PC Colin McMeekin Misconduct Hearing Outcome

Outcome published Thu 22nd Sep 2022, 20 working days after the hearing ended

View full hearing details

Officer(s)

Standards of professional behavior that have allegedly been breached

  • Honesty and integrity
  • Authority, respect and courtesy
  • Duties and responsibilities
  • Conduct

Allegations Proven

  • Honesty and integrity
  • Authority, respect and courtesy
  • Conduct

Sanction: Resigned

Summary

It was alleged that former PC McMeekin’s actions breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour
as follows:
Authority, Respect and Courtesy; Duties and Responsibilities; Discreditable Conduct
On 29 May 2019, PC McMeekin allegedly created (and obtained a signature from an elderly female
on) two ‘letters of authority’, which were not MPS standard, recognised or approved documents, in
order to gain access to bank accounts and financial information;
The use of the aforesaid ‘letters of authority’ was an inappropriate way to gain access to information;
Former PC McMeekin did not have, and did not record, any justification for using the aforesaid ‘letters
of authority’;
On 19 June 2019, former PC McMeekin allegedly, inappropriately and unjustifiably obtained two third
party mandates in relation to the female’s HSBC bank account, which unnecessarily and
inappropriately allowed him to exercise control over the account;
On 12 July 2019, former PC McMeekin unnecessarily and inappropriately asked HSBC to stop sending
bank statements to her home address;
Between around 24 and 28 September 2019, former PC McMeekin retained in his possession £1,000
in cash belonging to the female without any lawful policing purpose;
Former PC McMeekin failed to keep any record of the aforesaid £1,000 or store it securely in
accordance with the MPS’s ‘Storage of Property’ policy;
In light of each or all of the aforesaid breaches, it is alleged:
Former PC McMeekin abused his position of trust to intentionally take control, or attempt to take
control, of an elderly female’s accounts and finances without any lawful policing purpose;
Former PC McMeekin acted outside of his professional obligations and failed to keep your relationship
with the female professional;
Honesty and Integrity; Orders and Instructions, Discreditable Conduct
Former PC McMeekin unjustifiably continued to access bank accounts and withdraw/handle money
after being specifically instructed not to do so by PS Marrison on 22 July 2019, which amounted to a
lack of integrity;
Honesty and Integrity; Duties and Responsibilities; Discreditable Conduct
Former PC McMeekin failed to inform RBKC Social Services that ‘letters of authority’ sought to give
him ‘full unrestricted access to all information’ relating to these bank accounts and ‘take whatever
actions may deem necessary to assist with the protection’ of finances held with Halifax and HSBC,
which amounted to a lack of integrity;
Former PC McMeekin failed to inform RBKC Social Services that he intended to obtain, and did obtain,
third party mandates in relation to the females HSBC bank account, which amounted to a lack of
integrity;
Former PC McMeekin thereby failed to inform his line manager and/or RBKC Social Services that he
had formal access to, and/or control over the accounts such that he was able to withdraw money
without her being present, which amounted to a lack of integrity;
On 12 July 2019, former PC McMeekin falsely and dishonestly told PC Brown that the third party
mandates with HSBC were ‘part of an agreed care plan with social services’, in particular with Ms Ali
during the safeguarding meeting on 17 June 2019;
On 28 September 2019, former PC McMeekin falsely and dishonestly told PC Squires that he was given
‘very limited access’ to the female’s HSBC and Halifax bank accounts to arrange her direct debits, and
this was approved by line managers, who were ‘fully aware’.
At the Misconduct hearing chaired by Mr Akbar Khan, Legally Qualified Chair, 4 allegations were
proven on the facts, two (only) amounting to misconduct, in respect of the following:
On 29 May 2019, the former officer created (and obtained a signature on) two ‘letters of authority’,
which were not MPS standard, recognised or approved documents, in order to gain access to an
elderly female’s bank accounts and financial information; however, this did not amount to a breach
of the Standards of Professional Behaviour and therefore did not amount to misconduct.
The former officer did not have, and did not record, any justification for using the aforesaid ‘letters of
authority’; however, this did not amount to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour and
therefore did not amount to misconduct.
On 12 July 2019, the former officer unnecessarily and inappropriately asked HSBC to stop sending
bank statements to the elderly female’s home address; this amounted to a breach of the Standards of
Professional Behaviour relating to Authority, Respect & Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct.
The former officer unjustifiably continued to access the elderly female’s bank accounts and
withdrew/handled her money after being specifically instructed not to do so by which amounted to a
a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to integrity (but not dishonesty) by failing
to act in the right way and not behaving in a totally correct manner.
The Panel considered that informed members of the public would understand that the officer was
trying to do the right thing towards the elderly female.
In terms of culpability, the Panel finds that the officer is solely responsible for his proven conduct. He
made the request to the bank to stop Ms X bank statements without any authority or evidence
requiring such action. Likewise, he continued to withdraw cash from Ms X bank accounts despite
receiving a clear instruction to stop from his line manager.
At the relevant time the officer was a SPOC in a trusted position regarding Ms X who was a vulnerable
person. Although his proven conduct was not for personal gain, he has brought discredit on the
policing service by an abuse of authority. Such discredit harms public confidence in policing especially
when it involves conduct towards a vulnerable person where consummate professionalism is
required.
The officer’s continuing support to Ms X by assisting her with financial transactions despite a clear
instruction to stop has not caused any obvious or tangible harm as it was done for her benefit and
support at a time when none of the other agencies were prepared to step in and help Ms X regarding
her finances. The Panel considers that informed members of the public would understand that the
officer was trying to do the right thing towards Ms X.
In summary, these proven allegations breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to
Authority, Respect and Courtesy
Discreditable Conduct
Integrity
The allegation were proven at the level of Misconduct and as the officer is no longer a serving officer
under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 (as amended) no further action could be taken. All other
allegations were found not proven.

Metropolitan Police Service
  • Stats since 1st January 2022
  • 92 Misconduct Hearings
    86% held in public

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS / "the Met") is the territorial police force responsible for law enforcement in Greater London, excluding the square mile of the City of London which is the responsibility of the City of London Police.


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