Accelerated Misconduct Hearing Outcome - PC A

An accelerated Misconduct Hearing was held on Monday 21 September 2026

1. I had previously determined that the officer should be referred to as PC A both within the hearing and in any other publicly available document, which should be redacted.
2. PC A was in attendance at the beginning of the hearing and subsequently retired to a waiting room during the hearing.  She had resigned from the Constabulary on the 16 September 2026 and at the date of the hearing remained a serving police officer.
3. PC A has denied the allegations, therefore the facts of the case and the breach of professional standard are required to be proved on the balance of probabilities.

Background 

4. Prior to becoming a police officer PC A was in a relationship with Person B. His brother, Person C, was involved in an incident following which he was prosecuted and sent to prison for a serious offence.
5. Several years later, after becoming a police officer, PC A reported to Northamptonshire Police she had been the victim of domestic abuse. She had stated that she had been forced by Person B to conceal the clothing Person C was wearing at the time of the offence.
6. PC A was made the subject of Regulation 13 proceedings before the Chief Constable in 2024. She denied having any contact with Person C and that all contact with Person B had ceased in 2019 with the exception of him initiating unwanted contact with her.
7. Concerns were raised, following several investigations, that there were inconsistencies between the information provided to the Chief Constable, Northamptonshire Police and the Professional Standards Department. 
8. The evidence in the hearing included phone records and evidence from Person B which stated PC A had contacted him and accounts that PC A had contact with Person C.

Determination

9. In reaching my decision I have taken into account a note provided by PC A and her personal background which included being a victim of domestic abuse.
10. However, it is my view that it is unlikely that PC A's recollection of her contact with Person B and C was affected by these issues when providing her account to Northamptonshire Police. It is my view that her account to them was clear and I place substantial reliance on its accuracy.
11. I have carefully reviewed the available evidence and have attached substantial weight to the documentary evidence, including the transcripts of the Regulation 13 hearing and the conduct interview in July 2023. I have also taken into account the download of Person B's mobile phone.
12. In relation to PC A's account of never associating with Person C I note the inconsistencies of her account provided in the Regulation 13 hearing and the prepared statement provided to Northamptonshire Police. In that statement PC A stated that she met Person C once, which was supported by a statement from Person C, whereas in the Regulation 13 hearing PC A stated she had not met Person C.

Allegation 1    

13. I find this allegation proved. I have taken in to account the phone records and the conduct record in July 2023. In my view during interview with Professional Standards on the 25 July 2023 PC A misled the investigators by stating that she had no contact with Person B since 2019 when there was clear evidence to the contrary.

Allegation 2

14. I find this allegation proved. In my view PC A was being deliberately evasive about her contact with Person B during the Regulation 13 hearing. In my view PC A had an obligation to provide a full and frank account of her contact with Person B.   If she had any doubt about what to disclose about her associations opportunity to be open and fully disclose what her contact was with Person B.  In my view PC A failed to disclose her contact with Person B to protect her role as a police officer.

Allegation 3 

15. I find this proved as a fact. The evidence of phone and Instagram contact initiated by PC A to Person B is in my view clear and is contrary to the account provided to the Chief Constable in the Regulation 13 hearing.

Allegation 4 

16. I find this allegation proved. In my view PC A misled the then Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police in the Regulation 13 hearing as there is clear evidence that she had associated with Person C.  I take a broad view of the meaning of 'associated' and this includes all direct, indirect contact and assistance provided to that person.

Standards of Behaviour

17. In my view the conduct constituted a breach of the standard of Honesty and Integrity, Honesty only.
18. In reaching my decision I have applied the two part test set out in the case of Ivey v Genting.  I therefore am required to determine what was PC A's belief when she  provided her accounts in the Regulation 13 hearing.  I find that she would have been aware that the Chief Constable would rely upon her truthfulness in retaining her in the Constabulary.   This included the importance of her providing a full and accurate account contact with Persons B and C.  This was essential, given her knowledge as a police officer of the seriousness of Person C's criminal behaviour. 
19. I find that she was aware that the accounts provided were not accurate. In my view, this was not misremembering, as alleged by her, but the deliberate misleading of a senior police officer in a formal hearing.  I then applied the standards of ordinary decent members of the public, who in my view, would consider such conduct by PC A to be dishonest.

