Upcoming Police Misconduct Hearings 19 Sep 2022 – 2 Oct 2022

View as PDF / Download / Print

5-Day Summary

Mon 19th September 2022, 10:00am Empress State Building, Lillie Rd, London

PC 24886 Pasisz     –     West Midlands Police,

On 12th and 13th June 2021 former PC Pasisz drove her vehicle to work when being the holder of a provisional driving licence only, unaccompanied by a qualified driver and without being insured to drive it.

When a colleague of former PC Pasisz who had seen her driving on 12th June, queried with her whether she had passed her driving test, former PC Pasisz attempted to dissuade her from reporting the matter.

When former PC Pasisz’s tutor, who had observed she had driven herself to work on 13th June 2021, queried whether she had passed her test, former PC Pasisz falsely informed him that she had.

When former PC Pasisz was confronted by her supervisor regarding having been seen driving unaccompanied on 13th June 2021, whilst former PC Pasisz admitted having driven unaccompanied and without insurance on that occasion, she falsely informed her supervisor that was the only occasion she had done so.

On 16th September 2021 former PC Pasisz pleaded guilty and was convicted at Birmingham Magistrates Court of driving other than in accordance with the conditions of her driving licence and without being insured to drive on the 12th and 13 June 2021 and was dealt with by way of fine, penalty points and disqualified from driving for six months.

Tue 20th September 2022, 10:00am Bedfordshire Police Headquarters

Inspector John Nichols     –     Bedfordshire Police,

In July 2022 Former Inspector John Nichols pleaded guilty to criminal offences; Making indecent photographs of children and Attempting to arrange/facilitate the commission of a child sex offence. He was sentenced to 30 months custody and given a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

Tue 20th September 2022, 10:00am Sussex Police Headquarters

PC X     –     Sussex Police,

He used unreasonable force in arresting the minor child A.
His account in the use of force form of the incident was false.

Tue 20th September 2022, (time not published) Unit A Fujitsu Building, Central Park, Northampton Road, Manchester

PC Lee Howard     –     Greater Manchester Police,

Lee Howard will answer allegations of gross misconduct in that their conduct amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour namely;

(a) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he was convicted of a criminal offence at Liverpool Crown Court, computer misuse and breaches of the Data Protection Act.

(b) Confidentiality, namely that Lee Howard breached the standard by accessing police information which he did not have permission and/or a legitimate policing purpose or authorisation.

(c) Honesty and Integrity, namely that Lee Howard failed to act with the honesty and integrity required of a police officer by providing a false account of his deployment on the night of the 22 – 23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(d) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he provided a false account of his deployment on the 22-23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(e) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he used on multiple occasions racist and homophobic language in communications.

(f) Equality and Diversity, namely that Lee Howard by his conduct discriminated against persons from minority groups and persons with protected characteristics.

(g) Authority, Respect and Courtesy, namely that Lee Howard’s behaviour and language would be perceived by a member of the public and his policing colleagues as being abusive, oppressive, victimising and offensive.

The need to manage those persons linking to the hearing will limit numbers to 15 in total.

If members of the press or public wish to observe the hearing, they are required to pre-register via the GMP website, leaving their details including contact telephone number and email address. Anyone who has not pre-registered will not be allowed to listen to the hearing.

No external recording or filming of the proceedings is allowed. Anyone being disruptive during the hearing will have their connection to the hearing terminated.

Wed 21st September 2022, 10:00am Old Magistrates Building, Estcourt Terrace, Goole, DN14 5AF

Police Constable 1679 Alex Seddon     –     Humberside Police,

No further information has been provided by the force about the alleged Standards of professional behavior which were breached.

Wed 21st September 2022, 12:00pm Empress State Building, Lillie Road, SW6, London

PC Archie Payne     –     Metropolitan Police Service,

On 5 January 2020 at approximately 2am, a member of the public approached on duty Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officers, including former PC Archie Payne, to ask for assistance in escorting his friend past a group he feared might attack him. The officers did not assist the member of public.

A fight took place between two groups and police then intervened. During the incident, a member of the public received an injury to his head after being struck by a police baton – not that of former PC Payne.

During the aftermath of that incident, former PC Payne placed a different member of the public into a headlock and pushed him towards the wall and then on to the floor.

On 3 July 2020, former PC Payne was charged with Common Assault and on Friday 14 May 2021, he was found guilty of that offence.

Former PC Payne appealed his conviction, which was heard on the 16 and 17 June 2022 – the appeal was unsuccessful.

It is alleged that in acting in this way, former PC Payne breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of ‘Discreditable Conduct’ and ‘Use of Force’.

Wed 21st September 2022, 10:00am Sussex Police Headquarters

PC X     –     Sussex Police,

He used unreasonable force in arresting the minor child A.
His account in the use of force form of the incident was false.

