Misconduct hearing outcome for former officer A

The hearing took place on August 25 at Peterlee Police Station.

View the full findings below.

Panel’s Report

The Chair imposed a reporting restriction in this case, prohibiting the publication of any information that might lead directly or indirectly to the identification of the former officer concerned, referred to in this report as ‘Former Officer A’; or his former partner, referred to as ‘Ms A’. That order was made to protect Ms A’s anonymity and is made without limit of time.

Panel:

Assistant Chief Constable Jon McAdam (Chair)
Ken Battye (Independent Panel Member)
Sue Woodall (Independent Panel Member)

Introduction:

1. The misconduct hearing for Former Officer A was held on 26 August 2026 at Peterlee Police Station. At the outset of the hearing the Chair of the panel determined that Former Officer A would not be named in any press notice. In relation to Ms A, the Chair considered that information specifically identifying her during the hearing would also be inappropriate. Consequently, a restricted Notice of the Hearing, in accordance with the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 was published ahead of the hearing.

2. The position of anonymity for both Former Officer A and Ms A was further reviewed at the commencement of the hearing. The Chair determined that the restrictions in respect of both Former Officer A and Ms A would remain in place.

The Allegations:

3. It was alleged that Former Officer A had behaved as particularised below:

Allegation 1

From around September 2020 to September 2024 inclusive, you were, or had been, in an intimate personal relationship with Ms A and you were thereby personally connected to her.

Allegation 2
On diverse dates in the weeks prior to 22 September 2024, you engaged in violent, threatening and other abusive behaviour towards Ms A in that you:
(1) Slammed Ms A’s head onto a wall.
(2) Caused injury and bruising to Ms A’s eye.
(3) Caused injury and bruising to Ms A’s chest.
(4) Caused damage to the wall of the home you shared with Ms A.

Allegation 3
On 22 September 2024 you engaged in violent, threatening and other abusive behaviour towards Ms A in that you:
(1) Hit Ms A in the face causing injury and bruising to the side of her face.
(2) Banged Ms A’s head against a door on one or more occasions.
(3) Pinned Ms A to the floor.
(4) Caused injury and bruising to Ms A’s hand.

Allegation 4
By your actions particularised above you:
(1) Assaulted Ms A; and
(2) Subjected Ms A to domestic abuse.

4. It was further alleged that Former Officer A’s actions breached the Standard of Professional Behaviour of Discreditable Conduct and that as a result, if proved, Former Officer A’s conduct individually and cumulatively was so serious as to justify dismissal for gross misconduct.

Representation

5. The Appropriate Authority (“the AA”) was represented by Oliver Williamson of Counsel. Former Officer A was represented by his Police Federation representative, Phil Stephenson.

6. The panel would like to thank the representatives for their assistance throughout the case.

7. The Panel was assisted by James Stables, Legally Qualified Adviser.

Preliminary Matters

8. At the outset of the hearing Mr Stephenson confirmed that Former Officer A was aware that the hearing was taking place. The panel were informed that Former Officer A had resigned from Durham Police earlier in the year and had chosen not to attend. Mr Stephenson confirmed that Former Officer A’s position remained as outlined in his Regulation 18 response dated 28 May 2025. He denied having ever assaulted Ms A.

9. Through his federation representative Former Officer A accepted that from around September 2020 to September 2024 he was in an intimate personal relationship with Ms A. As such, Allegation 1 (as outlined above) was admitted and found proven. Allegations 2 to 4 (above) were denied.

10. The Hearing Bundle provided to the panel comprised 226 pages and included text messages and images passing between Ms A and her brother and Ms A and Former Officer A. The Hearing Bundle also comprised MG 11 Statements from Ms A’s brother and the police officers who attended Ms A’s house on the night of 22 September 2024. It was agreed by the parties at the outset of the hearing that the content of the text messages and communications passing between both Ms A and her brother and Ms A and Former Officer A were not in dispute. The only matter in dispute was which of the communications made by Ms A (if any) were true. In short, whether Ms A was telling the truth when she told her brother she had been assaulted by Former Officer A on 22 September 2024 and on dates prior to that or whether that was a lie.

11. In addition to the Hearing Bundle the panel received evidence in the form of the Body Worn Video of two of the officers who attended Ms A’s home on 22 September 2024.

AA and Defence Submissions

12. The AA’s case in summary was that Former Officer A had assaulted Ms A on and before September 2024 and that was evidenced by the Body Worn Video footage, the account provided by Ms A to her brother verbally over the phone on 22 September 2024 (and before) and by text and images passing between Ms A and her brother and Ms A and Former Officer A. The AA submitted that the alternative account Ms A provided to the police for her injuries, which amounted to having tripped over suitcases, was a lie intended to protect Former Officer A from getting into trouble.

13. The panel acknowledged that Former Officer A denied having assaulted Ms A on 22 September 2024 or at all. The panel were mindful at all times of the burden of proof being on the AA alone.

Panel Discussion of Evidence and Findings of Fact

14. The panel approached their deliberation on the evidence presented by first considering Allegation 3. Namely whether on 22 September 2024 it was more likely than not that the former officer engaged in violent, threatening and other abusive behaviour towards Ms A.

15. The panel were unanimous in their view that Ms A was assaulted by the former officer on 22 September 2024 and that the version of events she provided to her brother was the truth. In reaching that conclusion the panel placed significant weight on the corroborating evidence available to them.

16. The panel were particularly struck by the body worn video footage worn by the police officers attending at Ms A’s house on 22 September 2024. There was no query from Ms A as to why the officers were there. Ms A was not surprised to see the police. In response to questioning on how she ended up with a mark on her face and a mark on her hand Ms A said ‘I don’t want to say anything - I don’t want him to get into trouble. I love him to pieces and I don’t want to get him into trouble. He will lose his job and I don’t want him to get into trouble’. If Ms A had tripped over suitcases the panel were of the view that Ms A would have immediately reported that to the police.

