Officer given final written warning following misconduct hearing
Main article content
A Sussex Police officer was given a final written warning after an allegation of discreditable conduct – not reading his statement before signing it – was proven as misconduct.
The officer, who was based at Brighton, appeared at a misconduct hearing held at Sussex Police headquarters in Lewes from 2-5 October in front of a panel led by an Independent Legally Qualified Chair (LQC), who directed that the officer would remain anonymous.
LQCs are selected from a list of independent, legally-qualified persons to conduct police misconduct hearings, and are governed by Police Conduct Regulations. LQCs work with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and others to instil and embed as much transparency and proportionality into misconduct hearings.
The officer, referred to as officer Y, was granted anonymity by the LQC after making legal representations before the hearing. It is the responsibility of the LQC alone to determine whether or not a hearing is partially or wholly held in public or in private, and whether any participant should be anonymised. Sussex Police are directed by and must abide by rulings made by the panel chair.
The officer was alleged to have used unreasonable force on an arrested suspect and to have made misleading accounts about the incident in breaches of the professional standards of honesty and integrity and use of force. These allegations were not proven.
The allegation of discreditable conduct in relation to his written statement following the same incident was proven as misconduct. He was given a final written warning to last for two years.
Detective Chief Inspector Jon Robeson from Professional Standards said: “Police officers and staff must behave in a manner that does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence, whether on or off duty.
"All staff are aware of the standards of professional behaviour and the force remains committed to holding officers to account where they fall below the high standards the public rightly expect.”