Wed 21st September 2022, 10:00am The Greenwell Room, Wootton Hall, Mereway

PC Peter Halonka     –     Northamptonshire Police,

Allegation 1

PC Halonka attended an incident on June 4, 2020 with other officers where a male was arrested. The male resisted arrest, as a result of which police powers were used to restrain him, and PC Halonka was involved in the restraint of the male.
After the incident involving the restraint PC Halonka reported a displacement of his lower jaw and told colleagues that it was dislocated.
PC Halonka told a Sergeant that he had not been assaulted and this was an aggravation of a pre-existing injury, he told another officer that he had been struck in the face and told his Inspector that the suspect has struck him.
PC Halonka then provided an account to a DC that the suspect had struck him to the left side of his head. When asked to confirm if anything else had made contact with his face, he stated that he could not remember, before stating that it was definitely the suspect’s fist which had struck him.
On July 18, 2020 PC Halonka completed and signed a s.9 Criminal Justice Act declaration containing a statement that the left side of his head had hit a wall. His statement then contained a recollection that he had taken the suspect to the floor in the course of which the left side of his face collided with the shoulder of another officer. The statement omitted any mention of the suspect striking him to the face.
PC Halonka continued in his statement to assert that his jaw was forced open as a result of the melee. He stated that this was either from hitting the wall or from colliding with an officer when bringing the suspect to the floor.
Allegation 2

Between November 6 and 14, 2020 PC Halonka was the investigating officer on an occurrence which meant that he had responsibility for completing enquiries, gathering evidence and submitting a summary report for advice from the CPS in relation to the merits of a prosecution. This was part of his period as a student constable when he was working with a tutor constable, and he was allocated a reduced number of investigations as part of his development.
The file in question was ready to be submitted to the CPS on or about the November 6, 2020. PC Halonka was requested to do this as a priority and failed to submit the file.
The officer then misled his tutor constable and his Sergeant by indicating that he had completed the work assigned to him.
The Sergeant pointed out to PC Halonka that the case file had not been prepared, which the officer acknowledged by saying words to the effect ‘well that’s something I will have to get done’.
Allegation 3

On November 16, 2020 PC Halonka attended a road traffic collision (‘RTC’) on the Kettering Road, Northampton, in company with his tutor constable. His involvement at the scene of the RTC required him to carry out a number of enquiries, which included verifying via police systems that the parties were licensed and insured appropriately to use vehicles on the highway.
PC Halonka carried out a search and input the wrong VRM for the motorcycle. This produced a search result that indicated ‘no trace’ of the motorcycle.
The tutor constable asked PC Halonka if he had carried out a check on the vehicle and PC Halonka indicated that he had and that it ‘all checked out’, by which he intended the tutor constable to understand that no further checks were required, and the vehicle was insured and had a valid MOT. The tutor constable asked PC Halonka to confirm that insurance was in place in respect of the vehicle, and he confirmed that it was.
The tutor constable then carried out a further check on the vehicle using the search history function on PC Halonka’s mobile device and found that it gave a result of ‘no trace’. He then realised that the incorrect VRM had been input and corrected the search. This showed that the vehicle was registered to a third party and was not showing as insured.
The tutor constable queried with PC Halonka why he had told him that the vehicle had ‘checked out’ when the search he conducted did not provide a result and indicated ‘no trace’. PC Halonka again indicated that he had carried out the check. The tutor constable showed him the results of the accurate search and PC Halonka said words to the effect that ‘I just don’t understand, I couldn’t have, then’.
The tutor constable later spoke to PC Halonka about the check and why he told him a lie. PC Halonka responded that he had panicked because he knew he had lied and therefore persisted with the lie.

Particulars of misconduct

  1. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with colleagues stating that he had been struck by the suspect, causing the dislocation to his jaw, when he knew that this statement was untrue.
  2. PC Halonka failed to be diligent in your duties and/or follow a reasonable instruction by submitting the file for an occurrence to the CPS in a timely fashion.
  3. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with his Sergeant in that he told him that he had submitted the file for an occurrence to the CPS when he knew this statement was false or otherwise did not believe it to be true.
  4. PC Halonka failed to carry out his duties diligently and/or failed to comply with a reasonable instruction when he carried out the PRONTO search incorrectly. When the result of the check was ‘no trace’, he failed to carry out another search with the correct parameters, or otherwise seek assistance with the search from his tutor constable.
  5. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with his tutor constable when he stated words to the effect that he had done the search and/or that the vehicle ‘Checked out’, implying that he had done the search and had verified the insurance on the vehicle. He knew this statement to be false and intended to mislead his tutor constable into thinking that he had completed the search.

 

Wed 21st September 2022, 10:00am Unit A Fujitsu Building, Central Park, Northampton Road, Manchester

PC Lee Howard     –     Greater Manchester Police,

Lee Howard will answer allegations of gross misconduct in that their conduct amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour namely;

(a) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he was convicted of a criminal offence at Liverpool Crown Court, computer misuse and breaches of the Data Protection Act.

(b) Confidentiality, namely that Lee Howard breached the standard by accessing police information which he did not have permission and/or a legitimate policing purpose or authorisation.

