A police officer’s curiosity cost him his career after he repeatedly snooped through confidential records about someone with whom he had a personal connection.
PC Ryan Clarke used West Mercia Police computer systems to view custody details, addresses, a photograph and a detention log without a legitimate policing purpose.
Clarke, who joined the force in September 2021, first accessed the person’s records on July 28, 2022, after seeing their surname while carrying out his duties.
He searched the records to establish whether it was the same individual and accessed personal information held on the force’s Genie intelligence database.
Clarke admitted that he knew accessing the information was “not the right thing to do”, but failed to report the search or make any record of it.
Months later, during two shifts in February 2023, he accessed the same person’s records again after their name appeared on an Athena system “whiteboard” listing overnight arrests and detentions.
Clarke repeatedly viewed records, including a photograph, custody information, and a detention log containing details about the person’s arrest, detention, and any interventions they required.
He told the misconduct hearing that he was “curious” because the person had remained in custody from the previous day.
Clarke claimed that he recalled telling a sergeant about the searches but could not identify the officer concerned.
Inquiries by West Mercia Police failed to establish that any of the likely sergeants had been informed.
Under cross-examination, Clarke accepted that it was more likely than not that he had not reported the searches, as any such disclosure would have produced an audit trail.
He also failed to record the searches in his pocket notebook, an email or any other electronic note — despite telling the panel that he kept his notebook up to date “religiously”.
The panel found that Clarke’s actions were “both deliberate and intentional” and became more serious with every occasion on which he accessed the information.
It concluded that his culpability was high and the harm caused was medium.
The panel found breaches of the professional standards relating to Integrity, Confidentiality and Discreditable Conduct, and concluded they amounted to gross misconduct.
The panel said: “Public confidence in the police’s ability to handle private and sensitive information securely is paramount. It is vital for public trust.”
A final written warning was considered but rejected because it would not adequately maintain public confidence or deter officers who might be tempted to access private information “simply to satisfy their curiosity”.
