Accelerated Misconduct Hearing outcome of former Police Constable Price Awuah
In the matter of Misconduct proceedings concerning former Police Constable Price Awuah
The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary
- and
Former Police Constable Price Awuah
Introduction
The Accelerated Misconduct Hearing (“AMH”) of Former Police Constable Price AWUAH was held on 22nd June 2026. During the course of the hearing I heard lengthy submissions from the Appropriate Authority concerning the evidence in relation to the four allegations made against the former officer. The former officer has not attended and is not legally represented. He is represented by Sergeant Matt Ward from the Police Federation. Also in attendance is Sergeant Joe Woolf from the Positive Action Team
I have had regard to the hearing bundle consisting of four hundred and thirty seven pages which sets out the allegations and the evidence against the officer which form the foundation of the case made by the AA.
I listened carefully to the submissions made on behalf of the AA and had regard to the interview of the former officer as well as the other material in this case.
The case for the Appropriate Authority is that Former PC Awuah has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, namely
- Honesty and Integrity
- Orders and Instructions
- Duties and Responsibilities
and
d. Discreditable Conduct
Having reviewed the evidence and taken all matter into account I have to assess whether the conduct, if proven, would be misconduct or gross misconduct. Conduct is to be considered gross misconduct if the conduct is so serious as to justify dismissal.
I will take each allegation separately and assess whether the conduct within that allegation is misconduct or gross misconduct. I will then look at the conduct as a whole and apply the same assessment.
The allegations are set out at pg. 4-10 of the hearing bundle in the Reg 51 Notice served on the former officer. I need not repeat them in full.
I have also received a Regulation 54 response which was received very late on Friday 19th June 2026.
I also remind myself of the standard and burden of proof in these matters and that it is for the AA to prove these allegations on the balance of probabilities.
Allegation 1 concerns the former officer having a notifiable association with a person by the name of [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] is a person with previous convictions for high-value fraud. The former officer submitted a notifiable association stating he had contact with this individual as a result of a business association and had not contacted that person since July 2020.
Between 3rd May 2024 to 16th October 2024 had contact multiple times per day. Former officer Awuah confirmed that he was in fact a friend of [REDACTED] and had failed to submit a further notifiable association and was therefore in breach of Force policy BCH/02/004. In failing to do so he acted dishonestly.
I have noted the officer late response in his Reg 54 Notice but do not find that his explanation is a credible one. He made no attempt to inform the Constabulary of his continuing association nor the frequency of his contact.
I find that having viewed the material and having heard from the AA. I find this matter proven on the balance of probabilities. Such behaviour in my view falls below the standards of behaviour expected.
I find that the conduct within this allegation is gross misconduct.
Allegation 2 concerns matters that having submitted two previous separate business interest in 2021 which were refused. In September 2021 following contact from another force it was alleged that the former officer had a business which was selling items on a site called ‘Vinted’. The former officer had not made an application for a business interest. The former officer had failed to adhere to BCH/02/002 Business Interest and Secondary Employment Procedure.
Having viewed the relevant evidence it seems to me that the officer was duty bound to report his ‘Vinted’ business interest. I note his denial within his Reg 54 notice and not that he states and I quote “My understanding of the policy was based upon my genuine belief that selling personal possessions did not amount to a notifiable business interest”
The policy is available to all officers and a check of that policy would have guided the officer to the answer. I do not accept that the officer did not know and do not find his explanation a credible one.
I find this allegation proven. I find that this matter amounts to gross misconduct.
Allegation 3 concerns the former officer obtaining a £5,000 ‘bounce back loan’ during the COVID 19 pandemic.
The application for that loan showed that he was running a business called Seldom Models and the turnover was £20,000, however a Companies House check revealed that the company had been dormant since 2017 and therefore its turnover would be nil. The bounce back loan was used not for business but for personal items and the payment of household bills.
The officer’s Reg 54 response states that the application was an online one and that he does not recall entering that the turnover for his business ‘Seldom Models’ was £20,000. I find that explanation not credible. The question would have been clear and only the former officer could know what his turnover was, this is despite the fact that his business was shown as dormant, a fact that he would also have known.
I find on the balance of probabilities that he was dishonest.
I find this allegation proved. I find that this conduct amounts to gross misconduct.
Allegation 4 concerns the former officer receiving over £20,000 from sales on Vinted and has failed to declare any taxable income to HMRC, nor has made any tax return showing the extra income.
I am of the view that the officer would have known that any money made from ‘Vinted’ would be extra income and would therefore be declarable income for the purposes of tax. The officer made no such returns to HMRC declaring this extra income of over £20,000 between 2018 and 2023.
I do not find that this was a mistake as he declares within his Reg 54 response and the conclusion I reach is that it was dishonest.
I find that this allegation is proven. I find that this amounts to gross misconduct.
I find that the officer has failed to adhere to rules, procedure and policies put in place and designed to protect officers so as not to put them in compromising positions. I find that failing to declare extra income to HMRC to be a breach of the law.
The officer has failed to follow instructions and had in my view displayed which I deem to be discreditable to both the Cambridgeshire Constabulary specifically and to the Police Service in general.
I find that the conduct as a whole amounts to gross misconduct.
Are there any representations before I move consider the outcome?
Having considered the seriousness of the behaviour I now move to the outcome:
I will now turn to outcome. Given that the officer is now a former officer the only options available to me are no disciplinary action or dismissal.
I have had regard to the Home office Guidance on outcomes and the culpability and harm caused.
I find that the former officer is highly culpability for these allegations as he was aware of the policies but failed to abide by them and was well aware that tax would have been owed by him regarding the Vinted money.
The harm that is or could be caused to the public confidence by police officers engaging in this sort of behaviour is significantly damaging. It undermines the good work that many officers do on a daily basis and cannot be allowed to persist within a disciplined service.
The only outcome is that the former officer would have been dismissed if he had not decided to resign.