(c) Honesty and Integrity, namely that Lee Howard failed to act with the honesty and integrity required of a police officer by providing a false account of his deployment on the night of the 22 – 23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(d) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he provided a false account of his deployment on the 22-23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(e) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he used on multiple occasions racist and homophobic language in communications.

(f) Equality and Diversity, namely that Lee Howard by his conduct discriminated against persons from minority groups and persons with protected characteristics.

(g) Authority, Respect and Courtesy, namely that Lee Howard’s behaviour and language would be perceived by a member of the public and his policing colleagues as being abusive, oppressive, victimising and offensive.

The need to manage those persons linking to the hearing will limit numbers to 15 in total.

If members of the press or public wish to observe the hearing, they are required to pre-register via the GMP website, leaving their details including contact telephone number and email address. Anyone who has not pre-registered will not be allowed to listen to the hearing.

No external recording or filming of the proceedings is allowed. Anyone being disruptive during the hearing will have their connection to the hearing terminated.

Thu 22nd September 2022, 10:00am Sussex Police Headquarters

PC X     –     Sussex Police,

He used unreasonable force in arresting the minor child A.
His account in the use of force form of the incident was false.

Thu 22nd September 2022, 10:00am The Greenwell Room, Wootton Hall, Mereway

PC Peter Halonka     –     Northamptonshire Police,

Allegation 1

PC Halonka attended an incident on June 4, 2020 with other officers where a male was arrested. The male resisted arrest, as a result of which police powers were used to restrain him, and PC Halonka was involved in the restraint of the male.
After the incident involving the restraint PC Halonka reported a displacement of his lower jaw and told colleagues that it was dislocated.
PC Halonka told a Sergeant that he had not been assaulted and this was an aggravation of a pre-existing injury, he told another officer that he had been struck in the face and told his Inspector that the suspect has struck him.
PC Halonka then provided an account to a DC that the suspect had struck him to the left side of his head. When asked to confirm if anything else had made contact with his face, he stated that he could not remember, before stating that it was definitely the suspect’s fist which had struck him.
On July 18, 2020 PC Halonka completed and signed a s.9 Criminal Justice Act declaration containing a statement that the left side of his head had hit a wall. His statement then contained a recollection that he had taken the suspect to the floor in the course of which the left side of his face collided with the shoulder of another officer. The statement omitted any mention of the suspect striking him to the face.
PC Halonka continued in his statement to assert that his jaw was forced open as a result of the melee. He stated that this was either from hitting the wall or from colliding with an officer when bringing the suspect to the floor.
Allegation 2

Between November 6 and 14, 2020 PC Halonka was the investigating officer on an occurrence which meant that he had responsibility for completing enquiries, gathering evidence and submitting a summary report for advice from the CPS in relation to the merits of a prosecution. This was part of his period as a student constable when he was working with a tutor constable, and he was allocated a reduced number of investigations as part of his development.
The file in question was ready to be submitted to the CPS on or about the November 6, 2020. PC Halonka was requested to do this as a priority and failed to submit the file.
The officer then misled his tutor constable and his Sergeant by indicating that he had completed the work assigned to him.
The Sergeant pointed out to PC Halonka that the case file had not been prepared, which the officer acknowledged by saying words to the effect ‘well that’s something I will have to get done’.
Allegation 3

On November 16, 2020 PC Halonka attended a road traffic collision (‘RTC’) on the Kettering Road, Northampton, in company with his tutor constable. His involvement at the scene of the RTC required him to carry out a number of enquiries, which included verifying via police systems that the parties were licensed and insured appropriately to use vehicles on the highway.
PC Halonka carried out a search and input the wrong VRM for the motorcycle. This produced a search result that indicated ‘no trace’ of the motorcycle.
The tutor constable asked PC Halonka if he had carried out a check on the vehicle and PC Halonka indicated that he had and that it ‘all checked out’, by which he intended the tutor constable to understand that no further checks were required, and the vehicle was insured and had a valid MOT. The tutor constable asked PC Halonka to confirm that insurance was in place in respect of the vehicle, and he confirmed that it was.
The tutor constable then carried out a further check on the vehicle using the search history function on PC Halonka’s mobile device and found that it gave a result of ‘no trace’. He then realised that the incorrect VRM had been input and corrected the search. This showed that the vehicle was registered to a third party and was not showing as insured.
The tutor constable queried with PC Halonka why he had told him that the vehicle had ‘checked out’ when the search he conducted did not provide a result and indicated ‘no trace’. PC Halonka again indicated that he had carried out the check. The tutor constable showed him the results of the accurate search and PC Halonka said words to the effect that ‘I just don’t understand, I couldn’t have, then’.
The tutor constable later spoke to PC Halonka about the check and why he told him a lie. PC Halonka responded that he had panicked because he knew he had lied and therefore persisted with the lie.

