Misconduct Hearing Outcome - former DC 282 Steve Girdlestone

*This Outcome was not published at the time of the hearing due to an ongoing criminal investigation, which has now concluded.

 

RECORD OF MISCONDUCT HEARING

Case Number:                              CM/155/21

Officer Concerned:                    DC 282 Girdlestone, Steve

Police Force Concerned:         Cambridgeshire Police

Pre-Hearing Date:                       17/02/2025

Misconduct Hearing Dates:     20/05/2025

Attendees:       

ACC Vaughan Lukey, Panel Chair

Clive Manning,  Panel Member

Simon Williams, Panel Member

LQA Alexander Wilson, Legally Qualified Adviser

PC Steven Girdlestone, The Officer

John Greany, Counsel for the Officer

DCI Tom Rowe, Police Federation

DC Hannah Gray, Supporting the Officer

Chloe Hill, Counsel for the Appropriate Authority

DS Abby Revell, Professional Standards Department

Mark Chapman, IOPC

DS Sarah Copeland, Staff Officer to ACC Lukey

 

Facts

1. PC Girdlestone (the ‘Officer’) accepted the facts alleged by the Appropriate Authority.
2. Between October 2019 and August 2021, the Officer was a serving police officer of Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
3. On 25th October 2019, the Officer participated in a WhatsApp chat with another officer (‘Officer Y’), which included the following:

Officer Y              There were some lovely little treacles in your office yesterday.

PC Girdlestone  Yeah two of them were police now detective.

Officer Y              Any vulnerable ones?

PC Girdlestone We had to tutor them for a day. Think they were with Hannah and Tom the day before?

PC Girdlestone  Fuck knows what Tom must have done with them.

Officer Y              Knuckles in.

PC Girdlestone  Yeah I'd definitely bang then both.

Officer Y              Reckon they like ugly sergeants?

PC Girdlestone  Doubt it. Just tell them if they want to succeed they have to suck a cock or two.

PC Girdlestone  Worked for you.

 

4. On 25th February 2020, the Officer participated in a WhatsApp chat with Officers Y, W and Z which included the following:

PC Girdlestone Apparently the officer who went through the shit to retrieve the drugs didn't know how the interceptor toilet worked.

Officer W             He is now eating like a king.

PC Girdlestone  He just took the lid off and got stuck in apparently.

Officer W             The new lad wasn't told anything so rather than keep it sealed and use the big gloves he removed lid and used the big gloves in the kit to swish around and wash it down.

Officer Y              It was a bird who went through it.

Officer Z              Mucky.

PC Girdlestone Dirty bitch.

5. The relevant Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Constabularies’ Social Media Policy was published on 4th August 2020. This states that –

a) officers should not post or share material in personal social media accounts that could be deemed inoffensive or inappropriate;

b) when using social media on personal devices, officers should ensure that nothing they publish online can reasonably be perceived by the public or policing colleagues to be discriminatory, abusive, oppressive, harassing, bullying, victimising, offensive or otherwise incompatible with policing principles

6. On 24th May 2021, the Officer participated in a WhatsApp chat with Officer Y in which the Officer sent a picture to Officer Y of a bald female police officer, suggesting that the female officer in the photo had a resemblance to a bald male colleague.

7. On 8th June 2021, the Officer participated in a WhatsApp chat with Officer Y concerning a potential protest at a local police station by a person, Ms A, who they knew to be a black woman. The WhatsApp chat included:

Officer Y              She told me earlier that [Ms A] is organising a protest at the police station next week 😂😂

PC Girdlestone  😂

PC Girdlestone  I might go.

Officer Y              Me too.

PC Girdlestone  In black face.

Officer Y       👀

8. On 4th August 2021, the Officer participated in a WhatsApp chat with Officer Y, concerning a female colleague which included the following: 

Officer Y              How's [she] getting on?

PC Girdlestone  Oh mate, embarrassing yesterday.

Officer Y              I hope she dies.

Findings of Fact

9. The Officer accepts the acts alleged by the AA in relation to all allegations. We accept those facts as proved as outlined in the Regulation 30 Notice.

10. We also accept that allegations individually and as a whole amount to a breach of all of the standards specified by the AA in the Regulation 30 Notice.

Misconduct or Gross Misconduct

11. In relation to the allegation of comments made on 24th May 2021 (references to a female officer’s bald head) we concluded that in isolation that allegation would not have been so serious that gross misconduct would have been a possible outcome. We therefore found that allegation, in isolation, to amount to misconduct only.

12. However, considering all of the other allegations, we were satisfied each of them in isolation was in itself so serious as to justify dismissal without notice and for each allegation we conclude that it amounts to gross misconduct.

13. We conclude that that the course of conduct alleged, taken as a whole, is so serious as to justify dismissal without notice and so amounts to gross misconduct.

Outcome

14. Over many years, there has been a keen awareness of the ongoing harm done to public confidence in policing caused by the kind of misogyny and racism displayed in the WhatsApp messages we are concerned with.

15. The Officer claimed that he worked in a toxic environment to explain his actions. Nevertheless, the Officer fuelled that toxic environment. He added to it. The Officer’s actions caused real and significant harm to public confidence in policing.

