Former officer

IN THE MATTER OF 

POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020

BETWEEN: 

The Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police.

Appropriate authority

And

Respondent

Former Officer

Preliminary issues.

Proceeding in absence.

We have been told that the former officer is not attending and will not be offering any further evidence to the hearing. I have had sight of a letter 27 March 2023 that outlines the former officer’s position regarding these proceedings.

I am satisfied that she is aware of the proceedings as to venue, date and time. No enquiries have been made regarding any reasonable accommodations that may be made. Legal representation has not been retained. I have considered whether there is any medical evidence as to why this hearing should not take place. By medical evidence I mean statements or reports by a recognised health care professional, be it a GP, Consultant, or qualified person. I have been read an email recently received by the AA confirming her non-attendance and stating that she has not had the opportunity to consider the papers the letter from the former officer regarding her ill health. It is not supported by such medical evidence. It does not explicitly ask for the matter to be adjourned. I have considered it to be an application to adjourn. I have been provided with a time line from the AA that shows that every opportunity has been given to the FO to receive consider the evidence and provide instructions. She instructed solicitors to make an application for a private hearing and anonymity. The letter was detailed and comprehensive. Put simply I do not accept that she has not been “in the right place” to consider the papers and make an informed decision on the contents and allegations. There have been interviews under caution and disclosures made. On that basis I refused any application that may have been made to adjourn the proceedings and instructed the AA to proceed.

I have at the forefront of my mind the fairness of the parties.

Addendum.

I received this morning a document from the former officer in the form of an email which has been exhibited with the bundle and was received after the conclusion of the AA’s case. I will deal with that document from the former officer at the conclusion of this decision of the panel.

DECISIONS OF THE PANEL 

APPROACH: 

1.     We are a panel considering allegations of gross misconduct against the above officer. 

2.     We have considered all of the evidence. All panel members have read the bundle provided to us before the hearing. We have considered all documents to which we have been referred. We have also considered all the submissions made on behalf of each party. 

3.     In approaching our tasks we have borne in mind that: 

3.1         We do not have to decide every matter of dispute, only those which assist us as to whether these allegations are proved. 

3.2         We can draw inferences from the evidence submitted to us, meaning we can reach common sense conclusions from the evidence, but we have guarded against falling into speculation when reaching those conclusions. 

3.3         Inevitably our findings are set out sequentially however we have not made any finding of fact without having first considered the entire evidential matrix. 

PURPOSE OF POLICE MISCONDUCT PROCEEDINGS 

4.     The applicable regulations are the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2018 (“PCR”). We are helpfully reminded by the AA of some of the relevant caselaw in the opening note submitted to us. 

5.1 The approach of the Panel as set out in the PCR is: 

        a) To ascertain the facts, whether admitted or found proven. 

       b) To determine whether, on the basis of those facts, the former officer has        breached the SPB alleged. 

       c)  To decide whether any such breaches constitute Misconduct, Gross Misconduct           or neither. 

        d) Dependent on the findings under b) and c), to decide on the Outcome. 

BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF 

6.1 The burden of proof is on the A.A. 

6.2 The standard of proof is at S.9 Home Office Guidelines p193. 

6.3 The allegations are as set out in the Regulation 30 Notices contained within the           bundle. It is set out for us in the opening note. However, it is set out below. 

The allegations:

The allegations before the panel are the following: (FO means former officer)  

1. Between September 2019 and July 2020 the former officer (FO) reported that they were the victim of a number of incidents of harassment and/or stalking.
2. The incidents the former officer reported included:-
   (a) Notes, cards and letters being sent via the post or hand-delivered to the FO’s , or left on or near to the FO’s car.

(b) The FO’s car being scratched and the tyres let down.

(c) Being followed by a dark coloured VW Golf car.

(d) Being followed by someone on foot.

1. The FO knew that their reports of harassment and/or stalking were false and/or untruthful and they:-

(a) Provided statements that they knew were not true.

(b) Provided false information and/or lied to their line managers and/or the investigating officers.

1. The FO knew that their reports were being investigated and that significant police resources would be committed.
   
   
2. The FO took steps to frustrate and/or obstruct the investigation by:-
   (a) Failing to co-operate with safeguarding advice.

(b) Objecting to cameras being installed at their home and then asking for them to be removed.

(c) Failing to switch on the camera that had been installed in their car.

(d) Handling evidence in a way that was contrary to scenes of crime advice.