Particulars of misconduct

  1. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with colleagues stating that he had been struck by the suspect, causing the dislocation to his jaw, when he knew that this statement was untrue.
  2. PC Halonka failed to be diligent in your duties and/or follow a reasonable instruction by submitting the file for an occurrence to the CPS in a timely fashion.
  3. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with his Sergeant in that he told him that he had submitted the file for an occurrence to the CPS when he knew this statement was false or otherwise did not believe it to be true.
  4. PC Halonka failed to carry out his duties diligently and/or failed to comply with a reasonable instruction when he carried out the PRONTO search incorrectly. When the result of the check was ‘no trace’, he failed to carry out another search with the correct parameters, or otherwise seek assistance with the search from his tutor constable.
  5. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with his tutor constable when he stated words to the effect that he had done the search and/or that the vehicle ‘Checked out’, implying that he had done the search and had verified the insurance on the vehicle. He knew this statement to be false and intended to mislead his tutor constable into thinking that he had completed the search.

 

Thu 22nd September 2022, 10:00am Unit A Fujitsu Building, Central Park, Northampton Road, Manchester

PC Lee Howard     –     Greater Manchester Police,

Lee Howard will answer allegations of gross misconduct in that their conduct amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour namely;

(a) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he was convicted of a criminal offence at Liverpool Crown Court, computer misuse and breaches of the Data Protection Act.

(b) Confidentiality, namely that Lee Howard breached the standard by accessing police information which he did not have permission and/or a legitimate policing purpose or authorisation.

(c) Honesty and Integrity, namely that Lee Howard failed to act with the honesty and integrity required of a police officer by providing a false account of his deployment on the night of the 22 – 23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(d) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he provided a false account of his deployment on the 22-23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(e) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he used on multiple occasions racist and homophobic language in communications.

(f) Equality and Diversity, namely that Lee Howard by his conduct discriminated against persons from minority groups and persons with protected characteristics.

(g) Authority, Respect and Courtesy, namely that Lee Howard’s behaviour and language would be perceived by a member of the public and his policing colleagues as being abusive, oppressive, victimising and offensive.

The need to manage those persons linking to the hearing will limit numbers to 15 in total.

If members of the press or public wish to observe the hearing, they are required to pre-register via the GMP website, leaving their details including contact telephone number and email address. Anyone who has not pre-registered will not be allowed to listen to the hearing.

No external recording or filming of the proceedings is allowed. Anyone being disruptive during the hearing will have their connection to the hearing terminated.

Fri 23rd September 2022, 10:00am Sussex Police Headquarters

PC X     –     Sussex Police,

He used unreasonable force in arresting the minor child A.
His account in the use of force form of the incident was false.

Fri 23rd September 2022, 10:00am Greater Manchester Police Force Headquarters, Central Park, Northampton Road, Manchester, M40 5BP

PC William Kellywill     –     Greater Manchester Police,

No further information has been provided by the force about the alleged Standards of professional behavior which were breached.

Former PC William Kellywill answer allegations that his conduct amounts to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour of Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Equality and Diversity and Discreditable Conduct contrary to the  Police Regulations 2020.

Hearings List (14 days)

Mon 19th September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC 24886 Pasisz     –     West Midlands Police,

Empress State Building, Lillie Rd, London

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Honesty and integrity
  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

On 12th and 13th June 2021 former PC Pasisz drove her vehicle to work when being the holder of a provisional driving licence only, unaccompanied by a qualified driver and without being insured to drive it.

When a colleague of former PC Pasisz who had seen her driving on 12th June, queried with her whether she had passed her driving test, former PC Pasisz attempted to dissuade her from reporting the matter.

When former PC Pasisz’s tutor, who had observed she had driven herself to work on 13th June 2021, queried whether she had passed her test, former PC Pasisz falsely informed him that she had.

When former PC Pasisz was confronted by her supervisor regarding having been seen driving unaccompanied on 13th June 2021, whilst former PC Pasisz admitted having driven unaccompanied and without insurance on that occasion, she falsely informed her supervisor that was the only occasion she had done so.

On 16th September 2021 former PC Pasisz pleaded guilty and was convicted at Birmingham Magistrates Court of driving other than in accordance with the conditions of her driving licence and without being insured to drive on the 12th and 13 June 2021 and was dealt with by way of fine, penalty points and disqualified from driving for six months.

Tue 20th September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

Inspector John Nichols     –     Bedfordshire Police,

Bedfordshire Police Headquarters

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached (No further information has been provided by the force about the alleged Standards of professional behavior which were breached.)

The hearing is to be held in public.

In July 2022 Former Inspector John Nichols pleaded guilty to criminal offences; Making indecent photographs of children and Attempting to arrange/facilitate the commission of a child sex offence. He was sentenced to 30 months custody and given a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

Tue 20th September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC X     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached (No further information has been provided by the force about the alleged Standards of professional behavior which were breached.)

The hearing is to be held in public.

He used unreasonable force in arresting the minor child A.
His account in the use of force form of the incident was false.

