DC Stow hearing outcome

DEVON AND CORNWALL POLICE

Regulation 63 of The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020

Name: Bradley STOW

Number: 17308

Rank: Detective Constable

Chair of the Proceedings: Chief Constable Designate James Colwell

Location: D&C HQ Middlemoor, Exeter

FINDINGS

In the Chairing of this Accelerated Misconduct hearing I have been assisted by the provision of a full bundle laying out the case being made by the Appropriate Authority. DC Stow has been subject of an investigation into the following allegations:

1. Between the 8 January 2024 and 12 January 2024, DC Stow's communications with JD became inappropriate and inconsistent with the role of FLO, as evidenced by the text communications between DC Stow, using his force issued mobile phone, and JD.
2. The nature, extent and/or tone of these text communications was inappropriately personal, unprofessional, unnecessary in DC Stow's role as FLO and, on repeated occasions, included sexual innuendo and/or became flirtatious.
3. The text communications are sufficient to prove that DC Stow abused his position as a FLO and attempted to initiate an inappropriate relationship with a family member of a murder victim.
4. Further or alternatively, the messages are sufficient to prove that DC Stow allowed his role of FLO to extend far beyond what was appropriate and failed to draw appropriate boundaries and/or report the nature of the communications so as to allow an alternative FLO to be assigned.
5. Such conduct risked undermining the integrity of a murder investigation; risked harming a vulnerable person; and presents a risk of significant damage to the reputation of Devon and Cornwall Police and public confidence in policing.

DC Stow has submitted two Regulation 54 responses in respect of these allegations. For the purposes of these proceedings today, I have placed a greater weight in the second Regulation 54 response, given that it is clearly apparent to me that such a response is the product of more considered and meaningful legal advice and Federation support. As such, I am content it is a more accurate reflection of DC Stow's actual position on such important matters and therefore is of greater assistance to me in the discharge of my obligations here. In both responses, DC Stow does not dispute the events of the case, as laid out by the AA. In his second response however he does dispute certain key elements, namely that his conduct was never motivated by a desire to establish an inappropriate, sexual relationship with JD, that he believed his conduct was necessary to build and maintain a level of rapport with JD, that he believes his conduct went beyond, but not far beyond, what was appropriate in the circumstances and that finally whilst he accepts that JD was vulnerable at the time, he at no point sought to exploit such vulnerability for any purpose.

During the proceedings today, the AA has been clear that it is not their assertion that DC Stow conducted himself in this manner, intending to engage in a sexual relationship with JD.

As a result, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that DC Stow did misconduct himself in the manner admitted, given the evidence put forward by the AA and DC Stow's clear acceptance of such elements.

The above proven conduct is a serious matter. The AA is right to highlight the potential impact such conduct could have on public trust and confidence in policing. It is also a clear breach of a number of the standards or professional behaviour, namely Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Duties and Responsibilities and Discreditable Conduct. I accept such admitted conduct is also contrary to the Integrity element of the Honesty and Integrity professional standard. To be clear, though there is no suggestion or acceptance of any dishonesty here on behalf of DC Stow. Such conduct does also serve to potentially undermine the police's ability to keep people safe if such professional boundaries are not maintained.

DC Stow submits that his conduct occurred at a time of very high workload, both in terms of his day job as a detective and his simultaneous deployment as an FLO in a number of other investigations. This is supported by the evidence provided by DS Cartwright. DC Stow further submits that he had had no formal training in the role of an FLO since 2003 and his training records would tend to confirm that. Whilst the AA have been able to provide limited evidence of a bespoke strategy being agreed for the deployment of DC Stow as an FLO in this investigation, this strategy makes no mention of DC Stow supporting JD explicitly, and I have seen no evidence of any meaningful risk assessment processes being carried specifically in relation to DC Stow's deployment in this case. Accepted best practice dictates that such risk assessments should have ben [sic] in place for such a deployment.

DC Stow also highlights that such conduct occurred during a period of significant personal stress for him, resulting from some inadequate building work being carried out on his family home. DC Stow has submitted that such stress, combined with high workload pressures at work, may have affected his judgement and decision making in these circumstances. His representatives have submitted elements of his medical history in support of such submissions.

I note that the admitted conduct occurred in one episode, stretching over 5 days. This must be set against the backdrop of an exemplary 29-year career in policing, including 21 years as an FLO.

I also note that at no point has DC Stow sought to hide or conceal his conduct. DC Stow also claims to have realised the error of his ways before being challenged and describes taking steps to address the issue on his own accord.

I note further that there is no complaint or allegation of wrongdoing on behalf of DC Stow from JD.

By way of complete transparency I must record that I have been provided with the Notice of Outcome of Public Hearing in the case of the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police and PC JM (2023). Whilst clearly not serving as any kind of legal precedent or guidance, it is important to state that I have noted the contents of the outcome of that case whilst considering the merits of this case.

Having noted the above I must consider whether or not the allegations represent misconduct or gross misconduct. In the is [sic] case, there is no evidence of DC Stow seeking to establish an inappropriate sexual relationship with JD. The conduct occurred over a reasonably short period of time (5 days) and was contained within one isolated period. I am minded to accept DC Stow's submission that he, albeit not quickly enough, recognised that the relationship had crossed a boundary and that he took some limited steps to address that issue. The fact that at no stage did he attempt to conceal his conduct is also of relevance. The absence of regular, structured training for DC Stow in his role as FLO does serve to weaken the AA's case. Such regular training would have no doubt served to remind officers operating in such roles of the expectations of them, and the boundaries that they need to keep with members of the public. I am also concerned about the absence of any meaningful risk assessment process surrounding the specific decision to deploy DC Stow as an FLO to JD in these circumstances. Such a risk assessment process, if properly carried out, may have identified mitigating steps to be taken to avoid such conduct from occurring.

Taking all these factors into account, I do find that misconduct is made out but is do not conclude that the conduct of DC Stow in these circumstances amounts to Gross misconduct as I do not believe that such conduct, in these circumstances, warrants dismissal.

OUTCOME

Given that these proceedings are an Accelerated Misconduct Hearing and I have not found that gross misconduct is made out, my only option is to refer the matter back to the Appropriate Authority for them to be dealt with under Part 4 of the Regulations.

Signature - Special Case Hearing Chair

1. Colwell

DATE: 11/10/2024