Disciplinary hearing finds that former Sussex Police officer engaged in inappropriate manner with female colleagues

A former officer has had gross misconduct allegations proven against them at a disciplinary hearing after a panel found they had acted in an inappropriate manner with female colleagues which amounted to misogynistic conduct and harassment of women, Sussex Police have said.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

A misconduct hearing was held at Sussex Police headquarters on April 27 in front of a panel led by an Independent Legally Qualified Chair (LQC), who directed that the officer would remain anonymous.

LQCs are selected from a list of independent, legally-qualified persons to conduct police misconduct hearings, and are governed by Police Conduct Regulations. LQCs work with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and others to instil and embed as much transparency and proportionality into misconduct hearings.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The former officer, referred to as Officer X, was granted anonymity by the LQC after making legal representations before the hearing. It is the responsibility of the LQC alone to determine whether or not a hearing is partially or wholly held in public or in private, and whether any participant should be anonymised. Sussex Police are directed by and must abide by rulings made by the panel chair.

A former officer has had gross misconduct allegations proven against them at a disciplinary hearing after a panel found they had acted in an inappropriate manner with female colleagues which amounted to misogynistic conduct and harassment of women, Sussex Police have said.A former officer has had gross misconduct allegations proven against them at a disciplinary hearing after a panel found they had acted in an inappropriate manner with female colleagues which amounted to misogynistic conduct and harassment of women, Sussex Police have said.
A former officer has had gross misconduct allegations proven against them at a disciplinary hearing after a panel found they had acted in an inappropriate manner with female colleagues which amounted to misogynistic conduct and harassment of women, Sussex Police have said.

Sussex Police said that the hearing heard that the former officer, 37, who was based on East Sussex division, was accused of two allegations of sexual touching and one count of voyeurism. This occurred when they were off duty in 2018 and 2019 and the victims were known to the former officer.

A criminal investigation was carried out and they were arrested and later charged with the offences. Following a trial in May 2021, they were found not guilty, police said.

Sussex Police said that the former officer who was suspended later resigned in November 2021. The force’s Professional Standards Department then progressed a misconduct investigation and referred the matter to a hearing in line with its robust stance on rooting out misconduct in order to maintain high standards and deliver an outstanding service to the public.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

As a result, the former officer was alleged to have breached standards of professional behaviour in respect of authority, respect and courtesy and discreditable conduct, Sussex Police said.

The breaches were proven by the misconduct panel and it was determined that this amounted to gross misconduct. Former Officer X would have been dismissed without notice, had they not already resigned from the force. The ex-officer will now be added to the College of Policing Barred list which will prevent a return to policing, police said.

Superintendent Petra Lazar, deputy head of Professional Standards said: “We expect our officers to act with the utmost integrity, and in accordance with the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Professional Behaviour, and we have invested in a comprehensive programme of cultural change towards challenging, reporting and tackling unethical or unprofessional behaviour. Criminal behaviour, misconduct, and misogyny have no place in Sussex Police.

“The actions of this officer in this case fell far short of the standards we expect, which is reflected in the findings by the panel.”