FOI 2023 Misconduct Hearings (971-2023/24)
Request
Please therefore for the calendar year 2023 provide the following
Q1. A complete tabulation of all cases finalised in 2023 .
Q2. The full decision record for each as published for a few weeks, with name and rank of officer
Q3. The policy and protocols regarding transparency of these misconduct hearings including notice of hearings, timescales and where the notices are published.
Q4. For each of the hearings concluded in 2023 please advise the date of receipt of the complaint and the conclusion of the disciplinary process ie in this request the hearing date.
Q5. When is the last time any internal audit report was completed to review the efficacy of the misconduct process? Please provide the last 3.
Response
Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within North Yorkshire Police. I can confirm that the information you have requested is held by North Yorkshire Police.
Decision
I have today decided to disclose the located information to you.
Q1, Q2 & Q4. Please see the table below which details all North Yorkshire Police misconduct cases which were finalised from 01 January 2023 to 31 December 2023.
|
Name & Rank |
Date Received |
Hearing Date |
Private |
Sanction |
|
Student Officer Ela Trueman |
02/10/2022 |
24/02/2023 |
No |
Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List |
|
Accelerated Hearing (Chief Constable-led) Allegation 1: Proven On 2nd October 2022, the Officer drove a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your blood exceeded the legally prescribed limit, specifically the Officer’s evidential blood sample recorded 122 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (the legal limit being 80 milligrams). Allegation 2: Proven On 12th January 2023, the Officer was convicted at York Magistrates Court for driving whilst over the prescribed limit of alcohol as above, having pleaded guilty to the same. The Officer was sentenced to a 16-month disqualification from driving a fine of £290, costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £34. The above conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct and amounted to gross misconduct. The officer resigned during the Investigation prior to the hearing.
|
||||
|
Name & Rank |
Date Received |
Hearing Date |
Private |
Sanction |
|
DC Danielle Kirby |
|
14/03/2024 to 17/03/2024 |
No |
Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List |
|
Gross Misconduct Hearing (LQC - Led) Allegation 1: Proven Between 2 December 2018 and 8 March 2019, the Officer sent messages to a fellow police officer of a racist, discriminatory and/or offensive nature. The content of the Officer’s messages included, but was not limited to, the following: a) At the risk of sounding a bit racist, don’t you think Africa is wasted on black cunts’. b) ‘Sorry watching David Attenborough and can’t believe what oxygen thieves Africans really are xx’. c) ‘I fucking hate them, Hitler definitely had the right idea. Need to euthanize these backward aids riddled rapists’. d) ‘Maybe they will die out because they are backwards and need wasters like Bono and Lenny Henry to give them handouts x’. e) An image of a female holding a black baby to their ear with the comment: ‘if you hold a black baby to your ear, you can hear the police sirens’. f) An image of a golliwog, with the comment: ‘If the ISIS bride gets back in, surely I can come back’. g) An image of a wok (the cookery pan) with the comment ‘it won’t work if it’s a wog’. Sanction: Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List No h) An image of a black family with the caption “the Chimpsons.” The above conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct; Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Equality and Diversity and amounted to gross misconduct.
Officers dismissed following Gross Misconduct Hearing | North Yorkshire Police
|
||||
|
Name & Rank |
Date Received |
Hearing Date |
Private |
Sanction |
|
PC James Mills |
|
14/03/2024 to 17/03/2024 |
No |
Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List |
|
Gross Misconduct Hearing (LQC - Led) Allegation 1: Proven Between 2 December 2018 and 8 March 2019, the Officer exchanged messages with a fellow officer of a racist, discriminatory and/or offensive nature. In particular, the Officer engaged in conversation which included, but was not limited to, the following exchanges: a). Fellow officer: ‘At the risk of sounding a bit racist, don’t you think Africa is wasted on black cunts’. Officer: ‘that’s a bit random but yes it is’ b). Fellow officer: ‘Sorry watching David Attenborough and can’t believe what oxygen thieves Africans really are’ Officer: ‘yeah, my family used to live out there and it looked amazing but then all the Africans started to kill them, so they had to move. I’ve still got some family out there but it’s too dangerous to go to see them’ c). Fellow officer: ‘maybe they will die out because they are backwards and need wasters like Bono and Lenny Henry to give them handouts’ Officer: ‘But they’re also criminals so they’ll push into decent society and take what they want. And Bono and Lenny Henry didn’t give them handouts, they told people poorer than themselves to give them handouts’ Fellow officer: ‘Lol fucking con artists’ d). Fellow officer: ‘Lol check me out getting all political instead of just being racist. Officer: ‘haha yes, you could mask it as political I suppose – it’s true though but people are too scared of having an opinion in case they look racist xx This is a very serious conversation’. e). The officer responded ‘haha shocking x’ in response to an image of a black family with the caption “The Chimpsons.’ The above conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct; Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Sanction: Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List No Equality and Diversity and amounted to gross misconduct.
