Misconduct Hearing Outcome - former PC Neil Woodley

In the matter of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020

The appropriate authority

Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary v Former PC Neil Woodley

Notification of outcome of Misconduct Hearing

Former PC Woodley (W), on 1 September 2026, was asked to appear at a misconduct hearing, which was conducted by:

Chair: ACC Karena Thomas

Independent Panel Member: Jeremy Webster

Independent Panel Member: Stevie Jones

Independent Legal Adviser: Harry Ireland

Breach of standard(s) of professional behaviour alleged were as follows:

 

Allegations:

• Between 12 June 2022 and 5 April 2023, PC Woodley acted in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the police service, in that he formed and maintained an inappropriate personal relationship with Child A; and
• Between 12 June 2022 and 5 April 2023, PC Woodley failed to discharge his duties and responsibilities diligently and acted in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the police service, in that he failed to take appropriate safeguarding measures following reports of suicidal intent and/or self-harm by Child A.

The Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged to have been breached are Duties and Responsibilities, and Discreditable Conduct.

Evidence:

The former officer did not attend. He had been dismissed following an Accelerated Misconduct Hearing on 3 July 2025. This followed his conviction before Peterborough Magistrates’ Court on 4 April 2025 having pleaded guilty to knowingly/recklessly obtaining or disclosing personal data without the consent of the Controller. The former officer received a fine of £957.

The former officer was not represented either legally or by a Federation representative. The following email was sent by his former Federation representative on 10 July 2025:

‘Ma’am in relation to the Hearing I have been reviewing the need for me to attend the hearing and as I have no instructions from the former officer I have nothing more that I can add to the hearing on his behalf and in line with the other hearings we have had … like this we do not attend if we do not have any instructions.

Ma’am you have the former officer’s response in relation to these recent matters as well as his view that this hearing serves no purpose other than to now deal with the matter a third time and to provide the same sanctions already given in the former officers AMH which were appropriately given and accepted by the former officer.’

In the former officer’s Regulation 31 response he stated the following in respect of the allegations:

‘1. I never sought or had a personal relationship with Miss A. I never perused or wanted to have a sexual or personal relationship.

2. The contact I had with her was simply to stop her from harming herself and to ensure she had someone to talk to, although I do accept, I should have reported the contact and not communicated with her using my personal phone off when duty.
3. I also should have not discussed or disclosed any of my personal matters and issues. I was not in a great place myself at the time and was not thinking clearly. I only thought of myself as someone for her to talk to and prevent her from hurting herself and as a supportive figure and nothing inappropriate. I was trying to get through to her she was a nice person and had something to go on for, but is being seen as an attempt to form a relationship which was never the case. I accept the aspect of talking to her off duty and about my personal struggles amounts to misconduct only in relation to duties and responsibilities.
4. I have already accepted and been dismissed from the force in relation to knowingly or recklessly obtaining personal data contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018. I addressed this matter in a previous response and during my previous accelerated hearing. Miss A was present for this hearing on the team's link and heard what was said. I ask this is considered in this hearing. I accepted I messaged Miss A on my own phone having properly obtained the number from when I dealt with her at an incident, but I accepted I should have not obtained it to message her from my personal phone.
5. I didn't fail to safeguard Miss A. I attended numerous incidents when she was a risk to herself and both other officers and I dealt with these matters appropriately. At no time do I feel there were matters when she communicated with me that made me feel she was at "immediate risk" to herself, but as I have previously said I should have advised a line manager and ceased the contact other than when attending a work related incident that related to her. I accept I should not have been communicating with her off duty.
6. I have lost my career, job and income already due to this matter. I am not sure what else can be gained from this hearing. I am already on the barred list. My name has been in the public arena twice already. I accepted what I did wrong when I received a caution and accepted that behaviour amounted to gross misconduct.
7. This in effect the third matter I face for the same alleged behaviour, and my own mental health is again suffering because of the toll this is taking on me. Surely at some point I should be afforded the chance to move on with my life having accepted previously my wrongdoing and apologized. I need to be clear that I never sought, wanted or did have a personal relationship with Miss A.’

It was clear that the former officer was aware of the evidence against him, had responded with a Regulation 31 reply, was aware of the date, time and venue of the hearing, and had informed, through his Federation representative, that he had no intention of attending the hearing.

The Panel therefore found that the former officer had the opportunity to attend but had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing, was aware of the case against him, and that nothing would be gained by adjourning proceedings. Therefore, the Panel determined that the hearing would proceed relying on the authorities R v Hayward [2001] QB 862; R vJones [2002] UKHL 5 and GMC v Adeogba [2016]EWCA Civ 162.

The Chair had previously determined that as the former officer was not engaging with the process any longer, it was not necessary nor in the interests of justice in having witnesses called to give evidence before it and the matter would be decided based on the evidence provided by the AA and the former officer’s responses.

