View as PDF / Download / Print
5-Day Summary
Thu 17th March 2022, 10:00am Merseyside Police Headquarters, Cazneau Street, Liverpool, L3 3AN
Constable Smith 3225 – Merseyside Police,
The officer will face allegations that on the 22 December 2020 whilst in possession of £238.72 of goods from Tesco Store, Heswall, she intended to leave the store without paying. When challenged by a member of staff, she attempted to deceive staff in to believing she had paid for the items. The officer was dressed in part uniform, subtly showed her Warrant Card, which in the circumstances was an abuse of police powers/authority.
Although payment was eventually made in full, the actions of the officer were dishonest.
–
Thu 17th March 2022, 10:00am Derbyshire Constabulary Headquarters
Sergeant 2957 Lee Jones – Derbyshire Constabulary,
The officer will answer allegations that his conduct amounts to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of, ‘Use of Force’, ‘Discreditable Conduct’ and ‘Authority, Respect and Courtesy’; in that, the officer used unnecessary force upon a detainee, who at the time was being restrained.
–
Thu 17th March 2022, 10:00am Middle Engine Lane Police Station
Police Constable 2891 Kane – Northumbria Police,
1) On 17 November 2021, the officer was convicted at Teesside Magistrates’ Court for driving a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit of alcohol, contrary to section 5 of the Road Traffic Act.
–
Fri 18th March 2022, 10:00am Merseyside Police Headquarters, Cazneau Street, Liverpool, L3 3AN
Constable Smith 3225 – Merseyside Police,
The officer will face allegations that on the 22 December 2020 whilst in possession of £238.72 of goods from Tesco Store, Heswall, she intended to leave the store without paying. When challenged by a member of staff, she attempted to deceive staff in to believing she had paid for the items. The officer was dressed in part uniform, subtly showed her Warrant Card, which in the circumstances was an abuse of police powers/authority.
Although payment was eventually made in full, the actions of the officer were dishonest.
–
Fri 18th March 2022, 10:00am Derbyshire Constabulary Headquarters
Sergeant 2957 Lee Jones – Derbyshire Constabulary,
The officer will answer allegations that his conduct amounts to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of, ‘Use of Force’, ‘Discreditable Conduct’ and ‘Authority, Respect and Courtesy’; in that, the officer used unnecessary force upon a detainee, who at the time was being restrained.
–
Fri 18th March 2022, 8:00am Sussec Police
DC Karen Colbran – Sussex Police,
DC Karen Colbran was investigated by Rother District Council for fraud after making a false declaration to them which resulted in her obtaining a reduced council tax liability. The case was heard at Lewes Crown Court on 11/02/2022 and the jury found her guilty.
–
Mon 21st March 2022, 10:00am Professional Standards Department, Sheffield
Former DS 704 David Walker – South Yorkshire Police,
The misconduct allegations arise out of the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (“CSE”) scandal and an alleged failing by South Yorkshire Police to safeguard children and prosecute offenders.
The officer failed to record on police systems information about or relevant to suspected victims and perpetrators of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham that had been passed to the officer between 2009 and 2012
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon information about an RMBC youth worker potentially involved in Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, passed to you on or about 21st August 2009
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon notification of child concern identifying two young sisters potentially at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The concern was communicated to Rotherham District Public Protection Unit (PPU) and/or notified to the Rotherham district PPU as a “referral” on or about 27th July 2009
–
Mon 21st March 2022, 10:00am The old Magistrates Building, Estcourt Terrace, Goole, DN14 5AF
DC 1299 Phillip Payton – Humberside Police,
On 16 June 2016, he facilitated the return of devices to a suspect in circumstances where:
a) He was not and/or could not have been certain that the devices did not contain indecent images or videos of children;
b) He was not and/or could not have been certain that the images were incapable of being accessed by the suspect, with or without the use of specialist software;
c) He was not and/or could not have been certain that the devices would not later be required during a criminal prosecution, for example to be examined by a nominated defence expert.
