Derbyshire PC Sacked After Snooping on Police Files and Lying to Cover Tracks

Constable Rebecca Hurst was dismissed without notice after a misconduct hearing found she accessed confidential police systems while on holiday and then provided false explanations to cover up her actions.

A young police officer has been dramatically dismissed from Derbyshire Constabulary after she was caught snooping on force computer systems. At the same time, she was supposed to be on holiday – and then lied about it to try to cover her tracks.

PC Rebecca Hurst, who joined the force in March 2023, was hauled before an accelerated misconduct hearing on September 4, 2025, after investigators discovered she had accessed two separate incidents on the ControlWorks system on June 12 and 13, 2024. At the time, she was on annual leave and had no policing purpose or lawful authority to be looking at the logs.

One of the incidents she opened involved a suicidal man who had reportedly taken an overdose and threatened to jump from a bridge. The other was a missing person case from Nottingham. Both were sensitive, live incidents being dealt with by colleagues on duty.

Hurst later tried to justify her actions when asked to complete a formal Data Monitoring Form in August 2024. On the form, she wrote that her sergeant had instructed her to check the missing person incident. In relation to the suicide call, she claimed she was monitoring whether a “GoodSam” live-streaming link had been opened so she could assist officers searching the area.

But investigators found her explanations to be untrue. Her sergeant was on leave at the time and could not have told her to review the case. And in the suicide incident, the GoodSam link had already been opened and officers were actively deployed.

In evidence at the hearing, Hurst admitted the information she provided on the forms was inaccurate but insisted she had not intended to be dishonest. She suggested she had been sloppy, reckless, or possibly guessing when trying to recall her reasons seven weeks later. At one point, she even suggested her multiple clicks into the system could have been accidental.

Chief Constable Rachel Swann, who chaired the hearing, rejected those claims. In her decision, she said: “I do not accept that the officer was acting for a policing purpose when she searched in respect of the incidents. There was no reason for her to look at any incident, as she had finished her work. She was not tasked to look at them. She had no reason to remain on the system after she had finished her work.”

Swann added that repeated log-ins minutes apart could not be dismissed as “accidental clicks” and concluded Hurst was motivated by personal curiosity.

The Chief Constable went on: “The officer knew the importance of providing accurate information on these forms and chose not to do so. She deliberately included inaccurate information. Her actions were dishonest.”

The hearing was told that although there was no malicious intent or personal gain from her actions, the dishonesty in trying to conceal what she had done placed the matter at the highest level of seriousness.

Hurst’s conduct was officially ruled to have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour for Honesty and Integrity, Confidentiality, Orders and Instructions, and Discreditable Conduct. Chief Constable Swann found the actions amounted to gross misconduct and that dismissal without notice was the only sanction available to protect public confidence.

In her written reasons, Swann said: “Public confidence in policing would be seriously undermined if an officer remained in the force when they have accessed the force computer system and then acted with a lack of honesty and integrity when providing an explanation for doing so.”

The officer’s short service record and inexperience were acknowledged as mitigating factors, and it was accepted that she had no malice or ulterior motive. But aggravating features included dishonesty, repeated access to confidential files, and attempts to shift blame onto others.

The Chief Constable concluded: “Although the access by this officer was not as serious as some and may not have justified dismissal by itself, it has been severely aggravated by the officer’s dishonest action in completing the form and its impact on public confidence.”

Constable Hurst, who signed the outcome notice on September 4, was immediately dismissed without notice. She now faces being added to the police barred list, preventing her from serving in policing again.