Police pair disciplined for sexual activity on duty

ONE SACKED AND OTHER GETS FINAL WARNING

A POLICE officer has been sacked and another given a final warning after they were found to have undertaken “sexual activity” with each other while on duty.

The officers were hauled before a private Derbyshire police misconduct hearing last month to explain their actions.

The hearing, which took place between January 25 and February 5, heard both officers, who were referred to as Officer A and Officer B, were alleged to have breached standards for professional behaviour.

The chair of the hearing, Mr Geoff Payne, heard representations from parties involved in the case and decided to hold it behind closed doors - meaning the Derby Telegraph is unable to report the names of the officers involved or details of their misconduct.

In a public notice of the outcome, it alleges that Officer A “engaged in sexual activity whilst on duty and had sent indecent and inappropriate images/ messages”.

Meanwhile, Officer B was alleged to have “engaged in sexual activity whilst on and off duty (with an on-duty officer).”

In doing so the pair were alleged to have breached the “authority, respect and courtesy”, discreditable conduct” and “duties and responsibilities” clauses of the standards of professional behaviour, contrary to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012.

Officer A denied their conduct amounted to gross misconduct, while Officer B accepted the allegations.

A misconduct panel dismissed Officer A without notice after finding a number of allegations were proven and that their conduct did amount to gross misconduct.

The panel found Officer B’s behaviour amounted to a combination of misconduct and gross misconduct. They were given a final written warning valid for 18 months.

A spokesperson for Derbyshire police said: “Gross misconduct hearings may be held in private if an application is made to the independent legally qualified chair of the panel by parties involved in the case.

“If the chair grants their request, the hearing will be held in private and the public may not attend.

“In this particular case, once the hearing had concluded, the chair decided that a public notice could be issued to publicise the outcome but, having heard representations from the parties concerned, he determined that the officers should remain anonymous.”