Officers dismissed following Gross Misconduct Hearing | North Yorkshire Police
|
||||
|
Name & Rank |
Date Received |
Hearing Date |
Private |
Sanction |
|
PC Joseph McCabe |
29/09/2021 |
28/04/2023 |
No |
Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List |
|
Accelerated Hearing (Chief Constable-led) Allegation 1: Proven On 24 August 2021, whilst off duty, the Officer attended a wedding with a number of colleagues. It had been previously agreed that the Officer would share a hotel room overnight with Person A. A hotel room was booked at the Travelodge, Scotch Corner, North Yorkshire in which both the Officer and Person A stayed between 24 August 2021 and 25 August 2021. Allegation 1: Proven On 25 August 2021, whilst in the hotel room, the Officer intentionally touched Person A, without consent and the touching was sexual. Allegation 2: Proven On 17 February 2023, at York Magistrates Court, the Officer was convicted of sexual assault, in respect of your conduct at paragraph 1 above, contrary to section 3 of Sexual Offences Act 2003 namely that on 25 August 2021, at Scotch Corner Services, Middleton Tyas Lane, Middleton Tyas, North Yorkshire, the Officer intentionally touched Person A and that touching was sexual when she did not consent and the Officer did not reasonably believe that she was consenting. Allegation 3: Proven On 31 March 2023, at York Magistrates Court, the Officer was sentenced, in respect of the conviction at paragraph 2 above, as follows: a. The Officer received a period of 6 months imprisonment which was suspended for a period of 24 months, together with requirements to attend the accredited sexual offending group work programme, a 20-day rehabilitation activity requirement and alcohol absence monitoring requirement b. The Officer was ordered to pay £620 court costs and £128 victim surcharge c. The Officer was made subject to a 3-year restraining order which prohibits the Officer from contacting Person A and prohibits the Officer from attending Harrogate Police Station unless to report a crime. Allegation 4: Proven Sanction: Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List No By virtue of the sentence at paragraph 3 above, the Officer will be subject to notification requirements in accordance with section 82 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of 7 years. It is alleged that the conduct breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct. The conduct amounted to criminal conduct and is so serious that it amounts to gross misconduct.