Tue 20th September 2022, (time not published)

View on Misconduct 999

PC Lee Howard     –     Greater Manchester Police,

Unit A Fujitsu Building, Central Park, Northampton Road, Manchester

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Honesty and integrity
  • Authority, respect and courtesy
  • Equality and diversity
  • Confidentiality
  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

Lee Howard will answer allegations of gross misconduct in that their conduct amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour namely;

(a) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he was convicted of a criminal offence at Liverpool Crown Court, computer misuse and breaches of the Data Protection Act.

(b) Confidentiality, namely that Lee Howard breached the standard by accessing police information which he did not have permission and/or a legitimate policing purpose or authorisation.

(c) Honesty and Integrity, namely that Lee Howard failed to act with the honesty and integrity required of a police officer by providing a false account of his deployment on the night of the 22 – 23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(d) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he provided a false account of his deployment on the 22-23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(e) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he used on multiple occasions racist and homophobic language in communications.

(f) Equality and Diversity, namely that Lee Howard by his conduct discriminated against persons from minority groups and persons with protected characteristics.

(g) Authority, Respect and Courtesy, namely that Lee Howard’s behaviour and language would be perceived by a member of the public and his policing colleagues as being abusive, oppressive, victimising and offensive.

The need to manage those persons linking to the hearing will limit numbers to 15 in total.

If members of the press or public wish to observe the hearing, they are required to pre-register via the GMP website, leaving their details including contact telephone number and email address. Anyone who has not pre-registered will not be allowed to listen to the hearing.

No external recording or filming of the proceedings is allowed. Anyone being disruptive during the hearing will have their connection to the hearing terminated.

Wed 21st September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

Police Constable 1679 Alex Seddon     –     Humberside Police,

Old Magistrates Building, Estcourt Terrace, Goole, DN14 5AF

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Honesty and integrity

The hearing is to be held in public.

No further information has been provided by the force about the alleged Standards of professional behavior which were breached.

Wed 21st September 2022, 12:00pm

View on Misconduct 999

PC Archie Payne     –     Metropolitan Police Service,

Empress State Building, Lillie Road, SW6, London

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Use of force
  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

On 5 January 2020 at approximately 2am, a member of the public approached on duty Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officers, including former PC Archie Payne, to ask for assistance in escorting his friend past a group he feared might attack him. The officers did not assist the member of public.

A fight took place between two groups and police then intervened. During the incident, a member of the public received an injury to his head after being struck by a police baton – not that of former PC Payne.

During the aftermath of that incident, former PC Payne placed a different member of the public into a headlock and pushed him towards the wall and then on to the floor.

On 3 July 2020, former PC Payne was charged with Common Assault and on Friday 14 May 2021, he was found guilty of that offence.

Former PC Payne appealed his conviction, which was heard on the 16 and 17 June 2022 – the appeal was unsuccessful.

It is alleged that in acting in this way, former PC Payne breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of ‘Discreditable Conduct’ and ‘Use of Force’.

Wed 21st September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC X     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached (No further information has been provided by the force about the alleged Standards of professional behavior which were breached.)

The hearing is to be held in public.

He used unreasonable force in arresting the minor child A.
His account in the use of force form of the incident was false.

Wed 21st September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC Peter Halonka     –     Northamptonshire Police,

The Greenwell Room, Wootton Hall, Mereway

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Honesty and integrity
  • Orders and instructions
  • Duties and responsibilities
  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

Allegation 1

PC Halonka attended an incident on June 4, 2020 with other officers where a male was arrested. The male resisted arrest, as a result of which police powers were used to restrain him, and PC Halonka was involved in the restraint of the male.
After the incident involving the restraint PC Halonka reported a displacement of his lower jaw and told colleagues that it was dislocated.
PC Halonka told a Sergeant that he had not been assaulted and this was an aggravation of a pre-existing injury, he told another officer that he had been struck in the face and told his Inspector that the suspect has struck him.
PC Halonka then provided an account to a DC that the suspect had struck him to the left side of his head. When asked to confirm if anything else had made contact with his face, he stated that he could not remember, before stating that it was definitely the suspect’s fist which had struck him.
On July 18, 2020 PC Halonka completed and signed a s.9 Criminal Justice Act declaration containing a statement that the left side of his head had hit a wall. His statement then contained a recollection that he had taken the suspect to the floor in the course of which the left side of his face collided with the shoulder of another officer. The statement omitted any mention of the suspect striking him to the face.
PC Halonka continued in his statement to assert that his jaw was forced open as a result of the melee. He stated that this was either from hitting the wall or from colliding with an officer when bringing the suspect to the floor.
Allegation 2

Between November 6 and 14, 2020 PC Halonka was the investigating officer on an occurrence which meant that he had responsibility for completing enquiries, gathering evidence and submitting a summary report for advice from the CPS in relation to the merits of a prosecution. This was part of his period as a student constable when he was working with a tutor constable, and he was allocated a reduced number of investigations as part of his development.
The file in question was ready to be submitted to the CPS on or about the November 6, 2020. PC Halonka was requested to do this as a priority and failed to submit the file.
The officer then misled his tutor constable and his Sergeant by indicating that he had completed the work assigned to him.
The Sergeant pointed out to PC Halonka that the case file had not been prepared, which the officer acknowledged by saying words to the effect ‘well that’s something I will have to get done’.
Allegation 3