2. Further, he failed to be open and honest with his supervisors, about the aforementioned. For example, during a meeting on or around 4 January 2017, having been sent an action plan in an attempt to progress this investigation more effectively, he failed to disclose that some of the devices had already been returned to the suspect with his authorisation.
3. Between 16 November 2015 and January 2017, he failed to update the complainants with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
4. Between 16 November 2015 and January 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position, including:
a) Following the seizure of electronic devices on 6 November 2015, not submitting the same for forensic examination until 5 December 2015;
b) Failing to submit/“write up” the case to the CPS or the reviewing officer promptly notwithstanding supervisors’ instructions to do so on 15 February 2016, 16 April 2016, 14 July 2016 and 5 November 2016;
c) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all;
d) Allowed the suspect’s bail to lapse;
e) Failing to record, process and manage case material, including the suspect’s interview disc and the management of seized devices, adequately or at all;
f) Failing to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry, including those expressly prescribed by his supervisor.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 to 4), Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 3) and Honesty and Integrity (allegation 2) and amounts to gross misconduct.
Matter number 2 (CB)
1. Between 19 August 2015 and 9 February 2017, he failed to update the complainant with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. Between 19 August 2015 and 9 February 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS or the reviewing officer promptly or at all notwithstanding the suspect’s and her husband’s admissions in interview in June 2015 to taking money for their own use and a Sergeant’s written instruction to submit the case on 16 April 2016;
b) On 24 June 2016, failing to facilitate the full file being sent to the CPS upon his first attempt being unsuccessful, seeking, instead, to place the onus on the CPS to identify and rectify the deficiencies;
c) Failing to process and manage case material adequately or at all;
d) Failed to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly or at all;
e) Failing to respond promptly or at all to updates and queries from the financial investigator;
f) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 and 2) and Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 1) and amounts to misconduct.
Matter number 3 (AP)
1. Between 26 August 2015 and January 2017, he failed to act upon and/or take any or any adequate protective or investigatory steps following the account given by X, during an interview on 26 August 2015 with him present in his capacity as OIC, alleging rape and sexual assault perpetrated against him by his older brother.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities and amounts to gross misconduct.
Matter number 4 (JS)
1. Between September 2015 and March 2017, he failed to update the complainant with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. Between September 2015 and March 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS or the reviewing officer promptly or at all despite supervisory direction to progress this;
b) Failing to process and manage case material adequately or at all;
c) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly, including a significant delay by not obtaining from X or his mother a photograph from which X identified A as the abuser;
d) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry at all, including not obtaining from X or his mother the recording of the suspect admitting the abuse and/or taking an account from the witness Y who heard a confession from the suspect and/or any statement from X’s mother about the aforementioned;
e) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 and 2) and Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 1) and amounts to gross misconduct.
Matter number 5 (JH)
1. Between March 2015 and April 2017, he failed to update the complainants with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. Between March 2015 and April 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS promptly or at all, including a failure to act upon CPS requests for material required in order to progress the case;
b) Failing to process and manage case material adequately or at all;
c) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly or at all, including the need for evidence from witnesses identified by the complainants, an accurate transcript of confessions made by the suspect and third-party material;
d) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 and 2) and Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 1) and amounts to misconduct.
Matter number 6 (BW)
1. From August 2015, he failed to update the complainant with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. From August 2015, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS promptly or at all, including failures to provide basic material required for an investigation of this nature such as third-party material;
b) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly, including not interviewing the suspect until 14 September 2015;
c) Permitting an unreasonable delay between the positive charging decision on or before 2 June 2016 and the offender being formally summonsed;
d) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
–
Hearings List (14 days)
Thu 17th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Constable Smith 3225 – Merseyside Police,
Merseyside Police Headquarters, Cazneau Street, Liverpool, L3 3AN
Alleged Breaches
- Honesty and integrity
- Authority, respect and courtesy
- Conduct
The hearing is to be held in public.