1. The FO claimed to have placed evidence in the property store at Cullompton Police Station but did not do so.  She concealed that evidence and failed to notify the OIC (Officer in case) of its location despite knowing that it was being searched for.
   
   
2. The FO knew that their reports would be likely to lead to:-
   (a) The investigating officers suspecting that AG and/or JM were harassing and/or stalking the FO when the FO knew they were innocent.

(b) The arrest of AG and/or JM and the loss, distress, embarrassment and inconvenience that would be likely to cause them.

(c) The search of AG and/or JM homes and the distress, embarrassment and inconvenience that would be likely to cause them.

(d) The seizure of AG and/or JM property and the loss, distress, embarrassment and inconvenience that would be likely to cause them.

(e) Intrusion into the private life of RG and/or TP.

1. During the investigation the FO lied when they said that your previous partner and your child had died.
   
   
2. On or about 3rd July 2020 the FO conducted a PNC (Police National Computer) check on a white Ford Connect van without having a proper policing purpose for doing so.
   
   

Alleged Breach - Honesty & Integrity

The FO breached the Standard of Professional Behaviour concerning Honesty & Integrity because they have:-

1. Failed to act with honesty and/or integrity.
2. Compromised and/or abused your position as a police officer.

Alleged Breach - Authority, Respect and Courtesy

The FO breached the Standard of Professional Behaviour concerning Authority, Respect and Courtesy because it is alleged the Former Officer has:-

1. Failed to treat members of the public with courtesy and respect.
   
   
2. Failed to treat colleagues with courtesy and respect.

Alleged Breach - Confidentiality

The FO breached the Standard of Professional Behaviour concerning Confidentiality because they have accessed information held on the PNC otherwise than in the proper course of their police duties.

Alleged Breach - Discreditable Conduct

The FO’s behaviour brings discredit upon the police service and undermines confidence in it because a reasonable member of the public would be justifiably appalled that a police officer had:-

1. Made false reports of harassment and/or stalking.
2. Wasted considerable police time and resources.
3. Caused innocent members of the public loss, distress, embarrassment and inconvenience.

The AA allege that this conduct amounts to Gross misconduct.

The facts.

We are grateful to Mr Ley Morgan for the opening note which is useful in guiding us through the allegations that the AA maintain are breaches of the standards of professional behaviour.

The former officer was appointed as an officer in 2008 as a uniformed officer and then as a PIP1 Investigator. Then a PIP 2 investigator or Detective constable she joined the Exeter and East Devon local investigation team. She was familiar and experienced in police investigation and what was required when a complaint was made.

The FO was allocated an investigation in to AG who had allegedly harassed his wife. The former officer interviews AG in July 2019. In October 2019 she reported that her car tyre had been deflated [B2/84 and B2/7] In October 2019  the former officer made a complaint of stalking  [B2/85 B2/13 and P47-48] and AG was named as a suspect.

As a result of this crime complaint by the FO the police installed CCTV cameras for her security. AG, as a suspect for the harassment on the FO, was subjected to a search of his home following the police obtaining a search warrant from a magistrate.

A particularly sinister card was submitted by the FO as evidence [B2/86 and B2/128] it was a sympathy card which had two dates on it. The FO revealed that those two dates were very personal as they related to the date of the death of her child, and the second date related to the death of her partner, a man she named as Richard Latham. A report by the officer who was considered truthful by colleagues that was very worrying.

In November she reports that her car had been keyed [B2/36], that notes had been left on her car, and on her garage floor[B2/88], and through the mail[B2/89]. A further suspect is identified as JM on suspicion of stalking. The police begin observations on her car and home. In that month she made three S.9 witness statement that are declaratory as being true and identifies a criminal offence if they are not. These are dated 5/11/19 and 26/11/19 and 29/11/19. [B1/270.274, and 272]

In December the FO asks for the cameras to be removed because they are inconvenient [B2/90].  Similarly she wanted the car dash cam removed  These devices were installed to assist the investigation. She makes a further claim that she was followed twice by a black VW Golf. She further says that JM has such a vehicle.

In January 2020 she reports that her car tyres have been deflated[B2/93] she reports someone has driven off on an unlit road without lights on. She reports that she has had two letters delivered to her home that are suspicious[B2/94]. that she offers to take to the property store at Cullompton police station[B2/94]. These letters were not in the property store when looked for so as far as the investigator was concerned important evidence had gone missing.

