058 provides a recent example and underlies the Bolton principle. As the headnote of that case states:
“The almost invariable sanction for dishonesty was striking off, not just as punishment and deterrence, but most fundamentally to maintain the reputation of the profession, Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 W.L.R. 512, [1993] 12 WLUK 70 followed. Dishonesty was the most serious misconduct and would lead to striking off save in exceptional circumstances, Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharma [2010] EWHC 2022 (Admin), [2010] 5 WLUK 417 considered. Guidance as to what amounted to exceptional circumstances had been given in R. (on the application of Solicitors Regulation Authority) v Imran [2015] EWHC 2572 (Admin), [2015] A.C.D. 134, [2015] 7 WLUK 708, Imran considered. The principal focus had to be on the nature and extent of the dishonesty and the degree of culpability. The assessment was factspecific in each case, Law Society (Solicitors Regulation Authority) v Emeana [2013]
EWHC 2130 (Admin), [2014] A.C.D. 14, [2013] 7 WLUK 544 considered (see paras 42, 44, 47-49 of judgment)”.
Honesty and integrity are fundamental requirements for any police officer. In the words of Lord Justice Maurice Kay in Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset police officers:
“...carry out vital public functions in which it is imperative that the public have
confidence in them. It is also obvious that the operational dishonesty or impropriety of a single officer tarnishes the reputation of his Force and undermines public confidence in it”
In the same case Mr Justice Burnett confirmed that:
“The reasons which underpin the strict approach applied to solicitors and barristers apply with equal force to police officers. Honesty and integrity in the conduct of police officers in any investigation are fundamental to the proper workings of the criminal justice system. [...] The public should be able unquestioningly to accept the honesty and integrity of a police officer. The damage done by a lack of integrity in connection with the investigation of an alleged offence may be enormous. The guilty may go free. The innocent may be convicted. Large sums of public money may be wasted. Public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system may be undermined. The conduct of a few may have a corrosive effect upon the reputation of the police service in general”.
He concluded:
“...the correct approach for a decision maker is to recognise that a sanction which results in the officer concerned leaving the force would be the almost inevitable outcome in cases involving operational dishonesty. That terminology itself recognises that there may be exceptions. In concluding that the case is exceptional, the decision maker must identify the features of the circumstances of the misconduct which support a different conclusion, recognising that the number of such cases would be very small. The decision maker would take account of personal mitigation, but must recognise its limited impact in this area.” We have therefore carefully worked our way through the Code of Guidance on Outcomes (“the GO”) as an aide memoire of the factors we should take into account.

Culpability

16. The Officer’s conduct was deliberate, intentional, and planned in the sense that it is obvious that having ordered the mat for the hot tub at home the evening before he started his shift, it was his aim to divert from his patrol in order to run the errand. He did not know of course that he would get a call to attend an emergency whilst on his way to Homebase to collect it but he had the opportunity to accept the call and attend to the person in distress. Counsel for the Officer described his client as having taken himself off duty in his mind but we find that to be an aggravating feature not a mitigating one. Running an errand whilst on duty would (as admitted) have amounted to misconduct rather than gross misconduct but then to have continued on that course of action and told a deliberate lie to the control room in order to complete it is a different order of magnitude. The dishonesty in telling the control room that he would be free to respond very shortly when in fact he was professionally available at the very moment he took the call is at the heart of this case.

17. Counsel for the Officer described this as at the lower end of the scale of operational dishonesty, and he is right to the extent that it was not dishonesty in the evidence chain nor did it involve setting someone up for an offence they did not commit. It was also not a lie to cover up a previous misdeed: We accept that in his original response notice the officer was mistaken rather than untruthful as to whether he got the call whilst driving or in the store. It was however a lie intended to enable him to prioritise his personal wishes over his public duties. A member of the public was in urgent need of help but he told a deliberate untruth so as to enable himself to run an errand first. This was not an error of judgment about urgent priorities: He was not, for example, rushing
home to a sick child or for some other personal crisis. The mat did not need collecting urgently, even if we accept that was trying to do something to help his wife. The young woman in distress however did need his help urgently.

