Upcoming Police Misconduct Hearings 6 Apr 2022 – 19 Apr 2022

View as PDF / Download / Print

5-Day Summary

Thu 7th April 2022, (time not published) Avon and Somerset Police, Valley Road, Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8JJ

Chief Superintendent Marc Budden, Chief Superintendent Mark Warrender and Chief Inspector Paul Staniforth.     –     North Wales Police,

The three officers named above face allegations of gross misconduct, which are denied.
The Appropriate Authority (AA) alleges breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in nine categories, broken down for ease of reference:
i. Inappropriate conversation with a more junior member of police staff at a police social event (all three officers)

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Equality and Diversity; and / or Authority, Respect and Courtesy; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

ii. Failing to challenge and report the improper behaviour of the others who were engaging in the conversation set out above (all three officers).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Failure to Challenge and Report improper conduct; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

iii. Inappropriate touching (Chief Superintendent Warrender only).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Equality and Diversity; and / or Authority, Respect and Courtesy; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

iv. Failing to challenge or report the conduct of Chief Superintendent Warrender as set out at (iii) above (Chief Superintendent Budden).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Failure to Challenge and Report improper conduct; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

v. Failing to disclose relevant evidence and or a conflict of interest in relation to (iii) above (Marc Budden only).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities; and / or Orders and Instructions; and / or Honesty and Integrity; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

vi. Attempting to improperly influence the misconduct and criminal investigation into (iii) above (Marc Budden only).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities; and / or Honesty and Integrity; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

vii. Inappropriately disclosing information in relation to the misconduct and criminal investigation into (iii) above to the victim (Marc Budden only).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Confidentiality; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

viii. Providing various dishonest accounts about his conduct (Marc Budden only).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating Honesty and Integrity.

ix. Engaging in inappropriate behaviour whilst on duty (Marc Budden only)

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

The misconduct hearing will be held in private. A private hearing is necessary:

i. by reason of the law relating to anonymity of complainants following allegations of a sexual offence,

ii. in furtherance of the public interest in encouraging reporting of alleged wrongdoing.

iii. to protect the Article 8 rights of witnesses at the hearing and their families, including those of the officers concerned.

A private hearing would not prevent a notice being published pursuant to Regulation 27A which could identify (a) the officers subject to hearing; (b) the professional standards alleged to have been breached; and (c) that it is alleged that the breaches are said to be so serious as to amount to gross misconduct.

Hearings List (14 days)

Thu 7th April 2022, (time not published)

View on Misconduct 999

Chief Superintendent Marc Budden, Chief Superintendent Mark Warrender and Chief Inspector Paul Staniforth.     –     North Wales Police,

Avon and Somerset Police, Valley Road, Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8JJ

Alleged Breaches

  • Honesty and integrity

It is not currently known whether the hearing is to be held in private or public.

The three officers named above face allegations of gross misconduct, which are denied.
The Appropriate Authority (AA) alleges breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in nine categories, broken down for ease of reference:
i. Inappropriate conversation with a more junior member of police staff at a police social event (all three officers)

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Equality and Diversity; and / or Authority, Respect and Courtesy; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

ii. Failing to challenge and report the improper behaviour of the others who were engaging in the conversation set out above (all three officers).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Failure to Challenge and Report improper conduct; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

iii. Inappropriate touching (Chief Superintendent Warrender only).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Equality and Diversity; and / or Authority, Respect and Courtesy; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

iv. Failing to challenge or report the conduct of Chief Superintendent Warrender as set out at (iii) above (Chief Superintendent Budden).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Failure to Challenge and Report improper conduct; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

v. Failing to disclose relevant evidence and or a conflict of interest in relation to (iii) above (Marc Budden only).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities; and / or Orders and Instructions; and / or Honesty and Integrity; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

vi. Attempting to improperly influence the misconduct and criminal investigation into (iii) above (Marc Budden only).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities; and / or Honesty and Integrity; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

vii. Inappropriately disclosing information in relation to the misconduct and criminal investigation into (iii) above to the victim (Marc Budden only).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Confidentiality; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

viii. Providing various dishonest accounts about his conduct (Marc Budden only).

