Misconduct Hearing Outcome - Former PC 340 Ciaron Hickey

In the matter of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (as amended)

RE: Former PC 340 Ciaron Hickey

The following represents the Panel’s findings in respect of the Police Misconduct hearing held at Lysander House on 21st October 2026.

Preliminary Matters

Former PC Hickey did not attend the hearing and was not represented.

Proceeding in absence

On 8 October 2026 the former officer’s federation representative confirmed, by email, that the former officer did not wish to engage with the proceedings.

Accordingly, following submissions on behalf of the AA in summary that, the hearing should proceed in the absence of the former officer as an adjournment would not secure his future attendance, and having been provided with legal advice (as below) the chair determined that the former officer had voluntarily absented himself and therefore the hearing should proceed.

Legal Advice

GMC-v-Adeogba 2012 held that, as relevant, a misconduct panel has a discretion whether to proceed in absence, as long as all reasonable steps to serve notice have been met.

In considering whether to proceed, the panel should be mindful that fairness to the former officer is of paramount concern. However, fairness to the regulator (in this case the AA) must also be considered. In determining the issue, the panel should have regard to the following :

1) The nature and circumstances of the former officer’s behaviour absenting himself;
2) Whether an adjournment might result in the former officer attending voluntarily and or not disrupting the proceedings;
3) The likely length of such an adjournment;
4) Whether the former officer wishes to be legally represented or has by his conduct waived his right to be represented;
5) The extent of the disadvantage to the former officer not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him;
6) The risk of the Panel reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of the former officer;
7) The general public interest and the particular interests of the victims and witness that a hearing should take place within a reasonable time of the events.

Documentation

The Panel was provided with, and they have seen and read the case material in advance of the hearing which included the following:

1) Regulation 30 Notice dated 15 June 2026.
2) Investigating Officer’s Report dated 27 April 2026.
3) Body Worn Video.
4) R31 Response provided by former PC Hickey dated 21 July 2026

Witnesses

The Panel did not hear any live evidence.

Standard and Burden of Proof

The burden of proof falls on the AA throughout the hearing to prove the alleged conduct.

The Panel is required to apply the civil standard of proof namely, on the balance of probabilities.

The alleged conduct is proven if the Panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the conduct occurred.

The Panel’s Approach

During this hearing, the Panel took the following approach:

(i) First, to consider the facts of the case and to make findings in relation to each of the facts alleged by the AA.
(ii) Second, determine whether those facts found proved constituted one or more breach(es) of the relevant standards.
(iii) Third, to determine whether any conduct found proven against the former officer amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct or neither.
(iv) Fourth, and if appropriate, to decide what the outcome should be.

AA’s Case

The AA maintains that the former officer’s conduct amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour namely, Fitness for Duty, Orders and Instructions and Discreditable Conduct and are so serious as to amount to Gross Misconduct.

The Former Officer’s response to the Allegations

The former officer does not dispute that he was on duty at the relevant time and further that the results of the breath tests were correct.

The facts as determined by the Panel

The alleged misconduct is fully particularised within the R30 Notice.

In determining the facts (as detailed below) the Panel had regard to, amongst others, the unequivocal admission of facts made by the former officer within his R31 Response and the evidence within the case papers

Facts / background as found proven by the Panel

Former PC Hickey resigned as a serving officer with effect from 19 October 2026.

On 10 September 2025, the former officer was rostered to attend a First Aid refresher training course at Cambridgeshire Constabulary Headquarters. The former officer arrived late and explained that his lateness was due to him mistakenly attending a local Police Station. A short while after the former officer’s arrival a member of the ‘Public and Personal Safety Training Team’ (PPST) met him in the corridor outside the classroom and they had a brief conversation, during the course of which the team member could smell alcohol on the former officer’s breath.

The former officer entered the classroom and the PPST Trainer, who was standing in close proximity, also confirmed that the former officer smelt of alcohol and then reported the matter to the sergeant present. As a result, the former officer was removed from the classroom. After his removal, the former officer confirmed that he had consumed alcohol during the previous evening. Subsequently, the former officer was subjected to a preliminary breath test which provided an initial reading of 18μg of alcohol per 100ml of breath. A second breath test was conducted around an hour later, which gave a reading of 9μg of alcohol. As a result, the former officer was transported home.

At the relevant time the former officer was the subject of a written warning that was effective from 24 April 2025 for a period of 18 months, because he was found to have paraded for duty on 11 September 2024 with a proportion of alcohol on his breath that exceeded the prescribed workplace limit.

Standards of Professional Behaviour

Having determined the facts the Panel considered which of the relevant Standards of Professional Behaviour (SPB) were engaged and breached.

The Ethical Policing Principles are Courage, Respect and Empathy, which expand upon and incorporate the Code of Ethics (2014) Policing Principles.

Fitness for Duty

By this Standard, officers are required when on duty or presenting themselves for duty to be fit to carry out their responsibilities.

The Panel determined that by attending the training smelling strongly of alcohol the former officer was not fit for duty.

Orders and Instructions

By this Standard officers are required to give and carry out lawful orders only and abide by Police Regulations.

The Panel determined that by attending the training smelling strongly of alcohol the former officer was not fit for duty and that he contravened the BCH Alcohol and Substance Misuse policy.

Discreditable conduct

By this Standard officers are required to constantly keep in mind that the public expect them to maintain the highest standards of behaviour. Therefore, they must consider how a member of the public may regard their on or off duty conduct.