On November 16, 2020 PC Halonka attended a road traffic collision (‘RTC’) on the Kettering Road, Northampton, in company with his tutor constable. His involvement at the scene of the RTC required him to carry out a number of enquiries, which included verifying via police systems that the parties were licensed and insured appropriately to use vehicles on the highway.
PC Halonka carried out a search and input the wrong VRM for the motorcycle. This produced a search result that indicated ‘no trace’ of the motorcycle.
The tutor constable asked PC Halonka if he had carried out a check on the vehicle and PC Halonka indicated that he had and that it ‘all checked out’, by which he intended the tutor constable to understand that no further checks were required, and the vehicle was insured and had a valid MOT. The tutor constable asked PC Halonka to confirm that insurance was in place in respect of the vehicle, and he confirmed that it was.
The tutor constable then carried out a further check on the vehicle using the search history function on PC Halonka’s mobile device and found that it gave a result of ‘no trace’. He then realised that the incorrect VRM had been input and corrected the search. This showed that the vehicle was registered to a third party and was not showing as insured.
The tutor constable queried with PC Halonka why he had told him that the vehicle had ‘checked out’ when the search he conducted did not provide a result and indicated ‘no trace’. PC Halonka again indicated that he had carried out the check. The tutor constable showed him the results of the accurate search and PC Halonka said words to the effect that ‘I just don’t understand, I couldn’t have, then’.
The tutor constable later spoke to PC Halonka about the check and why he told him a lie. PC Halonka responded that he had panicked because he knew he had lied and therefore persisted with the lie.

Particulars of misconduct

  1. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with colleagues stating that he had been struck by the suspect, causing the dislocation to his jaw, when he knew that this statement was untrue.
  2. PC Halonka failed to be diligent in your duties and/or follow a reasonable instruction by submitting the file for an occurrence to the CPS in a timely fashion.
  3. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with his Sergeant in that he told him that he had submitted the file for an occurrence to the CPS when he knew this statement was false or otherwise did not believe it to be true.
  4. PC Halonka failed to carry out his duties diligently and/or failed to comply with a reasonable instruction when he carried out the PRONTO search incorrectly. When the result of the check was ‘no trace’, he failed to carry out another search with the correct parameters, or otherwise seek assistance with the search from his tutor constable.
  5. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with his tutor constable when he stated words to the effect that he had done the search and/or that the vehicle ‘Checked out’, implying that he had done the search and had verified the insurance on the vehicle. He knew this statement to be false and intended to mislead his tutor constable into thinking that he had completed the search.

 

Wed 21st September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC Lee Howard     –     Greater Manchester Police,

Unit A Fujitsu Building, Central Park, Northampton Road, Manchester

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Honesty and integrity
  • Authority, respect and courtesy
  • Equality and diversity
  • Confidentiality
  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

Lee Howard will answer allegations of gross misconduct in that their conduct amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour namely;

(a) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he was convicted of a criminal offence at Liverpool Crown Court, computer misuse and breaches of the Data Protection Act.

(b) Confidentiality, namely that Lee Howard breached the standard by accessing police information which he did not have permission and/or a legitimate policing purpose or authorisation.

(c) Honesty and Integrity, namely that Lee Howard failed to act with the honesty and integrity required of a police officer by providing a false account of his deployment on the night of the 22 – 23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(d) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he provided a false account of his deployment on the 22-23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(e) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he used on multiple occasions racist and homophobic language in communications.

(f) Equality and Diversity, namely that Lee Howard by his conduct discriminated against persons from minority groups and persons with protected characteristics.

(g) Authority, Respect and Courtesy, namely that Lee Howard’s behaviour and language would be perceived by a member of the public and his policing colleagues as being abusive, oppressive, victimising and offensive.

The need to manage those persons linking to the hearing will limit numbers to 15 in total.

If members of the press or public wish to observe the hearing, they are required to pre-register via the GMP website, leaving their details including contact telephone number and email address. Anyone who has not pre-registered will not be allowed to listen to the hearing.

No external recording or filming of the proceedings is allowed. Anyone being disruptive during the hearing will have their connection to the hearing terminated.

Thu 22nd September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC X     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached (No further information has been provided by the force about the alleged Standards of professional behavior which were breached.)

The hearing is to be held in public.

He used unreasonable force in arresting the minor child A.
His account in the use of force form of the incident was false.