The officer will face allegations that on the 22 December 2020 whilst in possession of £238.72 of goods from Tesco Store, Heswall, she intended to leave the store without paying. When challenged by a member of staff, she attempted to deceive staff in to believing she had paid for the items. The officer was dressed in part uniform, subtly showed her Warrant Card, which in the circumstances was an abuse of police powers/authority.
Although payment was eventually made in full, the actions of the officer were dishonest.
Application to Attend
To apply to attend this hearing please apply directly on the force website: https://www.merseyside.police.uk/police-forces/merseyside-police/areas/misconduct/upcoming-misconduct-hearings/request-to-attend-a-misconduct-hearing/
Thu 17th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Sergeant 2957 Lee Jones – Derbyshire Constabulary,
Derbyshire Constabulary Headquarters
Alleged Breaches
- Authority, respect and courtesy
- Conduct
The hearing is to be held in public.
The officer will answer allegations that his conduct amounts to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of, ‘Use of Force’, ‘Discreditable Conduct’ and ‘Authority, Respect and Courtesy’; in that, the officer used unnecessary force upon a detainee, who at the time was being restrained.
Thu 17th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Police Constable 2891 Kane – Northumbria Police,
Middle Engine Lane Police Station
Alleged Breaches
- Duties and responsibilities
- Fitness for work
- Conduct
The hearing is to be held in public.
1) On 17 November 2021, the officer was convicted at Teesside Magistrates’ Court for driving a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit of alcohol, contrary to section 5 of the Road Traffic Act.
Fri 18th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Constable Smith 3225 – Merseyside Police,
Merseyside Police Headquarters, Cazneau Street, Liverpool, L3 3AN
Alleged Breaches
- Honesty and integrity
- Authority, respect and courtesy
- Conduct
The hearing is to be held in public.
The officer will face allegations that on the 22 December 2020 whilst in possession of £238.72 of goods from Tesco Store, Heswall, she intended to leave the store without paying. When challenged by a member of staff, she attempted to deceive staff in to believing she had paid for the items. The officer was dressed in part uniform, subtly showed her Warrant Card, which in the circumstances was an abuse of police powers/authority.
Although payment was eventually made in full, the actions of the officer were dishonest.
Application to Attend
To apply to attend this hearing please apply directly on the force website: https://www.merseyside.police.uk/police-forces/merseyside-police/areas/misconduct/upcoming-misconduct-hearings/request-to-attend-a-misconduct-hearing/
Fri 18th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Sergeant 2957 Lee Jones – Derbyshire Constabulary,
Derbyshire Constabulary Headquarters
Alleged Breaches
- Authority, respect and courtesy
- Conduct
The hearing is to be held in public.
The officer will answer allegations that his conduct amounts to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of, ‘Use of Force’, ‘Discreditable Conduct’ and ‘Authority, Respect and Courtesy’; in that, the officer used unnecessary force upon a detainee, who at the time was being restrained.
Fri 18th March 2022, 8:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
DC Karen Colbran – Sussex Police,
Sussec Police
Alleged Breaches
- Conduct
The hearing is to be held in public.
DC Karen Colbran was investigated by Rother District Council for fraud after making a false declaration to them which resulted in her obtaining a reduced council tax liability. The case was heard at Lewes Crown Court on 11/02/2022 and the jury found her guilty.
Mon 21st March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Former DS 704 David Walker – South Yorkshire Police,
Professional Standards Department, Sheffield
Alleged Breaches
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
The misconduct allegations arise out of the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (“CSE”) scandal and an alleged failing by South Yorkshire Police to safeguard children and prosecute offenders.
