Misconduct panel finds Hertfordshire police officer committed sexual and threatening behaviour
The officer would have been dismissed but resigned prior to the hearing.
A misconduct panel has concluded that a Hertfordshire police officer referred to as Officer D committed gross misconduct by making inappropriate sexual comments, harassing colleagues, and threatening violence.
Officer D resigned before the hearing took place but the panel determined that his actions had breached multiple standards of professional behaviour and indicated he would have been dismissed if still serving.
Of the 28 allegations made against Officer D, 19 of them were found proven on the balance of probabilities, while nine were not proven.
The panel heard evidence detailing acts of harassment towards multiple female colleagues.
Officer D was found to have made remarks of a sexual nature to a colleague, Ms A, on several occasions. This included statements such as: “I’ll be your manager, have a shower with you after each game” and “I’ll make you the star player, and you can pay me back with sexual favours on and off the pitch.”
On another occasion, he said: “I have tried to get into your knickers before, I will keep on trying again even if you are unconscious."
He was also found to have pointed towards his groin and told Ms A: “Go on, touch it,” and to have made inappropriate comments about her breasts “on at least 10 occasions.”
The panel concluded that Officer D’s behaviour towards a second colleague, Ms B, amounted to sexual harassment, including shouting at her to move so he could look at another woman.
The report stated that Officer D’s actions showed a lack of "self-control, respect and courtesy" and that such sexual objectification of colleagues “discredited the police service and would undermine public confidence in the service.”
The misconduct panel also found that Officer D made threatening remarks, including telling another colleague, DC Brine, he could "punch her in the face" in a car and “get away with it.”
Further misconduct included joking about Ms A’s mental health struggles, altering her email signature to a mocking name following an incident at work, throwing car keys at her aggressively, and using discriminatory language about Ms B’s mobility.
The panel acknowledged that Officer D, who worked in the Joint Child Protection Investigation Team, had neurodiverse characteristics that may have been a partial factor in his behaviour. However, they concluded that the repeated nature of his actions diminished the weight of this as mitigation.
“The overall level of culpability is high. The level of harm was high. The actions were deliberate," the panel stated, noting there had been psychological harm to individuals affected and significant risk to public confidence in the police service.
The panel confirmed that Officer D would have been dismissed had he still been serving and will be placed on the College of Policing barred list. This means he cannot work in policing again.
The report highlighted concerns about the dysfunctional nature of Officer D’s workplace team but emphasised that this did not excuse his behaviour.