A police officer who sent flirtatious text messages to a vulnerable woman just hours after pulling her over has been sacked after his chief constable rejected his claim that he was simply concerned for her welfare.
PC Christopher Bonney, of South Wales Police, used his work mobile phone to exchange increasingly personal messages with the woman before giving her his private number so they could continue talking away from official police channels.
The officer knew the woman had been identified on police systems as vulnerable, with warning markers for self-harm, violence, suicide and mental health.
But despite admitting his communications were inappropriate, Bonney insisted he had no intention of developing a relationship with her and claimed he had initially contacted her because she was upset following the traffic stop.
Chief Constable Jeremy Vaughan rejected that explanation, concluding that the officer had wanted to pursue a personal or emotional relationship with the woman.
In a damning assessment, he told Bonney: “You have not been charged today with a breach of the standards of honesty and integrity, but it is my view you have been less than honest with this hearing and indeed yourself.”
Bonney was dismissed without notice following an accelerated misconduct hearing on September 7, 2026.
Flirtatious messages after traffic stop
The case began on February 1, 2026, when Bonney carried out a Police National Computer check on a vehicle at 4.36pm.
The car was registered to a woman referred to during proceedings as Ms A, who was driving alone when the officer stopped her.
Later that day, Bonney searched for the woman on the force’s Niche computer system, examining her profile, previous occurrences and photograph.
The checks revealed that she was considered vulnerable and had warning markers relating to self-harm, violence, suicide and mental health.
Despite knowing this information, Bonney subsequently contacted her using his police-issued mobile phone.
Between 6.34pm and 9.39pm, the pair exchanged a series of text messages which the force described as becoming increasingly overfamiliar and flirtatious.
The messages were uncovered by South Wales Police’s Anti-Corruption Unit as part of its routine monitoring work.
Investigators also discovered that Bonney had given the woman his personal mobile number and invited her to contact him privately.
She subsequently confirmed that she had taken up the invitation.
During an interview with anti-corruption officers, Bonney admitted providing his personal number and acknowledged that he knew the woman was vulnerable.
He also accepted that his conduct had breached professional standards.
However, the force acknowledged there was no evidence of a sexual relationship and that the contact had lasted only one day.
‘Perhaps daft to do’
Two messages were particularly damaging to Bonney’s account of what had happened.
In one, the officer wrote: “I’m sure the tone of these messages would already make any significant other of yours a little jealous / upset”.
His final message from his police mobile said: “Perhaps daft to do and perhaps we should leave it here but my personal number [which he then provided] if you want to chat some more as I’ll have to pay work for all these messages at this rate!”
Chief Constable Vaughan concluded that the messages demonstrated Bonney wanted the contact to go beyond his professional duties.
He said: “I am satisfied that PC Bonney took steps to encourage Ms A to continue their contact on a different platform by providing her with his own mobile phone number.”
He added that the officer’s intentions were clear and that he wished to pursue some form of personal or emotional relationship with the woman.
Officer claimed he was concerned about woman’s welfare
Bonney accepted that his behaviour had crossed professional boundaries but denied that it amounted to sexual misconduct, predatory behaviour or gross misconduct.
He insisted he had initially contacted the woman because she was distressed when he stopped her and he wanted to ensure she was safe.
He explained that she had recently separated from her partner and that he felt empathy towards her because they had both recently lost a parent.
The officer said their interaction had triggered an emotional response which he struggled to explain.
In his written response to the allegations, he stated: “I deeply regret this failure. I do not offer this response to excuse my behaviour, minimize my actions, or deflect accountability.”
He said he wanted to explain the psychological and personal circumstances affecting him that day and demonstrate his commitment to changing his behaviour.
The chief constable accepted that the original traffic stop was legitimate.
He also accepted that Bonney’s initial checks on the woman were carried out for a proper policing purpose.
Even the officer’s decision to obtain her number and check that she had arrived home safely might have been considered legitimate, despite being unusual.
Addressing Bonney directly, Chief Constable Vaughan said: “In all probability, had it stopped here, you would unlikely have been in front of me today.”
But he said the messages which followed had undermined the officer’s explanation.
He continued: “Whilst I am empathetic to your situation, I do not believe that you were simply reaching out to help handle your own grief and vulnerability, I believe that you had intended to pursue something more than a welfare check with Ms A.”
He added that passing his personal phone number to a vulnerable woman whom he had only recently encountered during his duties was unacceptable.
“That cannot be the way an officer working for me conducts themselves,” he said.
‘Abused that trust’
The chief constable found that Bonney’s actions breached the professional standards of Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct.
He ruled that they amounted to gross misconduct.
In reaching his decision, he emphasised the special responsibilities police officers have when dealing with members of the public.
He referred to College of Policing guidance describing abuse of position for a sexual purpose as a form of serious corruption, which can include pursuing an improper emotional relationship.
The fact that Bonney knew the woman was vulnerable significantly increased the seriousness of his conduct.
Chief Constable Vaughan said the officer had abused the trust placed in him and damaged the reputation of policing.
He identified several aggravating factors, including that the behaviour was deliberate, involved personal advantage and continued after Bonney knew, or should have known, it was inappropriate.
He also accepted mitigating factors in the officer’s favour.
The communications were confined to a brief period, Bonney had admitted wrongdoing at an early stage and there was evidence of genuine remorse and insight.
The chief constable expressed sympathy for his personal difficulties and considered character references submitted in support of the officer.
But he found that none of those circumstances justified allowing Bonney to remain in the force with a final written warning.
‘No other outcome is justified’
The chief constable concluded that the misconduct was too serious for anything other than dismissal.
He said: “In all the circumstances, there is only one possible outcome which I am able to impose, and I have absolutely no hesitation in doing so.”
He added: “No other outcome is justified or appropriate.”
In his final remarks, Chief Constable Vaughan delivered a stark warning about the standards expected of serving officers.
He said: “The behaviour of PC Bonney is totally unacceptable. There is no room in South Wales Police for this type of behaviour.”
He continued: “Police officers should be trusted to the ends of the earth. The public rightly expect our officers to uphold the highest professional standards, and PC Bonney has failed to do so.”
The chief constable stressed that the vast majority of officers and staff carried out their duties to the highest standards, but warned that misconduct by a minority could undermine public trust in the police.
Bonney was dismissed immediately without notice.
The findings and outcome of the hearing will be referred to the College of Policing so his name can be added to the Police Barred List, preventing him from returning to policing in England and Wales while barred.
