PC Simon Mitchell

Regulation 63 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020

PC Simon Mitchell

Chair of the Proceedings – Acting Chief Constable James Colwell

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, 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 12 September 2024, PC Mitchell was convicted of assault of a female, aged 13 and over, by penetration with part of a body or thing at Bristol Crown Court. PC Mitchell was subsequently sentenced to 36 months imprisonment, and lifetime registration on the sex offender’s register.

This conviction is a very serious matter. Violence against women and girls is quite rightly highlighted as a serious societal issue and a sexual assault on a female of this nature is entirely inconsistent with the expectation clearly held by the public in terms of how an officer should conduct themselves, on or off duty. PC Mitchell’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, PC Mitchell has departed severely from such Standards, most notably in respect of Discreditable Conduct but also Honesty and Integrity and Authority, Respect and Courtesy. PC Mitchell has been convicted by a jury of his peers 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. A breach of the Standard in respect of Discreditable Conduct – proven, amounting to gross misconduct.
2. A breach of the Standard in respect of Honesty and Integrity – proven, amounting to gross misconduct.
3. A breach of the Standard in respect of Authority, Respect and Courtesy – 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. PC Mitchell has broken the law and in a manner that is very concerning. The conviction for a serious sexual assault by a serving officer will serve to significantly undermine public trust and confidence in policing. Such a conviction does, inevitably, bring the policing profession into disrepute. Such conduct is entirely unacceptable. Any officer found to have perpetrated violence against a woman or a girl, on or off duty, should be viewed as carrying the highest level of culpability.

The extent of harm caused here must be considered. Firstly, the specific harm to the victim in this case. I have read the impact statement provided by the victim, which contains evidence of the extent of the harm caused by the conduct of this officer, which is detailed in the form of physical, psychological and indeed financial harm by the victim herself. It is clear the extent of this harm is both significant and enduring.

Police perpetrated violence against women and girls is subject of significant levels of public scrutiny and concern currently. 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 PC Mitchell 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 PC Mitchell’s conviction to public trust and confidence in Devon and Cornwall Police is likely to be extremely significant.

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

• Premeditation, planning, targeting or taking deliberate of predatory steps
• Malign intent, such as sexual gratification
• A form of violence against women and girls, whether on or off duty
• The scale or depth of local or national concern about a particular issue
• Serious psychological impact on the victim
• The potential vulnerability of the victim at the time

I can find no mitigating factors in this case.

Having considered the above factors, I find the conduct of PC Mitchell 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 amount to a final written warning, a reduction in rank or dismissal without notice.

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 PC Mitchell’s case, dismissal without notice is the most appropriate sanction as it most closely aligns with that duty and purpose.

Outcome:

Dismissal without notice and for PC Mitchell’s name to be added to the barred list.

STANDARDS BREACHED

Proven:

1. Discreditable Conduct
2. Honesty & Integrity
3. Authority, Respect & Courtesy

OUTCOME

Dismissal without notice, and to be added to the barred list.

 Signature - Special Case Hearing Chair

1. Colwell

DATE: 07/11/2024