Officer’s actions examined after contact with a vulnerable victim of domestic abuse – Kent Police, February 2021

In February 2021, Kent Police officers were tasked with obtaining a statement from a woman who had experienced witness intimidation, harassment and malicious communication from a man remanded in prison. The man had made a bail application, and the statement was needed urgently.

A police officer called the woman and arranged for her to visit the police station to give the statement. Prior to her arrival at the station, he drafted a four-page statement on the woman’s behalf and emailed her a copy asking her to make notes about what she wanted to change or add.

The woman arrived at the police station and entered an interview room with the police officer where they spent several hours preparing a statement.

In March 2021, we received a conduct referral from the force about the police officer’s behaviour during and after this meeting. It was reported he had engaged in inappropriate communications with the woman that went beyond the realms of a policing purpose, and he had tried to develop a relationship with her knowing she was vulnerable.

We also received a complaint referral from the force in July 2021. The woman’s mother had complained about the officer’s actions, reporting that he had hounded and harassed her daughter via text message and added elements to her statement without her consent. This resulted in charges against the woman’s ex partner being dropped and his release from prison.

In September 2021, we received another conduct referral from the force about the same officer. The officer had taken a statement from a social worker and Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA). involved in the same domestic violence case.

The police officer took these statements over the phone. The statements contained electronic signatures of the witnesses, however both witnesses reported they did not add the statement themselves and did not consent, or remember consenting, for their electronic signature to be included.

The IDVA said the statement drafted by the police officer contained information which they had not agreed to be in their statement.

We decided to independently investigate the actions and decisions of the police officer in relation to the woman and the statement that was drafted on her behalf. We examined the nature and appropriateness of the contact and relationship between them, and whether the officer engaged in an improper emotional or sexual relationship with the woman.

We considered whether the officer included information in the woman’s statement which he knew was false, and whether he forged the woman’s electronic signature on the statement. We also examined whether the officer contacted the woman after he was arrested in relation to these incidents in breach of his bail conditions.

We launched a separate independent investigation into the officer’s actions and decisions in relation to the statements they took from the social worker and the IDVA. We examined whether they inaccurately recorded information and if they added electronic signatures without the witnesses’ knowledge and/or consent.

Our investigators interviewed the police officer and the woman, obtaining a written response from the officer. We examined the officer’s personal mobile phone and laptop, his work mobile phone, and his mobile phone call and location data. We obtained statements from several witnesses.

We concluded there was an indication that the officer may have committed a criminal offence and had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to inappropriate contact with the woman and falsifying her witness statement in relation to a criminal investigation where she was the victim of domestic abuse.

We also found that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to deliberately including information in key witness statements which had not been provided and inputting electronic signatures with the intention they be accepted as genuine, and without the witnesses’ knowledge or consent.

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.

We found that the officer’s contact with the woman and the text messages that followed was inappropriate, breaching guidance on maintaining professional boundaries. The officer did not produce accurate evidence, either embellishing the woman’s statement or unwittingly put himself in a difficult position by preparing so much of her statement in advance.

The woman had to subsequently amend much of the statement to make it her own. The consequence of this statement being put into evidence was the trial of the woman’s ex-partner collapsed. This had a significant impact on the woman’s view of the criminal justice system, her personal confidence in policing and had the potential to undermine public confidence in policing.

We found no independent evidence that the officer contacted the woman in breach of his bail conditions.

Our evidence showed that the officer also added electronic signatures to key witness statements without their knowledge and/or consent, failing to act with honesty and integrity and undermining the principles of evidence within the criminal justice system.

We referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who decided to pursue criminal proceedings. The CPS authorised charges against the officer for misconduct in public office and forgery. The CPS later dropped the charges due to lack of a realistic prospect of conviction.

The officer attended an accelerated misconduct hearing in July 2024 for matters which we did not investigate, relating to fraud. He was dismissed from the force and placed on the barred list, preventing him from serving as a police officer again. On this basis, the gross misconduct hearing did not take place for the matters we investigated, and we withdrew our decision in 2025.

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 identified organisational learning relating to the process of obtaining electronic signatures from victims and witnesses and ensuring this is consistent with guidance. The learning was shared to officers via internal police systems.