Former PC Smith

Name

Number

Rank

Sam Smith

17284

Former Police Constable

Chair of the Proceedings

Location

Acting Chief Constable James Colwell

D&C HQ Middlemoor, Exeter

In the chairing of this Accelerated Misconduct Hearing I have been assisted by the provision of a full bundle, which lays out the case being made by the Appropriate Authority, and by the verbal submissions provided to me during the course of the Hearing. That case centres around the fact that on Thursday 30^th November 2023, PC Smith, a serving police officer at the time of such offences, pleaded guilty to eight counts of Fraud by False Representation at Exeter Crown Court. Former Constable Smith was subsequently sentenced to a 20-month custodial sentence which he is currently serving. Former Constable Smith had previously resigned from the police service, with effect in August 2023, and therefore for the purposes of these proceedings, will be treated as a former officer.

This conviction is a very serious matter. Fraud, by its very nature, is an offence of dishonesty and is inconsistent with the expectation clearly held by the public in terms of how an officer should conduct themselves, on or off duty. I am very clear, based on the evidence I have seen, that Former Constable Smith commenced a course of conduct whilst on duty, using his position of trust to deceive a vulnerable member of the public. He then went on to commit further conduct whilst off duty, but exploiting such trust, and therefore in my eyes all such conduct should be considered together, whether on or off duty. Former PC Smith’s conduct here does nothing to engender public trust and confidence in the office of constable, in fact, it serves to significantly undermine such trust and confidence at a time when both locally and nationally the credibility of the British policing model is being severely tested. The public should quite rightly expect police officers to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the Standards of Professional Behaviour and in this case, Former PC Smith has departed severely from such Standards, most notably in respect of Honesty and Integrity and Discreditable Conduct. Former Constable Smith admitted such conduct at Court and has been convicted in relation to that conduct and his conviction brings further discredit to the Force, thereby significantly undermining public trust and confidence in the Force locally, and policing as a whole.

I am very clear in my determination that such conduct amounts to Gross Misconduct as it is conduct of such a poor standard that it warrants consideration of dismissal.

1.     Breaches of the Standards in respect of Honesty and Integrity and Discreditable Conduct – proven, amounting to Gross Misconduct

Having made a finding of Gross Misconduct I must now consider the most appropriate outcome. I am assisted in that by the Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings, published by the College of Policing in 2023.

That guidance makes it clear that I should apply three stages to my decision-making process in relation to Outcome, or Sanction. Firstly, I must assess the seriousness of the misconduct. Secondly I should consider the purpose of imposing such sanctions and then finally I should choose the sanction that most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.

Assessing the Seriousness of the Misconduct:

Firstly the issue of the extent of the Officer’s culpability in these matters. Former Constable Smith has broken the law and in a manner that is very concerning. The conviction for multiple offences of Fraud by a serving police officer will serve to significantly undermine public trust and confidence in policing. Such convictions do, inevitably, bring the policing profession into disrepute. Such conduct is entirely unacceptable. One of the most concerning factors of this case, is the extent of the vulnerability of the victim targeted by Former Constable Smith. Here the victim was vulnerable due to age, physical disability and mental ill health. The victim was also isolated from other means of support and as such, had very limited ability to protect themselves from such conduct. Any officer found to have misconducted themselves in such a manner, with such dishonest intent having abused the position of trust they hold in society, should be viewed as carrying the highest level of culpability.

The extent of harm caused here must be considered. Police dishonesty, set alongside the deliberate abuse of a position of trust allowing the targeted exploitation of a vulnerable victim are all factors that serve to undermine public trust and confidence in policing. Set within such a context, the public would find it totally incongruent with the office of constable for an officer to conduct themselves in the manner that Former Constable Smith has here. The public would rightly question policing’s ability to keep them safe in such circumstances where an officer chooses to break the law themselves. As such, the harm caused by Former Constable Smith’s convictions to public trust and confidence in Devon and Cornwall Police is likely to be extremely significant.

I find that there are a number of aggravating factors in the case. Those factors being evidence of:

·       Premeditation, planning, targeting or taking deliberate or predatory steps

·       Malign intent, such as for financial gain

·       Abuse of trust, position or authority

·       Regular, repeated or sustained behaviour over a period of time

·       Continuing the behaviour after the officer realised, or should have realised, that is was improper

·       Vulnerability of the victim

·       The scale or depth of local or national concern about a particular issue

I note the guilty plea at Court and the associated basis of such a plea entered by Former Constable Smith. These elements provide the only shred of mitigation in this case and must be balanced against his failure to admit such conduct during interview and his complete failure to engage in these misconduct proceedings in any meaningful way and admit his conduct.

Having considered the above factors, I find the conduct of Former Constable Smith to be of the most serious in nature.

The purpose of imposing such sanctions:

Having come to a finding of Gross Misconduct I have considered the sanctions that are available to me which, given that the officer has already resigned, amount simply to recording that the officer would have been dismissed without notice had he still been serving. As the guidance clearly states, the most important purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions is to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the policing profession as a whole. My clear view is that, for the public to have confidence in policing locally, they would expect the organisation to treat such conduct as has been proven here with the utmost seriousness and robustness.

Dismissal without notice would best serve the needs of the public in terms of their ability to have confidence in their police officers. This option also serves to best protect the reputation of the policing profession as a whole as it clearly demonstrates that such behaviour is totally unacceptable to the service.

In closing, I am clear on my responsibility as Chair of these proceedings. It is my duty to act in accordance with the relevant guidance and do everything I can to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the policing profession as a whole. I conclude that in former Constable Smith’s case, recording that he would have been dismissed without notice had he still been serving is the most appropriate sanction as it most closely aligns with that duty and purpose. As such, had he still been a serving officer before me today, that is the outcome he would have received.

Outcome: Dismissal without notice and for Former Constable Smith’s name to be added to the barred list..

J. Colwell

DATE: 07.03.24