THE shockingly bad behaviour of a policeman was kept hidden under a cloak of secrecy by a disciplinary panel which heard how he took advantage of a suicidal woman colleague.

Despite being advertised as a "public misconduct hearing" reams of evidence against the disgraced officer - who was supposed to be giving support to the vulnerable policewoman - were deliberately kept secret from the public.

The independent panel was hearing evidence of "sexual and flirtatious" messages sent by the officer to the woman after she tried to kill herself.

-

Things the panel refused to tell the public:

  • Name of policeman who took advantage of suicidal colleague 
  • Where the policeman was based in the Thames Valley 
  • Specific details about what he had done 
  • Details of how his actions affected Officer B's public service - despite both of them being public servants paid for the public 

-

However the chairman of the hearing, Harry Ireland, refused to allow the police officer on trial to be named in public and refused applications by the Press to say where he was based. The policewoman involved was entitled to have anonymity because of the sexual allegations.

When it came to hearing evidence of what "Officer A" - who was in a role of responsibility to colleagues as an official of the Police Staff Association - had done, pages and pages of statements were kept secret with the chairman refusing to allow them to be read aloud or for copies to be provided to the Press present.

Multiple applications from the Press to have more details released about Officer A's conduct and how it affected Officer B's public service, were refused despite them both being public servants paid for by the public.

Protestations that the misconduct trial was supposed to be heard in public, were met with a blank response from the panel.

What was revealed was that "Officer A" asked the policewoman victim (Officer B) to download an encrypted app named "Signal" which he later used to send her sexual and flirty messages.

These included a photo of him in the bath, a picture of the Star Wars character Chewbacca wearing a bikini, with the message addressed to the policewoman asking "Are you hairy all over?"  The senior officer also suggested she walk naked around her home and in front of mirrors so he could see nude photos of her.

Both officers were employed by Thames Valley Police, which covers Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire but the accused had quit the force after the allegations against him were investigated. His victim has also left the force.

The hearing at police headquarters in Kidlington was told that the accused, described as Officer A to hide his identity, had been put in contact with the policewoman as part of his role as a Police Staff Association support official, following her attempted suicide on February 17 this year.

Officer A had set out to help the woman - described as "Officer B" to protect her identity - and provided help in dealing with her superior officers and managing her health issues.

However, investigators revealed that after the woman experienced a crisis on March 16, the support messages quickly changed in tone and became flirtatious and sexual.

Charles Apthorp, who gave details of the Thames Valley Police Professional Standards investigation into Officer A's conduct, told the hearing: "Officer A knew, or ought to have known that Officer B was vulnerable."

Mr Apthorp explained that on March 21, Officer A sent the woman an invitation to download the Signal app, an encrypted messaging service that allows users to have their messages automatically deleted after 30 seconds or one minute.

The tribunal heard that Officer A then used the app to send sexual and flirtatious messages, which Officer B had not welcomed. One image showed Officer A's feet while he was in the bath.

Mr Apthorp detailed some of the other messages, saying: "Officer A commented on a photo Officer B had sent saying that the computer screen was reflective and that she was not wearing very much.

"He also dared her to run around her house naked and show mirrors to the camera as she did so. He also made suggestions that she was hairy all over.

"He then sent her an image of Chewbacca in a bikini. During a conversation about a tattoo,  Officer B sent an image with her hand covering her intimate area. Officer A asked whether her hand 'was glued there or something'.

"If the allegations are found proven it amounts to gross misconduct so serious that had Officer A still been a serving officer, dismissal was justified," said Mr Apthorp.

The three-person misconduct panel, chaired by Mr Ireland accompanied by Susan Wilkins and Superintendent Lee Barnham, heard evidence from an independent support worker that Officer A had been "clutching at straws" with the defence of his case. He admitted misconduct but denied it was gross misconduct.

They also heard evidence from a tearful Officer B, who told the panel that she "found re-reading her statement very distressing."

She also confirmed that Officer A, who had been a policeman for 12 years and had taken on his voluntary welfare position four years previously, had asked her to install the Signal app "out of the blue."

She admitted that the officer had helped her with some performance issues she was experiencing at work, as well as her mental health and some administrative problems with her pension contributions.

Multiple applications from the Press to have more details released about Officer A's conduct and how it affected Officer B's public service, were refused despite them both being public servants paid for by the public.

Closing the hearing, Mr Apthorp said: "Without doubt, Officer B was helped in some areas by Officer A. That does not in itself mean that the issues of which Officer B complained, did not occur.

"Being helpful in one's role in a staff association does not excuse this behaviour. The good does not outweigh the bad, the offences here were very bad.

"Officer A was in a position to exploit Officer B and his use of Signal was not at her request and out of character in working for a staff association."

Inspector Pete Foy, who was representing Officer A in his absence during the hearing, told the panel: "The Signal app was in use for a year prior to these incidents, it was intended to be able to deal with things privately.

"Officer A asks why, if she was so aghast, did Officer B send him these images. He did not ask for any images.

"Officer A was trying to gain her trust and was using humour and picking up on her language to try to build a rapport. He had used these techniques for nearly four years in his voluntary support roles."

Insp. Foy added that while Officer A accepted that his behaviour was misconduct, he denied it was gross misconduct.

After a lengthy deliberation, the panel ruled that Officer A's conduct had been gross misconduct and a breach of the police's standards of behaviour for their officers.

Mr Ireland concluded that had Officer A still been a serving officer with Thames Valley Police he would have been dismissed. His name was put onto the police barred list, meaning he will never again be able to work as a police officer.

 

* An earlier version of this article said 'Things the police refused to tell the public'. This has been amended to 'Things the panel refused to tell the public'. We are happy to make this clear.