17. The panel noted that Ms A only offered the explanation in relation to tripping over suitcases after some minutes of questioning by the police and in the panel’s view that amounted to evidence that she was processing the situation she faced and, as a consequence of questioning by the police, felt it necessary to invent an explanation in an attempt to protect the former officer from getting into trouble with the police.

18. When put to her by a police officer that she told her brother she had been assaulted, the panel noted Ms A did not deny it. Instead, Ms A continued to say that she did not want to get Former Officer A into trouble. The attending police officer asked Ms A on multiple occasions if Former Officer A caused her evident injuries. In response Ms A continued to repeat that she didn’t want to get the former officer into trouble and references not wanting him to lose his job. The panel were of the view that were there an innocent explanation, Ms A would have had no cause to be concerned for the officer. In the panel’s view, Ms A’s concern for Former Officer A corroborated the assault as reported to her brother and as summarised in the Allegations before the panel.

19. When the attending police officers identified and referenced the bruising on Ms A’s face and hand and their suspicion it was caused by Former Officer A, Ms A does not react angrily. She offers the suitcase explanation again but almost apologetically and without conviction. Again, in the panel’s opinion this corroborated the assault as reported to her brother as the truth.

20. When Ms A says at one point that she doesn’t want Former Officer A to be arrested and the police officer responds to say he would have to be arrested as, (notwithstanding what Ms A has said), the police officer believed Former Officer A caused her injuries, at no point is Ms A outraged, she is accepting of it.

21. When asked for an explanation for why her brother phoned 999 Ms A could only say that he must have panicked when she told him about her and Former Officer A having a disagreement. The panel considered it implausible that Ms A’s brother would panic to the extent of calling 999 simply because of being told about a disagreement between his sister and the man she had been in a relationship with for 4 years.

22. When a police officer, in response to Ms A saying she doesn’t want to be obstructive, says that in her opinion she is not being obstructive, she just fears the consequence of being truthful because of the potential consequences for the former officer, Ms A does not deny that. The Panel were struck by how accepting Ms A was of that statement and subsequently how accepting she was when told that Former Officer A would be arrested. Ms A was only concerned with whether she could speak to Former Officer A, to make sure he was OK. She repeatedly says ‘ I do not want him arrested’. ‘I don’t want to stop him from coming home’. In short, Ms A was only concerned with protecting the former officer. The panel considered that explained Ms A’s inconsistent statements. Her statements to her brother were the truth, her statements to the police were invented to protect Former Officer A from getting into trouble with the police.

23. The panel considered the text messages and photographs passing between Ms A and Former Officer A and Ms A and her brother as corroborative of the assault having occurred.

24. As regards Former Officer A, the panel determined that his own reaction on arrest was corroborative of an assault having occurred. His lack of explanation and concern on arrest for both the situation he faced and for his partner was, in the panel’s opinion, indicative of the fact that there was no innocent explanation or alternative explanation to the case advanced by the AA.

25. The panel found Allegation 3 proven.

26. Given their conclusion in relation to Allegation 3 the panel determined there was no reason to doubt the credibility of what Ms A had previously told her brother. That was corroborated further by the text messages and images passing between Ms A and Former Officer A. The panel found Allegation 2 proven on that basis.

27. Because of their finding of fact in relation to Allegations 2 and 3 the panel found Allegation 4 proven.

Standards of Professional Behaviour and Assessment of Seriousness

28. Given their findings of fact the panel went on to consider the standard of behaviour alleged; namely Discreditable Conduct. The panel determined that the facts found proven clearly amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

29. In assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, the panel had regard to the College of Policing’s Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings (2022) and assessed Former Officer A’s conduct by reference to four factors; culpability, harm, aggravation and mitigation.

30. Culpability. The panel determined that there was a high degree of culpability in this case. Former Officer A was wholly blameworthy for his actions, which involved serious violence against a woman who was entitled to be regarded as vulnerable.

31. Harm . The panel determined that there was a high degree of harm in this case given the physical injuries sustained by Ms A, the on-going damage to her health, the psychological distress and degrading treatment she suffered. The panel also had regard to the associated reputational harm to the police service arising out of a police officer being found to have assaulted a member of the public he is trusted to protect.

32. Aggravating factors – The panel determined that there were aggravating factors in this case. Namely, the vulnerability of the victim, violence against women and the repeated behaviour.

33. Mitigation. The panel determined there were no mitigating circumstances in this case. Former Officer A has shown no remorse, there is no evidence of mental ill health to explain his behaviour and even if the panel were to accept that Former Officer A and Ms A were in a toxic relationship that would in no way serve to mitigate the proven behaviour.

34. As such the panel determined that the conduct found proven amounted to gross misconduct.

Outcome

35. As this case concerned a former officer who had been found proven to have engaged in gross misconduct the panel went on to consider outcome. The AA submitted for an outcome to be recorded that if Former Officer A was still serving he would have been dismissed. Mr Stephenson confirmed that he had no representations to make on behalf of Former Officer A.

36. In reaching its decision on outcome the panel reminded itself of the importance of maintaining trust and confidence in the service and how the actions carried out by Former Officer A would be viewed by the public as well as the service. It is a requirement for police officers to uphold the highest standards, both on and off duty, and to ensure that the police are keeping people safe from harm and protecting vulnerable people. The panel had sight of, and gave due consideration to, Former Officer A’s service history in reaching its decision. No character evidence was provided.

37. The panel determined that had Former Officer A still been serving he would have been dismissed. Accordingly, the panel gave a direction that Former Officer A’s name be placed on the College of Policing barred list.