Gross Misconduct

20. I have reminded myself that gross misconduct is a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour so serious to justify dismissal.
21. In reaching my decision whether the breach of the standard of honesty and integrity is misconduct, gross misconduct or neither I have taken into account the College of Policing Guidance and the submissions made on PC A's behalf and the Appropriate Authority.

Provisional assessment of Seriousness

22. I go on to make a provisional assessment of culpability and harm.

Culpability

23. PC A was in my view entirely culpable for her the accounts she provided in investigations and the Regulation 13 hearing, I do not accept that her personal difficulties affected her ability to provide accurate accounts. Culpability is assessed as high.

Harm

24. I have assessed the Harm, whether it was known at the time or subsequently in my view damages public confidence. Dishonesty by a police officer damages the reputation of Constabulary, the police service and confidence in the police service. I have assessed Harm as high.

Aggravating factors

25. The aggravating factor include multiple breaches of standard, repeated behaviour over a sustained period, the fact the conduct occurred during formal investigations, personal gain which included being retained within the Constabulary and damage to the reputation of the police service.

Mitigating factors

26. In my view there was no mitigation of the misconduct. The mitigation put forward is entirely based on personal mitigation. I note the difficult personal life and the impact on PC A.  However, I attach limited weight to personal mitigation taking account of the College of Policing Guidance on personal mitigation and the decision in the Salter    

Assessment

27. It is my view such conduct is at the upper end of seriousness and should be assessed as gross misconduct.

Outcome Decision

28. In reaching my decision on the appropriate outcome I have taken into account the College of Policing Guidance and the submissions made on PC A's behalf and the AA. I have also been provided with PC A's record of service, which I have taken account. 
29. I note the three fold purpose of the police misconduct regime, para 2.3 of the guidance and have adopted the Fuglers approach as set out at paragraph 4.2 of the guidance.

Sanctions available

30. This is an accelerated hearing and the available outcomes are a final written warning, reduction in rank and dismissal without notice.

Culpability

31. PC A was in my view entirely culpable for her the accounts she provided in investigations and the Regulation 13 hearing. I do not accept that her personal difficulties affected her ability to provide accurate accounts in the hearing and during the investigations.

Harm

32. In my view dishonesty by a police officer is a very serious matter and damages confidence in the Constabulary and Policing. It strikes at the heart of our role as police officers. I have assessed the Harm caused as high, whether it was known at the time or subsequently, taking into account the conduct will be made public following the hearing.
33. I have considered aggravating and mitigating factors.   

Aggravating factors

34. The aggravating factors detailed at para 25 above are equally relevant to my outcome decision. I reiterate these included multiple breaches of standard, repeated behaviour over a sustained period, the fact the conduct occurred during formal investigations, personal gain which included being retained within the Constabulary and damage to the reputation of the police service.

Mitigating factors

35. In my view there was no mitigation of the misconduct. The mitigation put forward is entirely based on personal mitigation. Having carefully considered  the difficult personal life and the impact on PC A, I am still minded to place limited reliance, in determining the appropriate sanction, on personal mitigation I have taken account of the College of Policing Guidance on personal mitigation and the decision in the Salter case in reaching my decision. 

Approach to Outcome

36. I have been careful not to double account, and have considered less serious outcomes before considering more severe outcomes.
37. However it is my view such misconduct is at the upper end of seriousness, causing significant harm to confidence in the Constabulary.
38. As this matter came to the attention of the Appropriate Authority after the 28 May 2025, I am required to consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would justify a sanction other than dismissal. I find that there are not.  

Outcome

39. Therefore the sanction I impose is dismissal without notice and place on the College of Policing's public barred list.

 

Chief Constable Simon Megicks