On the strength of this evidence JM, a suspect is arrested, his home is searched. He is bailed by the police to return on a future date.

In February 2020 the officer assures that the letters CS/2 were put in the property store. An email is circulated to find these missing letters.

In addition, in this month a letter of complaint is made to DI Pebworth about the investigation.

In March, May, June, she makes further complaints of notes and letters being posted or left on her car, DI Pebworth replies to the complaint [B2/185]. The FO makes further statements in support of her complaint all signed with the witness warning on top.

In July and August suspicions in to the officer are forming as similar notes are found in confidential waste at Tiverton police station. [B2/103]

In August 2020 the officer is arrested and a search of her kit bag finds the notes CS/2 in her kit bag contained in exhibit bags. Further notes are found in the glove box of her car and in her notebook [B2/104].

She is interviewed and makes no admission of wrongdoing and exercises her right to silence.

JM, who was still on bail, is eliminated as a suspect.

On 17^th. February 2021 she is further interviewed under caution and gives a prepared statement which maintains her position as being a victim of crime.

At B1/371 para 6 she says:-

6.     I admit I have suffered with my mental health in the past but I can confirm that I have not made up any of these allegations or incidents. Not knowing who or why this person is leaving these notes or committing this damage to my property has seriously aggravated my mental health issues. In April 2020 I commenced EMDR treatment which was arranged by Occupational Health due to the anxiety/trauma caused after learning that [Name redacted] had been arrested. In addition, I received CBT from the same therapist to deal with the frustrations I felt due to the investigation, the way I had been treated by the investigating team and due to the content of the notes themselves. A formal complaint has been made to Professional Standards Department within Devon and Cornwall Police regarding my treatment throughout this investigation.

She has at no stage changed her position and has throughout maintained that it was she who was the victim of crime.

It is further said that in July she made a PNC check on a van its VRM and variations of the VRM. It was a white Ford van. There was no legitimate policing purpose for that search and it is clear that she did make that search.

The approach of the panel on the basis that the officer has maintained that she was truthful about the allegations of Harassment and Stalking is to consider the investigation carefully.

The panel have done so. We are of the view that the investigations in to the FO’s allegations and the investigations in to the FO’s actions has been thorough and painstaking. We are assisted by Inspector Davey at [B1/99-127]. We have taken in to consideration the former officers prepared statements, her further submissions on the 6^th March 2024 in order to, with an open mind, see if there is any credibility in what the former officer has said. The panel have not seen any credibility in the FO’s allegations nor any explanations given by the FO such as they were.

If we deal with the issues as outlined by the AA:-

The panel are of the view that there is clear evidence of dishonesty and fabrication of evidence by the officer.

1.     The officer makes eleven S.9 statements all of which has a witness warning that the contents are true and that prosecution may follow if the contents are not true.

It is clear that she knew that contents were not true because she knew she was not being stalked.  She knew through her experience that these allegations would be taken very seriously by the police. She knew her allegations were false. She knew that suspicion would fall upon her ex-partner JM and also AG. She knew it could and probably would lead to their arrest, detention and search of their homes. The panel are satisfied that the officer fabricated evidence and named suspects that she knew were not involved, obstructed the investigation and was responsible for wasting a great deal of police time investigating her allegation with an open mind and then investigating her lies.

Having named JM as a suspect she tried to add credibility to this by sending an email to DC Eyre raising concerns about JM [B2/202] she further raised queries about the investigation and further raised her suspicion that JM was her stalker. It was causing her anxiety. Again this is not true she knew she was not being stalked by JM.

She lied about the letters being put by her in the property store, CS/2. They were never there. They were in her kit bag. It would have set in motion, and clearly did, the understandable concern that evidence had gone missing. Further the suggestion that information had been leaked to the suspect was clearly false. She reported being followed by JM further fictitious information to throw blame on an innocent man.

She did try to hamper the investigation requesting that cameras be removed.

She cautions against the arrest of people from her past [B2/30].

She fails to handle notes properly to preserve forensic evidence.

After the police take control of her incoming mail she ceases to get suspicious mail. That is because she sent the letters in the first place.

The concealment of evidence CS/2 and the note and card thrown in to confidential waste as well as the notes in preparation or rejection found in her notebook and in her glove box demonstrates the extend of the lies and the planning involved.

The death of a child.

This is possibly the most sinister of the lies told. A sympathy card with two dates on it that she says relates to the death of her child and partner at the time.