The evidence before the Panel had been served on the former officer and in interview and his formal response to the proceedings was contained within a Regulation 31 document. He denied the allegation of Discreditable Conduct but admitted the second allegation of a breach of the Standard relating to Duties and Responsibilities but to the level of Misconduct only.

Accordingly, the Panel treated the matter as to (a) above as denied and for (b) to determine the facts and the level at which the accepted misconduct lay, given the former officer’s admission, albeit to a lesser extent than that which was alleged by the Appropriate Authority, namely that he accepted talking to A off duty and about his personal struggles, together with failing to inform his supervisor of such contact.

Given the description used by the AA as to A’s status, namely ‘a child,’ the Panel clarified with the AA that A’s date of birth meant that she was a child during the early stages of her interactions with W, but by late August 2022, having become 18 years of age, she became an adult. This did not however change in any way her vulnerabilities as documented in the evidence.

W had dealt with A as a vulnerable person on 15 occasions between 12 August 2021 and 5 August 2022 including her attempts at suicide. She had, according to records, been detained on four occasions under s136 Mental Health Act 1983. There was a police record dated 11 November 2021 which highlighted the ‘danger’ of A becoming attached to police officers.

W’s messages to A began on his work telephone but then progressed to him using his personal telephone from September 2022. The messages began with what can be described as friendly and supportive terms, but as time progressed the messages appeared to develop into something more personal. He used words such as ‘hun’ and ‘xx’ at the end of messages. He told her that he ‘missed her,’ and that he wanted ‘a hug.’ He also mused at what might have been if he was 20 years younger and the possibility of them meeting for a drink. He also sent her links to what was described by witness B as ‘love songs.’ He then later began to share his vulnerabilities with her and contacting her whilst in drink. This latter action caused A distress given that she had bad memories of past dealings with others in drink. The Panel interpreted the gradual tone and wording of the messages from W to A as him grooming her and making possibilities of a meeting to see if she would agree; fortunately, she did not respond. Thus, the relationship went no further.

From A’s perspective, she saw W as someone she could rely upon and act as support for her given his interactions with her. In her ABE interview she described him as a father figure, calling him her ‘FedDad.’ She said that they had contact on a daily basis at one time, (thus demonstrating that this contact went beyond the professional relationship that W should have maintained), and that she trusted W because he had seen her at her most vulnerable and had not deserted her, and, perhaps most importantly in the current context, because he was a police officer.

The Panel noted that throughout this period of contact, W never informed any supervisor or other interested agency about A and his contact with her. Given his experience it was an obvious and essential step to take, given his knowledge of A and his prior involvement with her. Additionally, the Panel was concerned about W’s deletion of all his messages and contact details with A from his telephone immediately prior to his first interview under caution about these matters, with no satisfactory explanation as to the reason. The Panel concluded that such actions supported the claim that the relationship with A was improper and W was aware of this fact.

The BCH – Abuse of Position for Sexual and Emotional Gain and Professional Boundaries policy states:

‘Do not engage in, or pursue, a sexual or improper emotional relationship, on or off duty, with any member of the public who you have come into contact with during the course of your current work or duties. This is not just whilst they are a victim, witness or suspect in an investigation or a reporting person or complainant in some other type of case or indeed a missing person. This applies to forming a relationship with them AFTER your professional involvement with them has ceased.’

In addressing the issue of vulnerability, it states:

Vulnerability In abuse of position cases such as these, a member of the public does not have to be vulnerable for the definition of abuse of position for a sexual purpose, to be made out. However, the vulnerability of the victim may be seen as an aggravating factor. Vulnerability may arise out of the citizen's age, mental health, missing or suicidal, abuse of or dependency on alcohol or drugs, A young person in care or at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation, or due to their circumstances at a particular time, for example; reporting a domestic abuse incident, being the victim of a crime or the suspect/witness in an offence, people who have been trafficked, or suffering bereavement. However, vulnerability must always be considered in its widest sense and it should be recognised that victims of this kind of corruption often do not see themselves as victims or indeed vulnerable and will often be a willing party in the relationship.

W, as an experienced officer must have been aware of such guidance, especially in the current climate.

The Panel therefore found that W’s relationship with A was both inappropriate and improper, and that allegation one was proven.

The Panel then considered allegation two.

There was over the relevant period of time numerous contacts between A and W. Given W’s role and involvement, the Panel found that W had voluntarily placed himself in the position of a ‘safeguarder’ of A. He had given her his work and personal telephone numbers; he had told her that she could contact him at any time and had provided support for her following his involvement with A at a number of incidents including attempted suicide. He provided comfort, encouragement and advice by way of messaging and she had come to see W as a ‘father figure.’

The Panel accepted the fact that a police officer is not necessarily on duty all the time, but W made no attempt to report safeguarding concerns at any time, even if he had been absent from work when the messages were received.

