PC Ian Redwood Had Sex With Lover While On Duty After Driving To Her Home In Uniform With His Radio Still Switched On

Former PC Ian Raywood visited the woman nine times while he was supposed to be protecting the public – before a misconduct panel rejected his denials as ‘unrealistic’

A POLICE officer had sex with his lover while on duty after arriving at her home in a patrol car, wearing his uniform and leaving his radio switched on.

Former Norfolk Constabulary PC Ian Raywood engaged in sexual activity with Ms A during nine visits to her addresses between January and May 2025, a misconduct panel found.

The former officer, who had approximately 23 years’ previous service with the Ministry of Defence Police, denied having sexual contact during the visits.

Raywood accepted visiting Ms A while on duty but claimed he sometimes went because she was a friend, because she was supportive or to use her toilet.

However, Ms A told the hearing that the “main reason” for his visits was to engage in sexual activity.

She said she knew Raywood was working because he arrived in a police car, wore his uniform and carried a police radio which remained switched on – while his body-worn camera was turned off.

Ms A said their relationship began after they became a “bit flirty” and exchanged telephone numbers.

The pair went on to exchange sexualised WhatsApp messages, images and videos.

The panel found that Raywood attended Ms A’s addresses and engaged in sexual activity, including kissing, oral sex and sexual intercourse, on nine occasions between January 11 and May 2, 2025.

During his misconduct interview, Raywood claimed he had “no idea if she’s a past DV victim”.

But messages showed that Ms A had told him about a stalking report and a separate assault. When another part of his account was contradicted by the messages, Raywood accepted that he had “got that wrong”.

The panel also rejected an apparent discrepancy concerning Raywood’s underwear. He challenged Ms A’s description of him lowering his “trousers and boxers”, claiming that he wore briefs until March 2025.

However, the panel was shown a photograph he had sent Ms A in December 2024 in which he was wearing boxer shorts.

It described his denial of sexual activity while on duty as “unrealistic”.

The panel found Ms A to be a “credible and persuasive witness with no reason to lie or exaggerate”.

Her account was supported by WhatsApp exchanges, police vehicle telematics and location data showing Raywood at her addresses.

Ms A’s mother was not an eyewitness to the sexual activity but said it was “obvious what they were doing”. She also referred to acts described as a “knee trembler” and a “blow job”, based on what her daughter had told her.

The reputational damage was illustrated by another witness who, after learning about the affair involving an on-duty officer, told a police officer: “You lot are all the same.”

Raywood did not attend the hearing. In an email, he said he believed the investigation had not been fair, balanced or impartial and that expected lines of inquiry had not been pursued.

The panel found all the alleged facts proven on the balance of probabilities.

It concluded that Raywood deliberately engaged in sexual activity for his own gratification while on duty, in uniform and being paid from the public purse when he was expected to respond to calls from the public.

His breach of the professional standard of Discreditable Conduct amounted to gross misconduct.

The panel said: “Nothing less than dismissal would serve to deter similar behaviour, uphold high standards or to maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service.”

Raywood had resigned before the hearing.

The panel concluded: “Had the former officer still been a serving officer, he would have been dismissed without notice.”