Police officer sentenced for sexual assault | North Yorkshire Police
|
||||
|
Name & Rank |
Date Received |
Hearing Date |
Private |
Sanction |
|
PC Chris Hudson |
|
02/06/2023 |
No |
Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List |
|
Accelerated Hearing (Chief Constable-led) Allegation 1: Proven The Officer was arrested for criminal damage in 2006, which related to the Officer and others causing damage to a building by kicking a door. The Officer was released without charge. The Officer was arrested for arson in 2006, which related to setting a gazebo on fire. The Officer was previously applied to West Yorkshire Police and had been subject to the vetting process. In that application to West Yorkshire Police dated 16 November 2016, the Officer provided information that when they were 14 years old, they were arrested due to playing football on private property and were released without charge. The Officer did not declare their previous arrests for criminal damage and arson. West Yorkshire Police identified that the Officer had been arrested for criminal damage and arson in 2006. As a result, the Officer was spoken to by West Yorkshire Police on 22 December 2016 who confirmed the Officer had been arrested for arson. The Officer applied to join North Yorkshire Police in November 2017 (less than one year after the discussion outlined above). As part of the process of application, the Officer completed the vetting application on 27 February 2018. The form including a declaration. The Officer stated that they agreed with the terms of that declaration. In particular that, ‘A member of a police force who has deliberately made any false statement or omitted information in connection with his or her appointment may subsequently be liable to misconduct proceedings.’ The vetting application for North Yorkshire Police required the Officer to answer the Sanction: Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List No question, “Have you ever been involved in a criminal investigation (whether or not this led to any prosecution) or been associated with criminals?” The Officer answered the question “yes” and provided details, namely that “In 2006, I gave a statement to WYP for an arson in my neighbourhood.” The Officer therefore failed to declare the correct information on their vetting application to North Yorkshire Police relating to their arrest for arson and/ or their arrest for criminal damage in 2006. That was dishonest and/ or misleading. Allegation 2: Proven The vetting application for North Yorkshire Police required the Officer to answer the question, “Do you associate with any person(s) (including family members) who you know or have reason to believe has criminal convictions, or is engaged in criminal activities?” The Officer did not declare on the form that Person A was an associate. (Person A) was convicted of robbery in April 2012. He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. The Officer visited Person A on 7 separate occasions at HMP Wealstun between June 2012 and October 2014. When visiting Person A you described your relationship with him as ‘A friend.’ The Officer did not disclose their association with Person A on their vetting application. This was dishonest and/ or misleading. The Officer had an on-going association with Person A, which can be identified by the Officer’s telephone contact with Person A on 1 February 2021, which included a telephone call which lasted for over 18 minutes and text messages. The Officer had an on-going duty to provide North Yorkshire Police with information relating to notifiable associations. The Officer did not disclose their association with Person A at any stage to North Yorkshire Police. That was dishonest and/ or misleading. Allegation 3: Proven The vetting application for North Yorkshire Police required the Officer to provide details of their family member which included "ASSOCIATES – SIBLINGS”. The Officer completed the form, providing details for one sibling who they noted to be a "halfsister". The Officer did not declare on the form their other siblings, namely Person B, Person C and Person D. This was dishonest and/ or misleading. Allegation 4: Not proven The Officer previously applied to West Yorkshire Police and had been subject to the vetting process. In that application to West Yorkshire Police dated 16 November 2016, the Officer did not declare that they were subject to any County Court Judgements. On 22 December 2016, a discussion took place with West Yorkshire Police, during which the Officer confirmed that they had no knowledge of the County Court Judgements and as such, were provided with details of the same. On 3 January 2017, DCBL, Certified Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement, confirmed to West Yorkshire Police that a County Court Judgement amounting to £256 had been resolved. On 4 January 2017, Company A confirmed to West Yorkshire Police that a County Court Judgement amounting to £995 had been resolved. The vetting application for North Yorkshire Police required the Officer to provide financial information which included answering the question, "In the last 10 years have you been subject of an adverse County Court Judgement, a Sheriff's Court or Court of Session Judgement? If so, please provide details regarding the number of occurrences and the most recent year:" The Officer recorded the response that a County Court Judgement had been issued for £1000, which had been resolved. The Officer failed to record that you had been subject to a second County Court Judgement.
