Misconduct Hearing Outcome - Sergeant 1995 Jason Langford

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

CM/291/24
Sergeant 1995 Jason Langford

-

The following represents the panel’s findings in respect of the above police misconduct hearing held at Lysander House, Bedfordshire on 27th May 2026.

Documents

The panel was provided with a bundle of 152 pages which included the following:
a) Investigation officers report dated 20 May 2025.
b) Regulation 30 notice dated 9 January 2026.
c) Regulation 31 response dated 30 January 2026.
d) Witness statements from three colleagues.

Plus
• Record of Service.
• Character References.

The AA’s Case

The Appropriate Authority (AA) maintains that the alleged conduct amounts to a breach of the standards of professional behaviour, namely: Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Equality and Diversity, and Discreditable conduct and amounts to gross misconduct.

PS Langford’s Response to the Allegation

PS Langford accepts that his language, as detailed within the R30 notice, was sexist, offensive and humiliating and further he accepts full responsibility for his actions. More generally, PS Langford accepts that the proven conduct amounts to gross misconduct.

Witnesses

In the light of the officer’s admissions, it was agreed between the parties that live witnesses were not required. The panel heard evidence from PS Langford.

Standard and Burden of Proof

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 burden of proof falls on the AA to prove the allegations on the requisite standard.

The panel’s approach

The panel applied the following structured approach in determining the relevant issues in these proceedings:
1. Ascertain the facts whether admitted or found proven;
2. Determine whether based on the proven facts the officer breached the standards of professional behaviour, alleged. If yes,
3. Decide whether such breach constituted misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.
4. Decide on outcome, if appropriate, having regard to the guidance on outcomes.

The Allegations/ Facts

The alleged misconduct is particularised within the R30 notice dated 9th January 2026.
In determining the facts (as detailed below) the panel had regard to the admission of facts made by PS Langford both within his R31 Response (confirmed during his evidence at the hearing) and available case papers. The panel noted that PS Langford did not accept that he showed an ‘embedded’ misogynistic attitude, as described within the allegation.

Summary:

On various occasions between April 2024 and 29 January 2025 PS Langford made snide remarks (some of which are detailed below) about his female colleague being the Chief Inspector's “favourite”. Moreover, it is alleged that PS Langford’s conduct revealed embedded misogynist, sexist and discriminatory attitudes towards female officers.

More particularly, in the summer of 2024 PS Langford made deliberate and personal jibes towards his colleague to the effect that she could get a Chief Inspector to sort something out for her because she was sleeping with him and insinuated on numerous occasions that she enjoyed preferential treatment because she was sleeping with two Chief Inspectors.

On 15 November 2024 PS Langford commented that symptoms relating to his female colleagues’ medical condition were actually caused by the Chief Inspector “blasting her from behind”

On 29 January 2025 during a night shift, in the presence of another colleague, PS Langford was commenting on the amount of money he earnt from Xmas overtime and his colleague commented that she did not. PS Langford said, “You had [Chief Inspector] come to visit you on Xmas morning though instead so he could blast you from behind”. PS Langford’s colleague made it known to him that she was offended by his comment. In response, PS Langford said “I will never stop”.

Standards of Professional Behaviour

Having determined the accepted and proven facts, the panel considered which of the relevant standards of professional behaviour (Schedule 2 Conduct Regulations) were engaged and breached:

Authority, Respect and Courtesy

“… Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy”.

Equality and Diversity

“…Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly”.

Discreditable Conduct

“… Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty”.

In all the circumstances, the panel determined that the accepted and proven conduct constituted a breach of the following standards of professional behaviour:

• Authority, Respect and Courtesy.
• Equality and Diversity
• Discreditable conduct.

Misconduct or Gross Misconduct

The panel considered that PS Langford was solely responsible for the proven conduct, which was targeted, repeated, deliberate and serious.

As such, the panel considered the breaches of standards of professional behaviour to be so serious as to justify dismissal and therefore amounted to gross misconduct.

