A police officer has been sacked despite a misconduct hearing accepting his explanation that he agreed to an eight-year restraining order to spare reluctant witnesses from giving evidence.
The unnamed Staffordshire Police officer was acquitted after prosecutors offered no evidence in a criminal case.
But the restraining order imposed following his acquittal — preventing contact with three people and attendance at specified locations until February 2034 — ultimately cost him his career.
The Assistant Chief Constable chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing accepted the officer’s account of why he consented to the order.
The chair recorded no concerns about his credibility, noted his previous clean disciplinary record and considered character statements describing him as a person held in high regard.
Nevertheless, the hearing found a breach of Discreditable Conduct proven, concluded that it amounted to gross misconduct and imposed dismissal without notice.
The officer was also ordered to be placed on the College of Policing’s Barred List.
The judgment makes clear that the disciplinary proceedings concerned the existence of the restraining order itself. The force did not ask the chair to determine whether the original criminal allegations were true.
The officer denied committing any criminal act. He explained that he consented to the order to prevent reluctant witnesses having to give evidence and bring the criminal proceedings to an end.
He maintained that the witnesses’ evidence had not been tested and argued that his conduct amounted to neither misconduct nor gross misconduct.
The chair accepted his explanation but concluded that the restrictions imposed by the court were incompatible with continued police service.
The order, made under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, remains in force until 12 February 2034.
The officer agreed to it after receiving legal advice and signed a document acknowledging that it could affect his professional career. He had not appealed against its imposition.
The chair acknowledged that the court could have made the order without the officer’s consent.
In assessing the case, the chair identified the main harm as damage to the reputation of policing. Both culpability and harm were assessed as high.
The judgment concluded that members of the public and safeguarding agencies would question a serving officer being subject to court restrictions on whom he could contact and where he could attend.
No aggravating factors were identified.
The chair considered the officer’s acquittal and accepted the explanation in mitigation, explicitly acknowledging that no criminal conviction followed and that the misconduct case did not arise from a finding that the criminal allegations had occurred.
The chair considered a final written warning but rejected it as insufficient.
The chair concluded that the duration and nature of the restraining order meant no sanction below dismissal without notice was justified.
The officer has a right of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal.
His identity, the nature of the original criminal allegation, the chair’s name and the hearing date are not disclosed in the judgment.