The officer failed to record on police systems information about or relevant to suspected victims and perpetrators of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham that had been passed to the officer between 2009 and 2012
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon information about an RMBC youth worker potentially involved in Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, passed to you on or about 21st August 2009
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon notification of child concern identifying two young sisters potentially at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The concern was communicated to Rotherham District Public Protection Unit (PPU) and/or notified to the Rotherham district PPU as a “referral” on or about 27th July 2009
Mon 21st March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
DC 1299 Phillip Payton – Humberside Police,
The old Magistrates Building, Estcourt Terrace, Goole, DN14 5AF
Alleged Breaches
- Honesty and integrity
- Authority, respect and courtesy
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
On 16 June 2016, he facilitated the return of devices to a suspect in circumstances where:
a) He was not and/or could not have been certain that the devices did not contain indecent images or videos of children;
b) He was not and/or could not have been certain that the images were incapable of being accessed by the suspect, with or without the use of specialist software;
c) He was not and/or could not have been certain that the devices would not later be required during a criminal prosecution, for example to be examined by a nominated defence expert.
2. Further, he failed to be open and honest with his supervisors, about the aforementioned. For example, during a meeting on or around 4 January 2017, having been sent an action plan in an attempt to progress this investigation more effectively, he failed to disclose that some of the devices had already been returned to the suspect with his authorisation.
3. Between 16 November 2015 and January 2017, he failed to update the complainants with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
4. Between 16 November 2015 and January 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position, including:
a) Following the seizure of electronic devices on 6 November 2015, not submitting the same for forensic examination until 5 December 2015;
b) Failing to submit/“write up” the case to the CPS or the reviewing officer promptly notwithstanding supervisors’ instructions to do so on 15 February 2016, 16 April 2016, 14 July 2016 and 5 November 2016;
c) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all;
d) Allowed the suspect’s bail to lapse;
e) Failing to record, process and manage case material, including the suspect’s interview disc and the management of seized devices, adequately or at all;
f) Failing to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry, including those expressly prescribed by his supervisor.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 to 4), Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 3) and Honesty and Integrity (allegation 2) and amounts to gross misconduct.
Matter number 2 (CB)
1. Between 19 August 2015 and 9 February 2017, he failed to update the complainant with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. Between 19 August 2015 and 9 February 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS or the reviewing officer promptly or at all notwithstanding the suspect’s and her husband’s admissions in interview in June 2015 to taking money for their own use and a Sergeant’s written instruction to submit the case on 16 April 2016;
b) On 24 June 2016, failing to facilitate the full file being sent to the CPS upon his first attempt being unsuccessful, seeking, instead, to place the onus on the CPS to identify and rectify the deficiencies;
c) Failing to process and manage case material adequately or at all;
d) Failed to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly or at all;
e) Failing to respond promptly or at all to updates and queries from the financial investigator;
f) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 and 2) and Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 1) and amounts to misconduct.
Matter number 3 (AP)
1. Between 26 August 2015 and January 2017, he failed to act upon and/or take any or any adequate protective or investigatory steps following the account given by X, during an interview on 26 August 2015 with him present in his capacity as OIC, alleging rape and sexual assault perpetrated against him by his older brother.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities and amounts to gross misconduct.
Matter number 4 (JS)
1. Between September 2015 and March 2017, he failed to update the complainant with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. Between September 2015 and March 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS or the reviewing officer promptly or at all despite supervisory direction to progress this;
b) Failing to process and manage case material adequately or at all;
c) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly, including a significant delay by not obtaining from X or his mother a photograph from which X identified A as the abuser;
d) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry at all, including not obtaining from X or his mother the recording of the suspect admitting the abuse and/or taking an account from the witness Y who heard a confession from the suspect and/or any statement from X’s mother about the aforementioned;
e) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 and 2) and Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 1) and amounts to gross misconduct.
Matter number 5 (JH)
1. Between March 2015 and April 2017, he failed to update the complainants with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. Between March 2015 and April 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS promptly or at all, including a failure to act upon CPS requests for material required in order to progress the case;
b) Failing to process and manage case material adequately or at all;
c) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly or at all, including the need for evidence from witnesses identified by the complainants, an accurate transcript of confessions made by the suspect and third-party material;
d) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 and 2) and Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 1) and amounts to misconduct.
