Met Police Sergeant Who Deliberately Hid Her Past From Vetting Officers Is Granted Anonymity And Sacked

The experienced officer had served at Scotland Yard for around a decade and risen to the rank of sergeant when she completed a vetting renewal form

But a misconduct hearing found she deliberately concealed a former surname, previous police contact and an association which should have been disclosed
Her identity has been withheld from the public, with the published judgment referring to her only as “Officer A”

A Metropolitan Police sergeant whose identity has been concealed from the public was dismissed after deliberately withholding important information from vetting officers.

Known only as “Officer A”, she had served with Scotland Yard for around ten years and held a supervisory position when she submitted a vetting renewal application in 2024.

However, the experienced officer failed to disclose a previous surname, earlier police contact and disposal history, and other personal information required by the vetting process.

Commander Colin Wingrove ordered that the sergeant’s name and any information capable of identifying her should be removed from the published misconduct judgment.

The document does not publicly explain why she was granted anonymity.

Officer A claimed the omissions were an honest mistake caused by misunderstanding the vetting form and its instructions.

But Commander Wingrove rejected her explanation and found that some of the information had been withheld deliberately.

The vetting form specifically asked applicants about arrests and penalty notices—not merely convictions and cautions—and warned that deliberately withholding information could result in disciplinary action.

Commander Wingrove found that Officer A deliberately failed to reveal her previous police contact and one of her former surnames.

He noted that she had disclosed a different previous surname on the same form but had not provided a convincing explanation for withholding the other.

The commander concluded that the omissions formed part of “a deliberate attempt to avoid disclosure of material”.

It was also proven that Officer A deliberately failed to disclose an association involving the son of a former partner.

However, the hearing found that inaccurate or missing information concerning her parents had not been intentionally withheld.

Placing her son’s details under the section for co-residents instead of children was also found to have been an oversight.

Separate allegations relating to Officer A’s original vetting application in 2015 were not determined.

Commander Wingrove ruled that conduct occurring before she formally joined the Metropolitan Police fell outside the jurisdiction of the Police Conduct Regulations.

He therefore made no findings concerning those allegations.

The proven conduct involving the 2024 renewal breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Honesty and Integrity and Orders and Instructions.

Commander Wingrove said there had been no harm to an individual but assessed the damage to public confidence as high.

Officer A’s medical circumstances, previous good service and character references were considered.

However, the commander found that they did not amount to exceptional circumstances which could justify a lesser sanction.

Officer A was dismissed without notice following the accelerated misconduct hearing on August 11, 2026.