The Panel determined that by attending the training smelling of alcohol the former officer’s conduct would bring discredit upon the service and undermine public confidence.

Misconduct, Gross Misconduct or Neither

In considering the seriousness of the proven conduct the Panel considered the breaches of the Standards of: Fitness for Duty, Orders and Instructions and Discreditable conduct.

The Panel considered that the proven conduct was so serious as to justify dismissal and even more so, when considered together with the live written warning for similar conduct.

Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the proven conduct is so serious to justify dismissal and therefore amounts to Gross Misconduct.

Decision on Outcome

Legal Considerations

The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 provide that, where a panel finds the case against the officer subject of misconduct proceedings proven as to Gross Misconduct, they can impose one of the following disciplinary actions:
1. Final Written Warning
2. Reduction in Rank
3. Dismissal Without notice

However, in this case the former officer ceased to be an officer after the allegation first came to the attention of the relevant body (i.e. 10 September 2025). Accordingly, the above-mentioned disciplinary action is not available to the panel. In those circumstances, disciplinary action means a finding that the officer concerned would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be a serving police officer.

The College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes (2023) provides that in determining the appropriate outcome the panel should have regards to aggravating and mitigating factors and the former officer’s record of service. The appropriate outcome is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

The purpose of the misconduct regime is threefold:
1. To maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the Police Service.
2. To uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct.
3. Protect the public.

The assessment of the seriousness of the proven conduct is central to the decision on outcome. In determining the appropriate outcome, the Panel must apply the following 3 stage test namely:

1. Assess the seriousness of conduct
2. Consider the purpose of imposing sanctions
3. Choose the sanction that appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the proven conduct.

In assessing the seriousness of the proven conduct, the Panel must have due regard to the following:

1. The former officer’s culpability
2. The harm caused by the misconduct
3. The existence of any aggravating features
4. The existence of any mitigating features

The Panel must be mindful that the most important purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions is to maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service as a whole.

Culpability

Culpability denotes the former officer’s blameworthiness or responsibility for their actions. The more culpable or blameworthy the behaviour in question, the more serious the misconduct and more severe the likely outcome.

Conduct which is intentional, targeted, deliberate or planned will generally be more culpable, than conduct which has unintended consequences, although the consequences of the former officer’s conduct is relevant to the harm caused.

Further, where harm is unintentional, culpability will be greater if the former officer could reasonably have foreseen the risk of harm.

The Panel considered that the former officer was wholly responsible for the proven conduct and further that he was in a position of trust in relation to his colleagues who were in attendance at the training day and with whom he would have had some physical interaction. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the former officer should have reasonably foreseen the risk of harm to his colleagues and that having drank alcohol in the quantity and the time that he did, he would have smelt of alcohol when presenting for duty the next day.

In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the former officer’s level of culpability is HIGH.

Harm

The harm caused by an officer’s actions can be considered in various ways, including reputational harm.

Harm does not need to have been suffered by an individual to undermine public trust and confidence.

The public perception and the reputation of the police service are relevant when considering the harm or the risk of harm caused by the proven conduct.

The Panel considered that the proven conduct would have harmed public confidence if the public were aware of the prevailing circumstances of the proven conduct.

Accordingly, the Panel considered that the level of harm caused by the proven conduct is HIGH.

Aggravating Factors

Aggravating factors are those tending to worsen the circumstances of the case in relation to the officer’s culpability or the harm caused.

In considering aggravating factors in this case, the Panel was mindful to avoid double counting.

The Panel considered that the following factors aggravated the proven conduct namely:
a. Continuing the proven conduct after the former officer realised or should have realised that it was improper.
b. Had failed to raise concerns with a colleague or senior officer or seek advice regarding his use of alcohol.
c. Significant deviation from force policy and instructions.
d. A written warning was in place at the relevant time for similar misconduct.
e Local and national concern regarding police misconduct.
f. Multiple breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

Mitigating Factors

Mitigating factors are those that tend to reduce the seriousness of the misconduct. Some factors may indicate that an officer’s culpability is lower, or that the harm caused by the misconduct is less serious than it might otherwise have been.

The Panel had regard to the following mitigating factors which it considered present in this case:
a) Early admission.
b) Compliance with the testing and investigation procedure.
c) A degree of insight.

Personal Mitigation

The Panel had regard to the former officer’s Service Record and recognized his contribution to policing as described within.

The Panel was also mindful of the personal difficulties that the former officer was experiencing at the relevant time. However, the Panel was mindful that personal mitigation holds limited weight in these circumstances, and it did not outweigh the seriousness of the proven conduct.

Outcome

In considering the most appropriate outcome the Panel had regard to the prevailing circumstances when the proven conduct occurred and the purpose of the misconduct regime and thereafter, considered what is the most appropriate outcome in all the circumstances.

The Panel reminded itself that the most important purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions is to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the policing profession as a whole.

Further, the Panel was mindful that the purpose of misconduct proceedings is not to punish the officer concerned.

In all the circumstances, having applied the structured approach, the Panel determined that the outcome that most appropriately reflects that purpose is that the former officer would have been dismissed without notice had he been a serving officer.

Panel:

Chair: ACC Vaughan Lukey
IPM: Davide Corbino
IPM: Bryan McAlley

LQP: David Tyme

27th October 2026