Thu 22nd September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC Peter Halonka     –     Northamptonshire Police,

The Greenwell Room, Wootton Hall, Mereway

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Honesty and integrity
  • Orders and instructions
  • Duties and responsibilities
  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

Allegation 1

PC Halonka attended an incident on June 4, 2020 with other officers where a male was arrested. The male resisted arrest, as a result of which police powers were used to restrain him, and PC Halonka was involved in the restraint of the male.
After the incident involving the restraint PC Halonka reported a displacement of his lower jaw and told colleagues that it was dislocated.
PC Halonka told a Sergeant that he had not been assaulted and this was an aggravation of a pre-existing injury, he told another officer that he had been struck in the face and told his Inspector that the suspect has struck him.
PC Halonka then provided an account to a DC that the suspect had struck him to the left side of his head. When asked to confirm if anything else had made contact with his face, he stated that he could not remember, before stating that it was definitely the suspect’s fist which had struck him.
On July 18, 2020 PC Halonka completed and signed a s.9 Criminal Justice Act declaration containing a statement that the left side of his head had hit a wall. His statement then contained a recollection that he had taken the suspect to the floor in the course of which the left side of his face collided with the shoulder of another officer. The statement omitted any mention of the suspect striking him to the face.
PC Halonka continued in his statement to assert that his jaw was forced open as a result of the melee. He stated that this was either from hitting the wall or from colliding with an officer when bringing the suspect to the floor.
Allegation 2

Between November 6 and 14, 2020 PC Halonka was the investigating officer on an occurrence which meant that he had responsibility for completing enquiries, gathering evidence and submitting a summary report for advice from the CPS in relation to the merits of a prosecution. This was part of his period as a student constable when he was working with a tutor constable, and he was allocated a reduced number of investigations as part of his development.
The file in question was ready to be submitted to the CPS on or about the November 6, 2020. PC Halonka was requested to do this as a priority and failed to submit the file.
The officer then misled his tutor constable and his Sergeant by indicating that he had completed the work assigned to him.
The Sergeant pointed out to PC Halonka that the case file had not been prepared, which the officer acknowledged by saying words to the effect ‘well that’s something I will have to get done’.
Allegation 3

On November 16, 2020 PC Halonka attended a road traffic collision (‘RTC’) on the Kettering Road, Northampton, in company with his tutor constable. His involvement at the scene of the RTC required him to carry out a number of enquiries, which included verifying via police systems that the parties were licensed and insured appropriately to use vehicles on the highway.
PC Halonka carried out a search and input the wrong VRM for the motorcycle. This produced a search result that indicated ‘no trace’ of the motorcycle.
The tutor constable asked PC Halonka if he had carried out a check on the vehicle and PC Halonka indicated that he had and that it ‘all checked out’, by which he intended the tutor constable to understand that no further checks were required, and the vehicle was insured and had a valid MOT. The tutor constable asked PC Halonka to confirm that insurance was in place in respect of the vehicle, and he confirmed that it was.
The tutor constable then carried out a further check on the vehicle using the search history function on PC Halonka’s mobile device and found that it gave a result of ‘no trace’. He then realised that the incorrect VRM had been input and corrected the search. This showed that the vehicle was registered to a third party and was not showing as insured.
The tutor constable queried with PC Halonka why he had told him that the vehicle had ‘checked out’ when the search he conducted did not provide a result and indicated ‘no trace’. PC Halonka again indicated that he had carried out the check. The tutor constable showed him the results of the accurate search and PC Halonka said words to the effect that ‘I just don’t understand, I couldn’t have, then’.
The tutor constable later spoke to PC Halonka about the check and why he told him a lie. PC Halonka responded that he had panicked because he knew he had lied and therefore persisted with the lie.

Particulars of misconduct

  1. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with colleagues stating that he had been struck by the suspect, causing the dislocation to his jaw, when he knew that this statement was untrue.
  2. PC Halonka failed to be diligent in your duties and/or follow a reasonable instruction by submitting the file for an occurrence to the CPS in a timely fashion.
  3. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with his Sergeant in that he told him that he had submitted the file for an occurrence to the CPS when he knew this statement was false or otherwise did not believe it to be true.
  4. PC Halonka failed to carry out his duties diligently and/or failed to comply with a reasonable instruction when he carried out the PRONTO search incorrectly. When the result of the check was ‘no trace’, he failed to carry out another search with the correct parameters, or otherwise seek assistance with the search from his tutor constable.
  5. PC Halonka failed to be open and honest with his tutor constable when he stated words to the effect that he had done the search and/or that the vehicle ‘Checked out’, implying that he had done the search and had verified the insurance on the vehicle. He knew this statement to be false and intended to mislead his tutor constable into thinking that he had completed the search.

 

Thu 22nd September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC Lee Howard     –     Greater Manchester Police,

Unit A Fujitsu Building, Central Park, Northampton Road, Manchester

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Honesty and integrity
  • Authority, respect and courtesy
  • Equality and diversity
  • Confidentiality
  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

Lee Howard will answer allegations of gross misconduct in that their conduct amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour namely;

(a) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he was convicted of a criminal offence at Liverpool Crown Court, computer misuse and breaches of the Data Protection Act.

(b) Confidentiality, namely that Lee Howard breached the standard by accessing police information which he did not have permission and/or a legitimate policing purpose or authorisation.