Decision on Outcome

Legal Considerations

The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (as amended) provides 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

The College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes (2023) provides that in determining the appropriate outcome, the panel should have regard to culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, along with personal mitigation and the 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 the 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 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 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 officer’s conduct is relevant to the harm caused.

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

The panel had particular regard to the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes and noted from the guidance that factors that support a more serious outcome includes the mistreatment of women and girls.

The panel considered that the officer’s conduct was targeted, intentional and deliberate and the officer was entirely responsible for the proven conduct. As such, the panel considered that the proven conduct was serious and the officer’s level of culpability is increased given that he held a position of trust and authority.

In all the circumstances, the panel concluded that the 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.

Further, 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 is also required to take seriously misconduct that undermines discipline and good order within the police service.

Discrimination towards persons on the basis of any protected characteristic is never acceptable and always serious. A serving officer behaving in such a manner (as proven) towards a colleague would be most troubling and cases where discrimination is conscious or deliberate will be particularly serious.

In all the circumstances, the panel considered that if the public were aware of the proven conduct, it would undermine public confidence in and the reputation of the police service. 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.

The panel carefully noted a number of aggravating factors present in this case which included:

a) intentional, targeted, or taking deliberate steps
b) repeated or sustained behaviour over a relatively short period
c) continuing the behaviour after the officer realised, or should have realised, that it was improper
d) leadership responsibility, where there is an expectation of acting as a role model
e) an element of unlawful discrimination
f) significant deviation from instructions, whether an order, force policy or national guidance
g) scale or depth of local or national concerning misconduct in policing
h) multiple proven allegations and breaches of the standards of professional behaviour

Mitigating Factors / Personal Mitigation

Mitigating factors are those tending 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.

In this regard, the panel noted the following:

a) The proven conduct occurred over a relatively brief period.
b) An open admission was made at an early stage.
c) An unreserved apology was offered to the officer’s female colleague subjected to the comments, wider colleagues and Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
d) Genuine remorse and insight was shown, along with acceptance of responsibility

The panel heard evidence from the officer’s account of providing support to female officers, when allocating training courses to assist career development.

The panel was not presented with evidence that the conduct was more widespread.

The panel accepted that the officer had known his female colleague in a professional capacity for a number of years, she was senior in that she held substantive rank, and they shared common friends. Whilst the panel found the remarks wholly inappropriate, it recognised that the officer may have formed the entirely mistaken view that the nature of their relationship allowed such comments to be made in an attempt at humour.

The panel agreed that these factors undermined the suggestion that misogyny was ‘embedded’ within the officer’s character and behaviour.

As regards personal mitigation, the panel had regard to the officer’s Record of service, positive character references, and his personal challenges both historic and recent.

The panel noted that the officer took steps to educate himself, by voluntarily arranging and attending Equality, Diversity and Inclusion training at his own expense.

Outcome

The panel had due regard to submissions made on behalf of the Appropriate Authority and on behalf of the officer.

In considering the most appropriate outcome the panel had regard to the seriousness of the proven conduct and the purpose of the misconduct regime. Thereafter, the panel considered 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 policing. This must take precedence over any specific impact that a sanction has on the officer.

The panel reminded itself that it should consider less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes and should award the lowest sanction that would satisfy the threefold purpose of the Police Misconduct Regime.

In doing so, the panel considered the most appropriate outcome that reflects the seriousness of the proven conduct. The panel agreed that that the proven conduct was so serious, that a Final Written Warning would not meet the purpose of the misconduct regime.

Applying the structured approach, the panel then considered Reduction in Rank and formed the view that this was a severe sanction which would provide reassurance to colleagues and the public that unacceptable conduct would be dealt with robustly.

In all the circumstances, the panel having applied the structured approach set out in guidance, determined that reduction in rank was the most appropriate outcome and the officer is therefore reduced in rank to Police Constable (PC).

Panel

Chair: ACC Vaughan Lukey

IPM: Stevie Jones

IPM: Clive Manning

LQP:

David Tyme

27 May 2026