Unnamed officer
Regulation 63 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020
Chair of the Proceedings
Acting Chief Constable 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, and by the verbal submissions provided to me during the course of the Hearing. I can also confirm that I have had the opportunity to review the officer’s service record prior to making my final decision. This case centres around the fact that it is now known, through admissions and significant supporting evidence, that on the 16th March 2023 Officer A cheated whilst taking his Sergeant’s on-line exam, by arranging for his wife to be available to assist him with answering the questions. This is despite the fact that Officer A signed a declaration before taking the exam that explicitly highlighted that he should not receive help from anybody else whilst taking the exam. It is also now known that the College of Policing, the body which administers this exam, rescinded Officer A’s pass with immediate effect on the 7th May 2024.
This admitted conduct is a very serious matter. At its heart sits dishonesty, as the nature of the conduct in question, essentially deliberate and blatant cheating, is clearly dishonest by its very nature and is entirely inconsistent with the expectation clearly held by the public in terms of how an officer should conduct themselves, on or off duty. Officer A’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. 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, Officer A has departed severely from such Standards, most notably in respect of Honesty and Integrity and Discreditable Conduct. In his attempt to undermine the integrity of the examination system, Officer A has been caught out and his dishonesty fully uncovered.. [sic]
I am very clear in my determination that such conduct is proven and amounts to Gross Misconduct as it is conduct of such a poor standard that it warrants consideration of dismissal.
- A breach of the Standard in respect of Honesty and Integrity – proven, amounting to gross misconduct.
- A breach of the Standard in respect of 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. Officer A acted deliberately and with some degree of forethought and planning. He is entirely to blame for his own actions. Such conduct by a serving officer will serve to significantly undermine public trust and confidence in policing and bring the policing profession into disrepute. Such conduct is entirely unacceptable. Any officer found to have acted with such dishonesty, on or off duty, should be viewed as carrying the highest level of culpability.
The extent of harm caused here must be considered. The issue of Police Honesty and Integrity has been rightly subject of much public scrutiny and debate over recent years. 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 Officer A has here. The public would rightly question policing’s ability to uphold the law within our local communities in such circumstances where an officer demonstrates such dishonesty. There is of course the associated risk of harm in that had Officer A not cheated, the evidence suggests he would have failed the exam. By association, by cheating, Officer A exposed the public to the risk of him becoming a Sergeant in the Service without holding the required level of legal and professional knowledge to operate effectively and indeed safely at that rank. As such, the harm caused by Officer A’s proven conduct to public trust and confidence in Devon and Cornwall Police is likely to be significant.
In terms of aggravating factors in this case there is evidence of premeditation, planning, targeting, or taking deliberate or predatory steps.
I can find no mitigating factors in this case that serve to lessen the seriousness of the conduct.
Having considered the above factors, I find the conduct of Officer A 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. Reduction is rank is not relevant here, given Officer A’s substantive rank as a constable.
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 Officer A’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 Officer A’s name to be added to the barred list.
STANDARDS BREACHED
Proven:
- Honesty & Integrity
- Discreditable Conduct
OUTCOME
Dismissal without notice, and to be added to the barred list.
Signature - Special Case Hearing Chair
J Colwell
Date: 27/11/2024