North Yorkshire PC sacked after lying about arrests during vetting - BBC News
|
||||
|
Name & Rank |
Date Received |
Hearing Date |
Private |
Sanction |
|
PC Peter Beard |
23/01/2023 |
04/07/2023 |
No |
Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List |
|
Accelerated Hearing (Chief Constable-led) Allegation 1: Proven On 22 January 2023, the Officer drove a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in their breath exceeded the legally prescribed limit, specifically the evidential Sanction: Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List No blood sample recorded 176 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the legal limit being 80 milligrammes. Allegation 2: Proven On 11 May 2023, the Officer was convicted at Teesside Magistrates’ Court for driving whilst over the prescribed limit of alcohol as above, having pleaded guilty to the same. The Officer was sentenced to a 12-month disqualification from driving, to be reduced by 3-months if, by 10 December 2023, if the Officer completed an approved course approved by the Secretary of State, a fine of £120, costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £48
|
||||
|
Name & Rank |
Date Received |
Hearing Date |
Private |
Sanction |
|
Constable Name Exempt |
16/06/2021 |
30/08/2023 to 31/08/2023 |
Yes |
Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List |
|
Gross Misconduct Hearing (LQC - Led) It is alleged that the Police Constable Z breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in that: the Officer breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour for police officers, specifically the standards of: 1. Authority, Respect and Courtesy; and 2. Discreditable conduct. It is alleged that Officer Z subjected three females A, B, and C to unwanted, abusive, controlling, and/or coercive behaviour during the course of the Officer’s relationships with them. And it is contended that (if proven) the allegations amount to gross misconduct. Allegation 1: Proven Behaviour towards female person A Between 1998 and 2001, the officer subjected person A to unwanted, abusive, controlling and /or coercive behaviour. In particular, the officer: a) Verbally abused her calling her a “bitch”. b) Sought to control and/monitor how person A would spend her time. c) Threatened that her son, aged about 8 at the time, would end up in a “body bag” or words to that effect. d) Subjected her to physical abuse by, i. Placing a knife to her throat. ii. Strangling her and/or putting your hands around her throat. e) Subjected her to displays of anger including punching a door in her presence. f) Sought to control and/or apply pressure in relation to what person A should wear. g) Accused her of cheating and/or being interested in other men. Allegation 2: Proven Sanction: Dismissal without Notice. Placed on the Barred List Yes Behaviour towards person B 2. Between December 2005 and March 2016, the officer subjected person B to unwanted, abusive, controlling and/or coercive behaviour. In particular the officer: a) Attempted to belittle her and/or reduce her confidence by telling her that she was fat, lazy, ugly and other such insults. b) Sought to isolate person B from her friends and family. c) Sought to control and/or monitor how person B spent her time. d) Frequently attended at person B’s place of work unannounced in furtherance of their attempts to control and/or coerce. e) Subjected her to displays of anger including throwing items and/or slamming doors in her presence. f) Sought to control and/or apply pressure in relation to what person B should wear. g) Accused her of cheating and/or being interested in other men. Allegation 3: Proven Behaviour towards person C. 3. Between July 2016 and February 2017, the officer subjected person C to unwanted, abusive, controlling and/or coercive behaviour. In particular, the officer: a) Verbally abused and/or attempted to belittle person C, including accusing her of having a mental health problem and/or being an alcoholic, making reference to her weight and telling her she was unable to “keep her legs shut” or words to that effect. b) Sought to control and/or monitor how person C spent her time. c) Subjected her to physical abuse by nipping, biting, applying pressure to the pubic bone, shoving her, squeezing her wrists and placing a sharp object against her skin. d) Subjected her to displays of anger including throwing your laptop and/or hitting a wall. e) Accused her of cheating and/or being interested in other men. The above conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct and Authority, Respect and Courtesy and individually and/or cumulatively amounted to gross misconduct.
|
||||
|
Name & Rank |
Date Received |
Hearing Date |
Private |
Sanction |
|
PC Jakub Sikora |
17/03/2023 |
14/11/2023 |
No |
Would Have Been Dismissed Placed on the Barred List |
|
On 17th March 2023, former officer PC Sikora at A64 Fulford Interchange, Fulford, York, North Yorkshire, United Kingdom drove a mechanically propelled vehicle, dangerously on a road. It was alleged that former officer PC Sikora breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of ‘Discreditable Conduct’. It was further alleged that this conduct amounts to gross misconduct in that it is so serious as to justify dismissal. The chair, Chief Constable Lisa Winward, found the allegations of ‘Discreditable Conduct’. Decision
The officer resigned during the Investigation prior to the hearing.
Misconduct outcome for PC 568 Jacub Sikora | North Yorkshire Police
|
||||
In relation to the single hearing which was held in private, I am exempting any further information other than that which is already provided pursuant to Section 40(2) – Personal information and Section 38 – Health and Safety. Please see the full exemption explanation below.