Matter number 6 (BW)
1. From August 2015, he failed to update the complainant with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. From August 2015, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS promptly or at all, including failures to provide basic material required for an investigation of this nature such as third-party material;
b) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly, including not interviewing the suspect until 14 September 2015;
c) Permitting an unreasonable delay between the positive charging decision on or before 2 June 2016 and the offender being formally summonsed;
d) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
Tue 22nd March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Former DS 704 David Walker – South Yorkshire Police,
Professional Standards Department, Sheffield
Alleged Breaches
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
The misconduct allegations arise out of the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (“CSE”) scandal and an alleged failing by South Yorkshire Police to safeguard children and prosecute offenders.
The officer failed to record on police systems information about or relevant to suspected victims and perpetrators of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham that had been passed to the officer between 2009 and 2012
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon information about an RMBC youth worker potentially involved in Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, passed to you on or about 21st August 2009
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon notification of child concern identifying two young sisters potentially at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The concern was communicated to Rotherham District Public Protection Unit (PPU) and/or notified to the Rotherham district PPU as a “referral” on or about 27th July 2009
Tue 22nd March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
DC 1299 Phillip Payton – Humberside Police,
The old Magistrates Building, Estcourt Terrace, Goole, DN14 5AF
Alleged Breaches
- Honesty and integrity
- Authority, respect and courtesy
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
On 16 June 2016, he facilitated the return of devices to a suspect in circumstances where:
a) He was not and/or could not have been certain that the devices did not contain indecent images or videos of children;
b) He was not and/or could not have been certain that the images were incapable of being accessed by the suspect, with or without the use of specialist software;
c) He was not and/or could not have been certain that the devices would not later be required during a criminal prosecution, for example to be examined by a nominated defence expert.
2. Further, he failed to be open and honest with his supervisors, about the aforementioned. For example, during a meeting on or around 4 January 2017, having been sent an action plan in an attempt to progress this investigation more effectively, he failed to disclose that some of the devices had already been returned to the suspect with his authorisation.
3. Between 16 November 2015 and January 2017, he failed to update the complainants with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
4. Between 16 November 2015 and January 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position, including:
a) Following the seizure of electronic devices on 6 November 2015, not submitting the same for forensic examination until 5 December 2015;
b) Failing to submit/“write up” the case to the CPS or the reviewing officer promptly notwithstanding supervisors’ instructions to do so on 15 February 2016, 16 April 2016, 14 July 2016 and 5 November 2016;
c) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all;
d) Allowed the suspect’s bail to lapse;
e) Failing to record, process and manage case material, including the suspect’s interview disc and the management of seized devices, adequately or at all;
f) Failing to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry, including those expressly prescribed by his supervisor.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 to 4), Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 3) and Honesty and Integrity (allegation 2) and amounts to gross misconduct.
Matter number 2 (CB)
1. Between 19 August 2015 and 9 February 2017, he failed to update the complainant with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. Between 19 August 2015 and 9 February 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS or the reviewing officer promptly or at all notwithstanding the suspect’s and her husband’s admissions in interview in June 2015 to taking money for their own use and a Sergeant’s written instruction to submit the case on 16 April 2016;
b) On 24 June 2016, failing to facilitate the full file being sent to the CPS upon his first attempt being unsuccessful, seeking, instead, to place the onus on the CPS to identify and rectify the deficiencies;
c) Failing to process and manage case material adequately or at all;
d) Failed to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly or at all;
e) Failing to respond promptly or at all to updates and queries from the financial investigator;
f) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 and 2) and Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 1) and amounts to misconduct.
Matter number 3 (AP)
1. Between 26 August 2015 and January 2017, he failed to act upon and/or take any or any adequate protective or investigatory steps following the account given by X, during an interview on 26 August 2015 with him present in his capacity as OIC, alleging rape and sexual assault perpetrated against him by his older brother.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities and amounts to gross misconduct.
