Misconduct hearing for Avon and Somerset Police officer
PC Jonathan Biggins allegedly seized drugs off people but then gave them back in exchange for information about the dealers
A plain-clothes police officer allegedly seized Class A drugs from people but then gave them back during three separate stop-and-searches, in exchange for information about the dealers.
A misconduct hearing has begun against PC Jonathan Biggins, who was a prominent member of a long-running operation to tackle drugs in Weston-super-Mare.
The hearing has also heard allegations PC Biggins falsified records to cover up what he had done and told colleagues to do likewise.
The officer, who has since resigned from Avon & Somerset Police, denies all the allegations.
Opening the hearing on Tuesday, May 16, barrister George Thomas, representing the constabulary, said PC Biggins turned off his body-worn camera at crucial moments during the incidents, which all took place in 2020, so that his actions were not recorded.
He said: “PC Biggins faces three extremely serious allegations of gross misconduct.
“What is really striking across the three incidents is that on each occasion, each drug user stopped has quickly and calmly volunteered specific, helpful evidence about those supplying the drugs to them.
“It’s remarkable that these people are prepared to disrupt their own access to drugs by telling a police officer where they got drugs from.
“There would be no incentive for them to do so.
“A drug user has every incentive to cooperate with the police and to assist in identifying dealers if the immediate benefit for them is access to drugs.
“That is the far more likely explanation for the remarkable declarations we see in each of those cases.”
He said that while the three users were not deemed reliable witnesses, their statements were corroborated by other accounts.
Mr Thomas said the information provided to PC Biggins soon led to arrests of the suspected dealers.
He told the police misconduct hearing at force headquarters in Portishead that the first incident was on April 29 in Clarence Park where the officer stopped a man who had just bought three wraps of crack cocaine for £20.
PC Biggins seized one wrap but kept the other two on the ground for the user to retrieve in exchange for the dealer’s name and mobile phone number, Mr Thomas alleged.
He said the officer falsely wrote in his pocket notebook that he had found just one wrap on the man and that he assumed the user had “dropped or swallowed” the other two.
The barrister said this was implausible because PC Biggins had made no attempt to search the small area where he had been watching the man despite the fact it was daytime and there were children in the park who could be in danger of finding the drugs.
He told the panel that the officer’s failure to seek medical help would have been “utterly reprehensible” if he had really believed the user may have swallowed the cocaine.
“The reason there is no attempt by PC Biggins to search for the other two wraps is that he knew where they were,” Mr Thomas said.
He said the second incident, in the town centre on May 26, followed a similar pattern, with a drug user revealing their dealer’s details.
The barrister said: “Why on earth would the man volunteer the phone number and name of those dealing drugs to a plain-clothes police officer?
“He is under no compulsion, he is not under arrest, he is apparently giving the information out of the goodness of his heart.”
Mr Thomas said it was inexplicable unless the man was having his drugs returned in exchange for that information.
He said the third incident was on July 28 when PC Biggins stopped-and-searched a man in possession of one wrap of cocaine and a wrap of heroin.
The drug user said in his statement that the officer had told him: “We can sort this out another way,” the hearing was told.
Mr Thomas said the officer returned the cocaine and asked the man: “Now what?” and the man then gave him information about the dealer.
PC Biggins later submitted only one wrap as evidence and claimed the other turned out not to be drugs but rolled-up clingfilm, the barrister said.
Mr Thomas said: “The reason only one was turned in was that he gave the other back as an inducement for information about the supplier.”
The Independent Office for Police Conduct launched an investigation in September 2020 after some of PC Biggins’ colleagues reported him.
He is alleged to have breached the standards of professional behaviour for police officers in terms of honesty and integrity; discreditable conduct; authority, respect and courtesy; duties and responsibilities; and orders and instructions.
The hearing continues.