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating Honesty and Integrity.

ix. Engaging in inappropriate behaviour whilst on duty (Marc Budden only)

In breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy; and / or Discreditable Conduct.

The misconduct hearing will be held in private. A private hearing is necessary:

i. by reason of the law relating to anonymity of complainants following allegations of a sexual offence,

ii. in furtherance of the public interest in encouraging reporting of alleged wrongdoing.

iii. to protect the Article 8 rights of witnesses at the hearing and their families, including those of the officers concerned.

A private hearing would not prevent a notice being published pursuant to Regulation 27A which could identify (a) the officers subject to hearing; (b) the professional standards alleged to have been breached; and (c) that it is alleged that the breaches are said to be so serious as to amount to gross misconduct.

Mon 11th April 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC Nathan Hind     –     Metropolitan Police Service,

Empress State Building, Lillie Road, SW6, London

Alleged Breaches

  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

It is alleged that between Oct 2019 and July 2020 PC Hind inappropriately touched two female colleagues, both on and off duty, and without their consent.

Mon 11th April 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC Jared Gobey     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Alleged Breaches (No further information has been provided by the force into the circumstances of the alleged breaches.)

The hearing is to be held in public.

No further information has been provided by the force into the circumstances of the alleged breaches.

  1. He gave a misleading account of an incident he attended to the Force Control Room involving an incident involving a distressed male.
  2. He failed to leave the building he was in to speak to this male and this a) Put the male at risk; b) Put members of the public at risk, and c) Led to the unnecessary call for backup.
  3. His inaccurate reporting of the incident created the impression that police officers and members of the public were at greater level of harm that they were.

Tue 12th April 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC Nathan Hind     –     Metropolitan Police Service,

Empress State Building, Lillie Road, SW6, London

Alleged Breaches

  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

It is alleged that between Oct 2019 and July 2020 PC Hind inappropriately touched two female colleagues, both on and off duty, and without their consent.

Tue 12th April 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC Jared Gobey     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Alleged Breaches (No further information has been provided by the force into the circumstances of the alleged breaches.)

The hearing is to be held in public.

No further information has been provided by the force into the circumstances of the alleged breaches.

  1. He gave a misleading account of an incident he attended to the Force Control Room involving an incident involving a distressed male.
  2. He failed to leave the building he was in to speak to this male and this a) Put the male at risk; b) Put members of the public at risk, and c) Led to the unnecessary call for backup.
  3. His inaccurate reporting of the incident created the impression that police officers and members of the public were at greater level of harm that they were.

Wed 13th April 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC Jared Gobey     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Alleged Breaches (No further information has been provided by the force into the circumstances of the alleged breaches.)

The hearing is to be held in public.

No further information has been provided by the force into the circumstances of the alleged breaches.

  1. He gave a misleading account of an incident he attended to the Force Control Room involving an incident involving a distressed male.
  2. He failed to leave the building he was in to speak to this male and this a) Put the male at risk; b) Put members of the public at risk, and c) Led to the unnecessary call for backup.
  3. His inaccurate reporting of the incident created the impression that police officers and members of the public were at greater level of harm that they were.

Thu 14th April 2022, (time not published)

View on Misconduct 999

PC Jared Gobey     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Alleged Breaches (No further information has been provided by the force into the circumstances of the alleged breaches.)

The hearing is to be held in public.

No further information has been provided by the force into the circumstances of the alleged breaches.

  1. He gave a misleading account of an incident he attended to the Force Control Room involving an incident involving a distressed male.
  2. He failed to leave the building he was in to speak to this male and this a) Put the male at risk; b) Put members of the public at risk, and c) Led to the unnecessary call for backup.
  3. His inaccurate reporting of the incident created the impression that police officers and members of the public were at greater level of harm that they were.
Share this story
Published
Categorised as Mailings

An investigative news agency that uncovers agenda-setting stories from across the UK