Matter number 4 (JS)
1. Between September 2015 and March 2017, he failed to update the complainant with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. Between September 2015 and March 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS or the reviewing officer promptly or at all despite supervisory direction to progress this;
b) Failing to process and manage case material adequately or at all;
c) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly, including a significant delay by not obtaining from X or his mother a photograph from which X identified A as the abuser;
d) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry at all, including not obtaining from X or his mother the recording of the suspect admitting the abuse and/or taking an account from the witness Y who heard a confession from the suspect and/or any statement from X’s mother about the aforementioned;
e) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 and 2) and Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 1) and amounts to gross misconduct.
Matter number 5 (JH)
1. Between March 2015 and April 2017, he failed to update the complainants with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. Between March 2015 and April 2017, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS promptly or at all, including a failure to act upon CPS requests for material required in order to progress the case;
b) Failing to process and manage case material adequately or at all;
c) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly or at all, including the need for evidence from witnesses identified by the complainants, an accurate transcript of confessions made by the suspect and third-party material;
d) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
His conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities (allegations 1 and 2) and Authority, Respect and Courtesy (allegation 1) and amounts to misconduct.
Matter number 6 (BW)
1. From August 2015, he failed to update the complainant with the progress of the investigation adequately or at all.
2. From August 2015, he failed to progress and manage the investigation and prosecution of the case in a manner reasonably expected of an officer in his position.
In particular:
a) Failing to submit the full file to the CPS promptly or at all, including failures to provide basic material required for an investigation of this nature such as third-party material;
b) Failing to progress relevant lines of enquiry promptly, including not interviewing the suspect until 14 September 2015;
c) Permitting an unreasonable delay between the positive charging decision on or before 2 June 2016 and the offender being formally summonsed;
d) Failing to update the crime record adequately or at all.
Tue 22nd March 2022, 9:30am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
PC William Scott-Barrett – Metropolitan Police Service,
Empress State Building, Lillie Road, SW6, London
Alleged Breaches
- Conduct
The hearing is to be held in public.
On the 3 February 2021 former PC Scott-Barrett was arrested for sexual communication with a child.
Former PC Scott-Barrett was engaging in communication with a vulnerable child which began in November 2019 and then in June 2020 became inappropriate. The contact was facilitated through an online gaming app and a social media site.
On the 17 January 2022 former PC Scott-Barrett appeared at Isleworth Crown Court where he entered a guilty plea for the charge: Engage in sexual communication with a child.
It is alleged that in acting in this way former PC Scott-Barrett breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of ‘Discreditable Conduct’.
It is further alleged that this conduct, if proven, amounts individually or collectively to gross misconduct and is so serious as to justify dismissal.
The former officer has resigned from the Metropolitan Police Service and his last day of service was 17 February 2022.
Wed 23rd March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Former DS 704 David Walker – South Yorkshire Police,
Professional Standards Department, Sheffield
Alleged Breaches
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
The misconduct allegations arise out of the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (“CSE”) scandal and an alleged failing by South Yorkshire Police to safeguard children and prosecute offenders.
The officer failed to record on police systems information about or relevant to suspected victims and perpetrators of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham that had been passed to the officer between 2009 and 2012
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon information about an RMBC youth worker potentially involved in Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, passed to you on or about 21st August 2009
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon notification of child concern identifying two young sisters potentially at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The concern was communicated to Rotherham District Public Protection Unit (PPU) and/or notified to the Rotherham district PPU as a “referral” on or about 27th July 2009
Thu 24th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Former DS 704 David Walker – South Yorkshire Police,
Professional Standards Department, Sheffield
Alleged Breaches
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
The misconduct allegations arise out of the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (“CSE”) scandal and an alleged failing by South Yorkshire Police to safeguard children and prosecute offenders.
The officer failed to record on police systems information about or relevant to suspected victims and perpetrators of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham that had been passed to the officer between 2009 and 2012
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon information about an RMBC youth worker potentially involved in Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, passed to you on or about 21st August 2009
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon notification of child concern identifying two young sisters potentially at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The concern was communicated to Rotherham District Public Protection Unit (PPU) and/or notified to the Rotherham district PPU as a “referral” on or about 27th July 2009
Fri 25th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Former DS 704 David Walker – South Yorkshire Police,
Professional Standards Department, Sheffield
Alleged Breaches
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
The misconduct allegations arise out of the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (“CSE”) scandal and an alleged failing by South Yorkshire Police to safeguard children and prosecute offenders.
