Thames Valley police officer dismissed after panel confirms sexual assault findings
The panel concluded that un-named officers actions amounted to gross misconduct
A Thames Valley police officer has been dismissed following a disciplinary panel's findings of serious misconduct, including sexual assault.
The officer, referred to as Officer B, was accused of engaging in non-consensual sexual activity with Witness A at his home in August 2023.
The panel found that Officer B had instigated sexual activity with Witness A despite her repeated objections. According to the findings, Witness A had clearly communicated that she did not want sex, verbally expressing "no" and physically pushing the officer away. The panel stated that Officer B continued to pursue sexual activity, ignoring the victim's refusal.
According to the panel’s report, Officer B invited Witness A to his bedroom shortly after she arrived at his house. The officer put on music, began dancing, and, following a brief conversation, hugged Witness A. The situation escalated when they fell onto the bed, and Officer B suggested they have sex, which Witness A declined.
The panel found that despite the clear refusal, Officer B continued his attempts. He pinned Witness A down on the sofa, began thrusting into her, and tried to kiss her. Despite her repeated objections, including saying "no" and pushing him away, the officer continued to act in a sexually aggressive manner.
One key finding was that Officer B attempted digital penetration, which he later admitted. The panel confirmed that Witness A did not consent, and it was concluded that Officer B could not have reasonably believed that consent was given. The panel rejected the officer’s pre-prepared statement, which differed from Witness A’s account of the events.
The panel’s report outlined the severity of Officer B’s actions. "His decision making has been extremely poor. He has perpetrated unwanted and non-consensual sexual activity. His actions bring discredit upon the police service," it read.
Following the misconduct findings, the panel determined that Officer B’s behaviour was so serious that it amounted to gross misconduct. It was further concluded that dismissal without notice was the only appropriate sanction. The panel noted the public would not tolerate a police officer who had engaged in such conduct.
Officer B’s previous good character and character references were considered, but the panel determined these did not mitigate the seriousness of the misconduct. The officer’s service record and training were also reviewed, but no personal mitigation was presented during the proceedings.
In its final decision, the panel explained that a lesser outcome, such as a final written warning, would undermine public trust in the police force. "The public would expect nothing less than dismissal without notice," the report stated.
In accordance with the panel’s findings, reporting restrictions were imposed to protect the identity of Witness A, ensuring anonymity for both the victim and those involved in the case. Officer B has been added to the barred list, preventing him from returning to the police force in the future.