16. We accept that at the time, none of the subjects of abusive language were intended recipients of the language and would not have been directly harmed. However, we must have regard to potential and actual harm to the reputation of and confidence in the police service, especially among minority groups such as women and girls and the black community. Attitudes expressed in the WhatsApp messages served to severely undermine that reputation and confidence.

17. It has been suggested on behalf of the officer that the allegations do not reflect behaviour at which the violence against women and girls (‘VAWG’) response is aimed. We do not agree. The language that featured in the WhatsApp messages is part of the culture at which the VAWG strategy is targeted. The College of Policing “VAWG Toolkit” demonstrates that a broad range of behaviours rooted in misogyny falls under this umbrella, not only acts of actual physical violence.

18. In conclusion, we find that there is a high of level of harm to the reputation of and confidence in policing.

19. The Officer said that he “owns” his comments now and deeply regrets them. We struggled to accept that and illustrate our thinking with the following example.

20. The Officer claimed in evidence that he used the term “black face” to suggest that he would attend a protest “in disguise”. We did not find that credible and reject his claim. We are satisfied that he made the statement in the knowledge that it is a term that is deeply offensive to right-minded members of the public.

21. Further, we did not find the Officer’s case that he bowed to peer pressure to have been credible at all. His evidence was weak and unconvincing. At no point did he describe consequences for failing to fit in that made us believe that the Officer acted as a result of peer pressure.

22. We accept that the Officer was not the primary driver of the culture of the small subset of individuals in the WhatsApp group but we do find that he was an active and willing participant in it. Indeed, we noted that the Officer sent messages to the group long after leaving the team. We concluded that the Officer wanted to remain a part of the group.

23. The Officer moved to a different team with a different line manager who demonstrated better values than Officer Y. Despite that, the Officer failed to acknowledge or act on the behaviours of which he was a part.

24. The panel felt that the Officer sought in evidence to “outsource” culpability for his actions. We found that his answers demonstrated no real understanding of the true significance of his actions, even after the passage of time these proceedings have provided. At many points, the Officer came across as dismissive of the seriousness of his actions.

25. The Officer said a number of times that anyone who knew him would regard him as being unlike the person revealed by the messages. We are satisfied that he presented a different set of behaviours outside of the group of members of the WhatsApp group. The number of messages, though not very large, which were made over a period of time and his proactive involvement in them demonstrated a level of comfort with the language used in that environment.

26. The Officer did not appear remorseful when the subject matter of the allegations was discussed in the hearing but did so when the impact on him of his actions were discussed. We accept that the Officer regrets his actions but concluded that his regret reflects the consequences of his actions for himself, rather than for any genuine feeling for the subjects of his language or the impact on policing.

27. We find a high level of culpability.

28. Aggravating features we found were that:

1. the messages were over a period of time;
2. there were a number of them (though not a very large number);
3. there were multiple subjects with different protected characteristics;
4. there was depth of national concern regarding VAWG and trust and confidence in the black community; and
5. there was a failure to address his own culpability, and instead blamed others

However, we have addressed all of these in considering the level of harm and so do not “double count” them.

29. Mitigating features of the breaches are early and full admissions of the facts and likewise early admissions that they amounted to breaches of standards. We understand that the Officer assisted the professional standards department.

30. We have already stated that we do not find genuine remorse for the acts themselves.

31. We note that the Officer experienced anxiety and depression at the time (although not at the time acknowledged or understood by the Officer) and had suffered a number of bereavements. We found no causal link between those things and the breaches and it follows we do not regard those factors as mitigation relating to the breaches. We do take those factors into account as personal mitigation.

Personal Mitigation

32. We have already referred to the Officer’s experience of anxiety and depression at material times as well as the bereavements he suffered.

33. We note the Officer’s service record.

34. A number of people including colleagues have spoken highly of the Officer.

35. The importance of maintaining public confidence in and respect for the police service is constant. We have considered the nature of the misconduct in this case.

36. We take the view that private messages of the kind we have heard in this case strike at the very core of public confidence in the police service. The public rightly expect to be served by police officers with equal dignity and respect, regardless of their identity. Messages of this nature (even “in private”) serve to undermine the confidence members of the public should have that the police service will meet that fundamental standard of fair treatment.

37. Personal mitigation remains a factor which we have taken into account. Given the nature of the misconduct and the threat it poses to public confidence in policing, we conclude that personal mitigation in this case must be given less weight than would be the case if public confidence were not so threatened.

38. We considered representations made on behalf of the Officer that a final written warning would meet the objectives of this hearing.

39. We are satisfied that there is no place in policing for the kind of discriminatory attitude displayed by this officer.

40. Further, we do not think that the public would consider that a final written warning would demonstrate that Cambridgeshire Police take these matters as seriously as they should, especially in the light of national concern.

41. We conclude that a final written warning is not sufficient to meet the purpose of this hearing.

42. We conclude that only dismissal without notice is sufficient to meet the purpose of this hearing. We have taken into account the Officer’s personal mitigation and considered whether it is sufficient to mitigate against that outcome. Given the limited weight we have attached to it, we are not able to reach such a conclusion.

43. The outcome of this hearing is that the Officer will be dismissed without notice.

 

Signed:

ACC Vaughan Lukey

Clive Manning

Simon Williams