The officer failed to record on police systems information about or relevant to suspected victims and perpetrators of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham that had been passed to the officer between 2009 and 2012
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon information about an RMBC youth worker potentially involved in Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, passed to you on or about 21st August 2009
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon notification of child concern identifying two young sisters potentially at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The concern was communicated to Rotherham District Public Protection Unit (PPU) and/or notified to the Rotherham district PPU as a “referral” on or about 27th July 2009
Sat 26th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Former DS 704 David Walker – South Yorkshire Police,
Professional Standards Department, Sheffield
Alleged Breaches
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
The misconduct allegations arise out of the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (“CSE”) scandal and an alleged failing by South Yorkshire Police to safeguard children and prosecute offenders.
The officer failed to record on police systems information about or relevant to suspected victims and perpetrators of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham that had been passed to the officer between 2009 and 2012
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon information about an RMBC youth worker potentially involved in Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, passed to you on or about 21st August 2009
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon notification of child concern identifying two young sisters potentially at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The concern was communicated to Rotherham District Public Protection Unit (PPU) and/or notified to the Rotherham district PPU as a “referral” on or about 27th July 2009
Sun 27th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Former DS 704 David Walker – South Yorkshire Police,
Professional Standards Department, Sheffield
Alleged Breaches
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
The misconduct allegations arise out of the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (“CSE”) scandal and an alleged failing by South Yorkshire Police to safeguard children and prosecute offenders.
The officer failed to record on police systems information about or relevant to suspected victims and perpetrators of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham that had been passed to the officer between 2009 and 2012
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon information about an RMBC youth worker potentially involved in Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, passed to you on or about 21st August 2009
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon notification of child concern identifying two young sisters potentially at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The concern was communicated to Rotherham District Public Protection Unit (PPU) and/or notified to the Rotherham district PPU as a “referral” on or about 27th July 2009
Mon 28th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Former DS 704 David Walker – South Yorkshire Police,
Professional Standards Department, Sheffield
Alleged Breaches
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
The misconduct allegations arise out of the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (“CSE”) scandal and an alleged failing by South Yorkshire Police to safeguard children and prosecute offenders.
The officer failed to record on police systems information about or relevant to suspected victims and perpetrators of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham that had been passed to the officer between 2009 and 2012
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon information about an RMBC youth worker potentially involved in Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, passed to you on or about 21st August 2009
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon notification of child concern identifying two young sisters potentially at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The concern was communicated to Rotherham District Public Protection Unit (PPU) and/or notified to the Rotherham district PPU as a “referral” on or about 27th July 2009
Tue 29th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Former DS 704 David Walker – South Yorkshire Police,
Professional Standards Department, Sheffield
Alleged Breaches
- Duties and responsibilities
The hearing is to be held in public.
The misconduct allegations arise out of the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation (“CSE”) scandal and an alleged failing by South Yorkshire Police to safeguard children and prosecute offenders.
The officer failed to record on police systems information about or relevant to suspected victims and perpetrators of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham that had been passed to the officer between 2009 and 2012
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon information about an RMBC youth worker potentially involved in Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, passed to you on or about 21st August 2009
The officer failed to record and/or appropriately act upon notification of child concern identifying two young sisters potentially at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The concern was communicated to Rotherham District Public Protection Unit (PPU) and/or notified to the Rotherham district PPU as a “referral” on or about 27th July 2009
Tue 29th March 2022, 10:00am |
View on Misconduct 999 |
Police Constable 1591 Chadbond – Lancashire Constabulary,
Leyland Police Station, Lancastergate, Leyland PR25 2EX
Alleged Breaches
- Honesty and integrity
- Conduct
The hearing is to be held in public.
It is alleged that whilst off duty PC Chadbond assaulted a member of the public. It is further alleged that the officer then sought to influence the ensuing police response.
