Veteran Detective Who Called Ex-partner 69 TIMES In Row Over Battle To Get His Dog Back Escapes Dismissal

Former detective Gary Birch made 42 calls on one day and another 27 a month later

• The officer of 26 years admitted harassment and accepted a conditional caution
• Panel found gross misconduct but said his poor mental health reduced his culpability
• Had he still been serving, he would have received a final written warning

A veteran detective repeatedly called his former partner 69 times from a withheld number during a bitter dispute over access to his dog, a police misconduct hearing has found.

Former Detective Constable Gary Birch made 42 calls on one occasion and another 27 the following month after the couple’s relationship ended.

The 26-year police veteran admitted that his behaviour amounted to harassment and accepted a conditional caution for the offence on April 14, 2026.

An accelerated misconduct hearing held on July 31 found that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct and breached professional standards concerning authority, respect and courtesy, as well as discreditable conduct.

But the panel concluded that “exceptional circumstances” meant Mr Birch would not have been dismissed had he remained in the force.

Instead, he would have received a final written warning.

Mr Birch told the hearing that he had been trying to regain access to his dog and had not intended to harass his former partner.

He admitted making too many calls but said he was suffering from poor mental health and using alcohol as a coping mechanism at the time.

The former officer was later detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act following his release from police custody.

He did not produce medical evidence showing that his mental health had caused his actions, and the panel stopped short of making such a finding.

However, the hearing’s chair, former Assistant Chief Constable Williams, accepted that Mr Birch was struggling to cope following the breakdown of his relationship and the loss of his home and dog.

The panel found that these difficulties had reduced his culpability “to a limited extent”.

Mr Birch also claimed that some repeat calls were made because his former partner had told him she could not hear him and asked him to call back.

But the panel rejected this as a complete explanation, noting that phone records showed several calls had gone unanswered.

The determination said: “He should have known better as a police officer.”

It added that Mr Birch could have contacted a solicitor, sent a text message or written an email instead of repeatedly calling his former partner.

The hearing accepted his explanation that he had used the redial function after making the first withheld call and had not deliberately concealed his identity on every occasion.

It also found that his original reason for making contact—seeking access to his dog—had been legitimate, but that the sheer volume of calls had turned a potentially proper request into a criminal offence.

The complainant suffered upset and anxiety but no physical or psychiatric injury, the panel found.

The misconduct was described as being towards the lower end of the scale for harassment offences because it involved no violence, dishonesty or abuse of Mr Birch’s police position and took place while he was off duty.

Nevertheless, the panel said that a police officer committing a harassment offence against a former partner would inevitably damage public confidence.

Mr Birch admitted the allegations at an early stage, apologised and was found to have shown genuine remorse.

He had served for 26 years, held a long-service and good-conduct medal and had no previous disciplinary record.

Under rules applying to cases after May 28, 2025, dismissal would ordinarily have been required after a finding of gross misconduct unless exceptional circumstances existed.

The panel ruled that Mr Birch’s mental health difficulties, stress, attempt to recover his dog and otherwise unblemished career met that threshold.

It concluded that a final written warning would have been sufficient to maintain public confidence, deter other officers and protect the public.

Because Mr Birch had already left the police, no disciplinary action was imposed.