(c) Honesty and Integrity, namely that Lee Howard failed to act with the honesty and integrity required of a police officer by providing a false account of his deployment on the night of the 22 – 23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(d) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he provided a false account of his deployment on the 22-23 May 2017 in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph, on the Nolan Show, in communications with his wife, to Dr Seneviratne and at his hearing at Liverpool Crown Court.

(e) Discreditable conduct, namely that Lee Howard behaved in a manner whilst on and off duty, which would discredit the police service, in that he used on multiple occasions racist and homophobic language in communications.

(f) Equality and Diversity, namely that Lee Howard by his conduct discriminated against persons from minority groups and persons with protected characteristics.

(g) Authority, Respect and Courtesy, namely that Lee Howard’s behaviour and language would be perceived by a member of the public and his policing colleagues as being abusive, oppressive, victimising and offensive.

The need to manage those persons linking to the hearing will limit numbers to 15 in total.

If members of the press or public wish to observe the hearing, they are required to pre-register via the GMP website, leaving their details including contact telephone number and email address. Anyone who has not pre-registered will not be allowed to listen to the hearing.

No external recording or filming of the proceedings is allowed. Anyone being disruptive during the hearing will have their connection to the hearing terminated.

Fri 23rd September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC X     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached (No further information has been provided by the force about the alleged Standards of professional behavior which were breached.)

The hearing is to be held in public.

He used unreasonable force in arresting the minor child A.
His account in the use of force form of the incident was false.

Fri 23rd September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC William Kellywill     –     Greater Manchester Police,

Greater Manchester Police Force Headquarters, Central Park, Northampton Road, Manchester, M40 5BP

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Authority, respect and courtesy
  • Equality and diversity
  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

No further information has been provided by the force about the alleged Standards of professional behavior which were breached.

Former PC William Kellywill answer allegations that his conduct amounts to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour of Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Equality and Diversity and Discreditable Conduct contrary to the  Police Regulations 2020.

Mon 26th September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

DS Sebastian Day     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Authority, respect and courtesy
  • Confidentiality

The hearing is to be held in public.

It is alleged that DS Day sexually harassed a subordinate member of staff.

Tue 27th September 2022, 9:00am

View on Misconduct 999

PC Sarson     –     Cheshire Constabulary,

Cheshire Constabulary Headquarters, Oakmere Road, Winsford, CW7 2UA

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached (No further information has been provided by the force about the alleged Standards of professional behavior which were breached.)

The hearing is to be held in public.

It is alleged that on several occasions whilst off duty on two separate social night outs, namely Thursday 19th August 2021 and Thursday 2nd December 2021, Police Constable Sarson behaved in a disorderly, sexualized, and inappropriate manner towards his female colleagues

Tue 27th September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

DS Sebastian Day     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Authority, respect and courtesy
  • Confidentiality

The hearing is to be held in public.

It is alleged that DS Day sexually harassed a subordinate member of staff.

Wed 28th September 2022, 9:30am

View on Misconduct 999

Former PC Luis Tickner     –     Metropolitan Police Service,

Empress State Building, Lillie Road, SW6, London

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

It is alleged that on 14 February 2021 whilst off duty, former PC Tickner invited Ms A to his home address.

It is also alleged that they drank alcohol and watched a film together before Ms A wanted to leave and former PC Tickner prevented her from doing so.

It is further alleged that former PC Tickner suggested that he would engage in sexual activity without Ms A’s consent causing her to be fearful of her safety.

Wed 28th September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

DS Sebastian Day     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Authority, respect and courtesy
  • Confidentiality

The hearing is to be held in public.

It is alleged that DS Day sexually harassed a subordinate member of staff.

Thu 29th September 2022, 9:30am

View on Misconduct 999

Former PC Luis Tickner     –     Metropolitan Police Service,

Empress State Building, Lillie Road, SW6, London

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

It is alleged that on 14 February 2021 whilst off duty, former PC Tickner invited Ms A to his home address.

It is also alleged that they drank alcohol and watched a film together before Ms A wanted to leave and former PC Tickner prevented her from doing so.

It is further alleged that former PC Tickner suggested that he would engage in sexual activity without Ms A’s consent causing her to be fearful of her safety.

Thu 29th September 2022, 10:00am

View on Misconduct 999

DS Sebastian Day     –     Sussex Police,

Sussex Police Headquarters

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Authority, respect and courtesy
  • Confidentiality

The hearing is to be held in public.

It is alleged that DS Day sexually harassed a subordinate member of staff.

Fri 30th September 2022, 9:30am

View on Misconduct 999

Former PC Luis Tickner     –     Metropolitan Police Service,

Empress State Building, Lillie Road, SW6, London

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Conduct

The hearing is to be held in public.

It is alleged that on 14 February 2021 whilst off duty, former PC Tickner invited Ms A to his home address.

It is also alleged that they drank alcohol and watched a film together before Ms A wanted to leave and former PC Tickner prevented her from doing so.

It is further alleged that former PC Tickner suggested that he would engage in sexual activity without Ms A’s consent causing her to be fearful of her safety.

Share this story
Published
Categorised as Mailings

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