Abuse of position examined after officer reports inappropriate contact to Counter Corruption Unit – Cleveland Police, July 2024

In July 2024, a woman contacted Cleveland Police to report that her ex-partner had taken her car and a phone without permission. A police officer was assigned to the complaint and became the officer in charge of the investigation. 

The officer visited the woman’s home, and the address where her ex-partner lived so he could collect the car keys. The woman’s ex-partner told the officer that the woman had stabbed him with scissors a few weeks before. The man reported that the officer did not take a statement from him or pursue lines of enquiry. The officer recorded that the man did not want to pursue an investigation and the report was closed. 

Fifteen days later, the officer told his inspector that, following the incident, the woman had contacted him on Facebook and asked him out. The officer was advised to contact the Counter Corruption Unit (CCU) for advice and was directed to the force’s ‘inappropriate relationship’ policy.

The officer contacted the CCU and told them that the woman had contacted him a few days after he had dealt with the incident and asked for his phone number. He said the communications had been ongoing between them and that they had been of an intimate nature.

Officers in the CCU contacted the woman and obtained further information from her. She told them that she had instigated the contact with the officer and that he had been to her home several times with her consent. CCU officers took photographs of messages between the woman and the officer. 

Several messages between the officer and the woman suggested that their relationship was of a sexual nature. The woman also disclosed safeguarding concerns for her children in the messages, but the officer did not record these concerns on any police systems.  

The officer did not disclose to the CCU or his inspector that he had had a sexual relationship with the woman. The CCU advised the officer to stop all contact, and he gave the CCU his personal mobile device. The matter was subsequently referred to us.

A further complaint was received from the woman’s ex-partner that the officer had passed on confidential information to the woman and the officer’s own ex-partner about him. The woman’s ex-partner also reported that the officer influenced the attachment of a drugs marker to his record after he had started a relationship with the woman. 

We decided to independently investigate the nature of the contact and/or relationship between the officer and the woman, including whether the officer formed, or attempted to form, an inappropriate sexual and/or emotional relationship with a member of the public who he had come into contact with during the course of his duties. 

We examined whether the officer failed to record potential offences and safeguarding concerns raised by the woman, whether he failed to disclose the full extent of his relationship with her, and whether he passed on confidential policing information to the woman and his own ex-partner. 

We also considered whether the officer continued to communicate with the woman, failed to progress her ex-partner’s report of assault, or influenced subsequent police contact with her ex-partner.

We examined the officer’s body worn video footage, incident logs, reports from the CCU, CCTV near the woman’s home, and phone, Facebook and WhatsApp messages sent between the officer and the woman. 

We took statements from the woman and her ex-partner, as well as witness statements from other officers. We interviewed the officer and reviewed his training records. 

We concluded there was no indication that the officer had committed a criminal offence but had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings. 

College of Policing guidance is clear that officers should not engage in sexual conduct with members of the public who they meet during their policing duties. During the officer’s interview, he confirmed that he was aware of the relevant policies around inappropriate relationships. Furthermore, some of his messages to the woman demonstrated his belief that he should not have been pursuing any type of relationship with her. 

We found the officer had compromised his position by engaging in sexual activity with the woman, who may have been vulnerable. Officers should act with self-control and should not abuse their powers or authority. In this instance, the officer abused his position by engaging in an improper relationship. While the officer did raise this matter himself with his supervisor soon after it occurred, we found that he was not truthful when explaining the extent of his relationship with the woman and continued to have contact with her. 

Our evidence also showed that the officer failed to record potential offences he had knowledge of during his interactions with the woman or take further action in relation to them. Officers should be diligent and failing to record potential offences was not in line with the officer’s duties and responsibilities.

We found that the officer did create a crime report about the report of assault made by the woman’s ex-partner. The report was closed by the officer’s supervisor due to insufficient evidence. While the ex-partner was not updated about the progression of the report or its closure, the officer did act appropriately in this matter. 

We found insufficient evidence that the officer passed on confidential policing information. 

We found that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to abusing his position as a police officer by establishing an improper sexual or emotional relationship with a woman who he came into contact with through the course of his policing duties, and who may be vulnerable; failing to disclose the full extent of this relationship; failing to record potential offences and safeguarding concerns raised by the woman; and continuing to communicate with the woman. 

We shared our report with the force, who agreed with three of these cases. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the officer and that they should take the form of a gross misconduct hearing. 

We found no case to answer for failing to record potential offences against the woman reported by her ex-partner, disclosing confidential policing information to third parties, or influencing subsequent police contact with the woman’s ex-partner.

The misconduct hearing concluded in August 2026. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for honesty and integrity, authority, respect and courtesy, discreditable conduct, and duties and responsibilities. These amounted to a finding of gross misconduct. The officer resigned from the force in July 2026, but he would have been dismissed without notice had he still been a serving police officer. He was placed on the barred list preventing him from working in policing again. 

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents. 

We recommended that the force provide information around what expectations officers should, and do, have about the closure of crimes and whether they are aware of the importance of being listed as an officer in charge until a matter is formally closed.