Q3. In relation to the policy and protocols for misconduct matters, the information you have requested is published on the internet under the following link
The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (legislation.gov.uk)
I have therefore decided to exempt providing you with a response to question 3 pursuant to Section 21 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
The hearings and decision notices are published on the North Yorkshire Police website under the following link
Misconduct hearings | North Yorkshire Police
Q5. No information held – North Yorkshire Police are not responsible for any internal audits
Exemption Explanation
I am required by law to identify the relevant parts (the exemptions) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) that I have considered when reaching this decision, and I must also explain why these apply.
Section 21 – Information Reasonably Accessible by Other Means
Section 21 is an absolute class based exemption and I am not required to consider the harm or public interest when applying this exemption.
Section 40(2) – Personal Information
In relation to the single hearing which was held in private, I am exempting any further information other than that which is already provided. This is to protect the identification of the victim/s in the case.
Section 40(2) is an absolute class based exemption, which does not require a public interest test, but requires the balancing of the legitimate interests of the public against the interests of the individual under the first Data Protection Principle; in that processing of personal data must be lawful and fair (DPA 2018 35(1), EUGDPR Article 5(1)).
Where an individual can be identified by such data, releasing it would clearly breach the first data protection principle of being ‘fair’ to the data subject. This exemption applies because the right given under the FOI Act to request official information held by public authorities does not apply to the personal data of third parties where disclosure of that information would not be fair to the individual, and where there is no legitimate public interest in disclosure.
In all the circumstances of the case it has been determined that the duty to the individual under the Data Protection Act 2018 & EU General Data Protection Regulations, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption from disclosure of personal information held by the force in such instances, outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In this instance, personal information can only be disclosed to the individual concerned.
Releasing personal details to a person other than the data subject would not only breach the data subject’s Data Protection rights it may also breach the obligations placed on an authority under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Section 38(1)(a) – Health and Safety
Section 38 is a qualified, prejudice-based exemption, which again requires that I conduct a public interest test and evidence the harm in releasing such information.
Overall Harm for Section 38
Releasing additional information relating to the private hearing above would be likely to endanger the physical and mental health of those close to the victim/s. Releasing the details would bring back the accounts of any incidents and memories of the victim/s, which may be distressing for them. The information may also be subject to infringement of privacy by interested parties, such as the media, other members of the public and “trolls”, as online technology allows people globally the opportunity to comment in real time on such events, sometimes anonymously. Similarly, disclosure of details alongside a local knowledge could place the those involved at a direct risk of reprisals from others in the community, including those related to or acquainted with any other individuals involved. Therefore, the relatives and friends of the victim/s, or even those associated to this case, may be subject to unwarranted attention.
All of the above would publicly resurrect traumatic events, which would present a risk to physical and mental health of all those involved.
Public Interest Test
Reasons for Disclosure under Section 38
There is legitimate public interest in knowing whether an alleged offender has been arrested and investigated.
The police service is publicly funded therefore there is general public interest in how the police spend this money to promote public safety and investigate crime.
Reasons against Disclosure under Section 38
Releasing such personal information into the public domain where details have not been previously released would be unfair to those involved as it may cause them distress. Cases that have a sensitive and emotive nature, releasing the information to the wider public would present as a real and significant risk to physical and mental wellbeing.
Balancing Test
After considering the reasons for and against disclosure, it is my opinion that the reasons for non-disclosure outweigh the reasons for disclosure.
Pursuant to Section 17(5) of the Freedom of Information Act this letter acts as a Refusal Notice.
Further to the above, any further information relating to North Yorkshire Police misconduct matters will be published on the North Yorkshire Police website. I have provided the link to the misconduct page of the website above. Any further misconduct hearings as well as the outcomes are subject to consideration under Section 22 of the Act – Information intended for future publication.
I have provided the information as requested on this occasion however, any future requests for unredacted misconduct hearing outcomes with be considered under Section 14 of the Act – Vexatious.
The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act allows individuals to seek access to official information in order to gain transparency and accountability from public bodies. The expectation is that individuals will use this right responsibly and proportionately.
The ICO guidance sets out a number of indicators which have been reviewed and it has been determined that future request would meet the following vexatious indicator:
This request would impose a significant burden on the force for the duplication of work.
Please note that systems used for recording information are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the data. It should be noted therefore that this force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other responses you may receive.