Police officer avoids sack despite making offensive remarks to colleague
It follows a misconduct hearing
A Derbyshire police officer has avoided being sacked despite making offensive and discriminatory remarks to a colleague.
A misconduct hearing held last month concluded the officer should be given a final written warning over their conduct.
However, the five-day misconduct hearing was held in private. This means that the name of the officer involved and details of the case could not be released as the media or public were not allowed to attend the hearing at Derbyshire police’s HQ offices in Ripley.
A misconduct hearing takes place when Derbyshire police believe someone employed by the force has breached standards of professional behaviour. At the hearing, the facts of the case are presented and the officer(s) involved will have the opportunity to explain their conduct and the circumstances surrounding the allegation before a decision is made by an independent panel.
But prior to this hearing, which began on Monday, April 24, an independent legally qualified chair said the hearing would be held in private. This is said to be because the hearing involved “hearing evidence about the private lives of those concerned” and due to “no member of the public being affected by the conduct complained of”.
Legally qualified chair Jayne Salt said: “The exploration of the alleged conduct involves hearing evidence about the private lives of those concerned. No member of the public is said to have been affected by the conduct complained of. In the particular circumstances of this case, the general public interest in the conduct of police officers can be met by the assurance that this conduct is subject to the scrutiny of an independent disciplinary panel. Balancing those factors against the need for transparency, a decision has been made that the hearing should be held in private.”
Now, details of the hearing’s outcome have been published. But the identity, age and gender of the officer accused and punished has not been made public.
It was concluded that, on the balance of probability, three out of five allegations were proven against the officer in question and amounted to a misconduct offence. A misconduct offence and a gross misconduct offence are considered different.
The outcome report reads: “The officer appeared before the hearing to answer allegations that their conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in that they made offensive and discriminatory remarks towards a colleague.
“Having heard evidence from all parties, including witnesses, the panel found that on the balance of probabilities, three of the five allegations were proven and were a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of ‘Authority, Respect and Courtesy’ and ‘Discreditable Conduct’. These breaches amounted to Misconduct. The officer was issued with a ‘Final Written Warning’ which will last for two years.”