Investigation into police contact with a woman and use of intelligence systems for a non-policing purpose – West Mercia Police, July 2021
In 2018 a woman reported to West Mercia Police that her ex-partner had shared private, sexual photos and video without her consent. This is commonly referred to as revenge porn. The woman gave a statement and evidence to the officer in charge of the case.
In 2021 the woman gave a statement to West Mercia Police’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) reporting that the officer in charge of her case had made her feel uncomfortable when she went to the police station in 2018 and had sent her a friends request on Facebook. He also sent her several messages on Facebook messenger.
The woman withdrew her complaint against her ex-partner in 2018 as she did not want any further contact with the police officer.
The woman reported that the officer continued to message her and in 2019 the officer’s wife also contacted the woman. The woman changed her mobile number and blocked the officer on Messenger.
The officer’s work mobile phone was forensically examined. It contained two naked images of the woman and a sexually explicit video. These images and video were sent from the officer’s work mobile phone to an unknown number(s) via WhatsApp after the woman retracted her complaint. Text messages from 2019 were also found from the officer to the woman.
An audit of force intelligence systems showed that the officer researched the woman and accessed her telephone number(s). The audit further identified that the officer used the police system to research both himself and his wife, their son and their son’s birth family.
We received a conduct referral from the force in 2021 and decided to independently investigate the officer’s conduct in relation to his contact with the woman. This included the circumstances surrounding this contact, use of his work mobile phone to share images for non-policing purposes and to send inappropriate messages, and his use of police intelligence systems for personal means.
We also investigated whether the officers’ actions were in line with force, local and national policies, procedures and guidelines.
Our investigators examined several pieces of material, including material from the revenge porn case, the mobile phone forensic download, audits of computer applications used to manage information processes, the officer’s training and disciplinary records, and relevant police policy and procedures. We also obtained witness accounts.
We found that the officer abused his position and power, failing to conduct himself in a professional manner or handle data correctly.
We found that he had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to pursuing an improper relationship with the woman, preventing a criminal offence from being fully investigated, obtaining, sharing and retaining evidence for a non-policing purpose, and accessing personal data of others using police intelligence systems. We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the officer and that they should take the form of a gross misconduct hearing.
The gross misconduct hearing concluded in June 2025. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for authority, respect and courtesy, honesty and integrity, duties and responsibilities, confidentiality, and conduct. These amounted to a finding of gross misconduct, and the officer was placed on the barred list. The officer would have been dismissed without notice but he had already retired.
We also referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who decided to pursue criminal proceedings. The CPS authorised charges against the officer for two counts of misconduct in public office, and five counts of using a computer to enable unauthorised access to data contrary to the Computer Misuse Act 1990. The officer was found guilty to one count of misconduct in public office and four counts of computer misuse and was sentenced to eight months in prison.
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 did not identify any organisational learning in this case.