This was discovered to be untrue. Neither child nor father ever existed let alone died. 3 officers searched for the existence of Rich Latham. Her own medical records did not show that she had given birth prior to October 1997 again a lie told to investigators. This allegation is proved.

We note the expert evidence which is of interest but does not assist us particularly in our examination of the evidence.

The panel note the huge resources used in the investigation. The investigation into the FO’s false allegations was extensive thorough, competent and capable. Further it was also supportive and caring as it should be when dealing with a person who was thought to be a victim of crime. It was also as competent and detailed in the investigation into the officers lies. The time spent and the resources used are detailed in the bundle. The panel consider that the officer was sufficiently experienced in the investigation process to know what was to be done and what had to be done when a further piece of evidence was “found”

The consequences to AG, having his house searched, JM a professional person being arrested and his employers being made aware he had been arrested. His statement demonstrates the level of hurt and upset caused by this lie[B1/230]. This was also caused to his partner as well.

RG also[B/174]

TP also [B/177]

21 officer and staff made statement relating to the FO’s false allegations. Inspector Pebworth even in a detailed letter dealt with the FO’s complaint into how her investigation was being handled. The resources used is outlined and the hours at [B1/128]

The FO has at no point accepted the fact of these lies and has always maintained that the allegations were true but has not gone on to expand on that in a Reg 30 reply or by giving evidence to the panel. Mental ill health is not raised to explain this behaviour and the consequential chaos that has been caused to so many people. The panel do accept the facts as presented by the AA and find them proved [B1/7]

Operational dishonesty

We do find operational dishonesty. It is clear that throughout this investigation the FO provided false information that had been fabricated and would inevitably throw the light of suspicion on innocent people known to her. She was familiar with the system of investigation. She was a Detective Constable. She used PNC with no policing purpose to enquire into a vehicle that she said may be involved in her fictitious allegations. The panel find clear evidence of operational dishonesty.

The email received on the 6^th March 2024. [?]

The panel received an email from the FO which is in the bundle at P[250-256]. In this document the FO further asserts that she has only recently had sight of the bundle. This was plainly untrue. The officer has had the means and opportunity to have access to the bundle and it appears has chosen not to. The Timeline[248-249] provided by the AA clearly shows that this assertion by the officer is incorrect. However the AA said that whilst they could object to the inclusion of this document as a Reg 30 reply to the allegations they did not do so. They are right to take this view.

The panel considered the document carefully. The officer in the document maintains her innocence, seeks to blame the investigators for the arrest and the suspicions of people from her past suggesting that she did not know that these things would happen. There was nothing in that document put forward that provided any evidence that reasonably change the conclusions of the panel. If anything it confirms the view of the panel as to the strength of the AA’s case and the lack of the officer to have any real remorse for the actions that she has taken.

Finding of the Panel

The allegations as set out in the Reg 30 notice [B1/7]. The AA summarised them:-

(a)            Between September 2019 and July 2020 Former Officer  made false reports of incidents of stalking and/or harassment.

(b)           Former Officer frustrated the investigation into her allegations.

(c)            Former Officer falsely claimed that she had suffered an infant bereavement.

(d)           Former Officer made an unauthorised PNC check on a vehicle with no legitimate policing purpose in mind.

(e)            Distress, alarm, inconvenience, embarrassment and ultimately loss of liberty to those who were suspected of stalking/harassing her.

(f)            Significant police resources to be wasted.

The panel finds these allegations proved to the appropriate standard.

The panel find that for the reason above the following standards of professional behaviour are proved.

Breaches of the Standards of professional conduct.

Honesty & Integrity.

The officer has acted dishonestly and therefore without integrity by lying and setting off an investigation that impacted on the lives of members of the public colleagues and the Police.

Authority, Respect & Courtesy.

The officer has with the knowledge of what is involved in an investigation created evidence, hampered the consequent investigation and shown no respect for those members of the public affected or colleagues tasked with the obligation to investigate her false allegations, or her own wrongdoing.

Confidentiality.

The former officer has accessed police systems for non-policing purposes.

Discreditable Conduct.

This is conduct that falls far below the standard that is reasonably expected by the public and is emphasised by the Police code of ethics.

All of the above breaches of SPB are also found proved.

We do find that these breaches individually and collectively amount to Gross misconduct. The panel have found Operational dishonesty proved. These breaches are so serious that dismissal would be justified.