The five specific occasions advanced by the AA where A left messages for W on his telephone between 5 August 2022 and 25 February 2023 were all incidents which the Panel would expect any officer not necessarily connected with A, to respond to even if only to alert others to the potential dangers to A. All five instances represented a threat to the health and safety of A, particularly the message on 12 December 2022 with a threat of suicide. Given A’s history, it would be expected that W would respond immediately or, depending when sent, as soon as possible. His reaction the following day was a dereliction of duty on his part.

The Panel noted that W in his interviews, failed to acknowledge or appreciate that he had a professional duty as to A’s safeguarding requirements.

Accordingly, the Panel found this allegation proven.

The former officer thus breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour as to Discreditable Conduct and Duties and Responsibilities.

In determining the level of misconduct, the Panel took into account the issues of his culpability and harm.

For culpability the Panel found that W’s actions were deliberate, intentional and targeted.

The harm to A was foreseeable given his interactions with A over a period of time and his knowledge of her vulnerabilities. He also placed himself in a position of trust with A who had become reliant on him especially when she faced times of personal difficulty; it was a trust that he breached.

The College of Police Guidance on Outcomes (CoP) states this at paragraph 4.44:

The abuse of position for a sexual purpose (APSP) is a form of serious corruption, defined as any behaviour by a police officer, whether on-duty or off-duty, that takes advantage of their position as a member of the police service to misuse their position, authority or powers in order to pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with any member of the public. Such conduct can cause substantial damage to public trust and confidence in the police, and is particularly serious where the subject of the officer’s behaviour is a vulnerable person.

It was foreseeable by W that by his actions, he would potentially add to the harm suffered by A due to those vulnerabilities. W also took steps to delete all messages between him and A off his phones, suggesting that he was fully aware his conduct was a breach of the standards and wilfully attempted to evade detection.

Again, CoP makes plain the position for officers at paragraph 4.50:

Officers must not, under any circumstances, use their professional position to initiate or pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with a vulnerable person.

Under paragraph 4.52, A had several vulnerabilities of which W was well aware.

Therefore, culpability was found to be high.

In terms of harm, the Panel found that there was harm to A by way of psychological distress and to the reputation of the police service.

For A, she had come to place a great deal of reliance, it seems, on W and he became a father figure to her or, to use the language of the internal policy, her ‘knight in shining armour.’ By both seeking a more intimate relationship with A (as the Panel interpreted his messaging about having drinks together and what may have occurred if he was 20 years younger), and then, in effect, abandoning her, this would undoubtedly have had an adverse effect on her wellbeing. It was exacerbated by, in the latter stages, him seeking to place his vulnerabilities onto her. Fortunately, it appeared that A would not engage in this development.

Given the ongoing concern the public has as to the police’s attitude towards women and girls, confidence would be further undermined if the facts of the case became known especially given A’s age and vulnerabilities.

Therefore, harm was assessed as high.

The Panel, for all the reasons above, found that the breaches of the Standards amounted to Gross Misconduct.

Conclusion

The purpose of the misconduct hearing is threefold:

Firstly, to protect the public confidence in and the reputation of policing.

Secondly, to maintain the high professional standards by demonstrating to other officers that misconduct will not be tolerated.

Thirdly, to protect the public and/or officers and staff by preventing the officers from committing similar misconduct again.

In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel took into account the following matters:

In assessing both culpability and harm the Panel reiterate the factors taken into account above. Both were found to be High.

Aggravating Factors

When considering aggravating factors, the Panel was mindful not to double count matters that have already formed part of the assessment of harm and culpability.

• The conduct was repeated, sustained and regular over a period of time.
• The former officer continued with such conduct when he should have known that his actions were improper.
• There was a significant deviation from Force Policy.
• There continues to be national concern about the way in which some male police officers treat women and girls.
• There are multiple breaches of the Standards.

Mitigating Factors

• Previous good character
• Given his early guilty plea to the Data Protection breach, (albeit not a part of the Panels’ deliberations but clearly linked to these matters), and his acknowledgement of some wrongdoing, the former officer did demonstrate some limited insight and remorse for his actions.

Conclusion on Seriousness:

Taking all these matters into consideration, the Panel assessed the seriousness of the conduct as high.

The Panel further reminded itself that the police misconduct regime is not designed to punish police officers it is about the reputation and standing of the profession as a whole

Stage 3: the appropriate outcome

We have considered the matter fully, including the nature and severity of the breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour and the officer’s record of service.

Outcome:

Having considered the matter fully and having regard to the nature and severity of the breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour, our decision is that the gravity of the former officer’s behaviour means that had the officer not already been dismissed, the outcome would have been dismissal without notice.

The College of Police Barred List should be updated to record these findings. This is necessary to maintain the public confidence in the police service.