Harm

18. As the timeline shows, in fact, the Officer attended the emergency only about 5 or 10 minutes later than he would otherwise have done and no actual harm was caused. The potential harm was considerable however. A young woman was in danger and she could have come to physical or mental harm as a result of his delay. It could quite literally have made the difference between life and death. He knew from the control room that she was in danger and was told:
“SHE’S CURRENTLY AT THE HOUSE UM AT THE SIG APPARENTLY SHE HAS,
90 THERE’S INTEL ON THERE FROM YESTERDAY SAYING GOT SEVERE MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES AND SHE IS SUICIDAL, SHE HAD APPARENTLY LEFT A SUICIDE NOTE YESTERDAY AND WAS FOUND ON THE HARBOUR ABOUT TO JUMP, UM SHE’S HAVING A MENTAL HEALTH EPISODE TODAY, SHE’S HEARING VOICES, AT THE MOMENT THEY’RE TRYING TO KEEP HER INSIDE THE PROPERTY UM AND THEY’VE TRIED TO LOCK HER INSIDE BUT THEY’RE STRUGGLING AT THE MOMENT UM, CALLING FOR POLICE ASSISTANCE.”
There is also the question of the potential harm he did to her family who were anxiously awaiting the arrival of the police. Further, he put the young Special Constable on patrol with him into a difficult situation as a result of his conduct. We would like to commend her for the difficult decision she took to tell someone else about it.

19. The reputational harm to the Police service in the eyes of right-thinking members of the public is obvious. What would the public think of a police service that responded to an emergency call as soon as the Officer had gone to the shops? Paragraph 6.65 of the GO states as follows:
Where gross misconduct has been found, however and the behaviour caused or could have caused serious harm to individuals, the community and/or public confidence in the police service, dismissal is likely to follow. A factor of the greatest importance is the impact of the misconduct on the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole. That passage neatly summarises this case.

Aggravating factors

20. We have been careful not to double-count but there are some aggravating features in this case. The Officer’s conduct involved an element of personal advantage (making life easier for himself at home, as his own Counsel frankly admitted) and was an abuse of his position in that he was running an errand whilst at work. It was continued after it had been planned and it indirectly involved a vulnerable victim, the young woman who he was being sent to help. It was a significant deviation from his duties at a time when there is serious and legitimate public anxiety about the safety of women.

Mitigating factors

21. This breaks down into mitigation of the proven allegations and personal mitigation.
Taking these in turn, this was essentially a single episode over a short period which occurred at a time of personal stress and difficulty, the Officer’s wife having suffered a distressing medical issue only a few days beforehand. The Officer must also be given credit for early acceptance of the facts and a full admission that they amount to gross misconduct. We do not however see anything very substantial in terms of remorse and in our view the officer showed little or no insight into the reasons why what he did was so very wrong. The video recording of his interview does him no credit at all and is frankly embarrassing. He presents as disinterested, un-engaged and dismissive of the
seriousness of the allegations he was facing. There was little or no evidence of remorse or contrition or even an understanding of what he had done from his demeanour in front of the Panel today. We watched him closely throughout the evidence and submissions but could see little or nothing from his body language to suggest that he was genuinely sorry or had very much by way of insight into his behaviour.

22. Personal mitigation is of limited impact. We refer again to the College of Policing document and in particular to the quotation from Lord Justice Kay in the Salter decision within that document:
“As to personal mitigation, just as an unexpectedly errant solicitor can usually refer to an unblemished past and the esteem of his colleagues, so will a police officer often be able so to do. However, because of the importance of public confidence, the potential of such mitigation is necessarily limited”.
Nevertheless we have had full regard to the points in mitigation made to us and in particular we note the following: The Officer has an unblemished service record and note that there is nothing recorded to his discredit in terms of previous written or final written warnings for misconduct. He clearly has the respect of many of his colleagues and we take Counsel’s point about the way in which he has put himself forward to take responsibility in the police service for extra duties. We also note the effect that these proceedings appear to have had on his mental health. It is obvious that his family will suffer if he does not keep his job

The decision

23. The outcome we decide on must do no more than is reasonably required to achieve the statutory objectives of maintaining public confidence in and the reputation of the Police, upholding high standards and deterring misconduct, and protecting the public. We have therefore thought long and hard about the minimum outcome that is conceded by Counsel must follow from our findings, namely a Final Written Warning. Unfortunately for the Officer we think that these matters (and in particular the dishonesty in an operational context) are so serious that such an outcome would not achieve those aims. In our judgment, the premeditated and planned trip to Homebase, the fact that the Officer had a chance to come to his senses and postpone the running of an errand, the deliberate failure to respond to an urgent call for help in favour of a personal matter, the deliberately untruthful statement to Control which enabled him to run that errand and the lack of any real remorse or insight into the seriousness of his actions means this case is so serious that anything less than dismissal without notice would be insufficient to achieve the objectives of this Panel. Police Officers are not dishonest and that is a message that must be sent out loudly and clearly.

Our decision is therefore that the Officer shall be dismissed without notice.