Final written warnings for two PSNI officers over 'dishonesty' in handling of respective north coast bar assault and suspected £14k theft probes
Two PSNI officers have received final written warnings for being dishonest to members of the public – one who was assaulted in a bar, and another who suspected that thousands of pounds had been stolen from her late father.
Complaints about the officers’ conduct were investigated by the Police Ombudsman’s Office, which recommended that the PSNI should take disciplinary action against both.
Nikki Davis, the Police Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations, said: “Incidents of operational dishonesty such as these are viewed extremely seriously within policing.
“The PSNI disciplinary panels noted that dishonesty would normally result in dismissal, but concluded that there were mitigating circumstances in both cases which meant that a final written warning was the appropriate sanction.”
In the first case an officer falsely recorded that an investigation into the suspected theft of over £14,000 had been closed with the complainant’s consent. The woman, who lived in England, advised police that all but a few pounds had been taken from her late father’s bank account in the months leading up to, and the days following, his death in 2020.
A PSNI disciplinary hearing found that the officer had made “inadequate” enquiries before falsely noting on police systems the complainant had agreed to the investigation being closed pending further evidence.
The officer also recorded he had spoken to the woman and her solicitor “numerous times at length”, and the complainant had been “more than happy” with police actions and thankful for their efforts.
However, the disciplinary panel noted the Police Ombudsman’s finding the officer had spoken to the complainant only three times before closing the case, and had not spoken at all to her solicitor.
They also noted the woman had not been aware that the case had been closed, given that she had sent six emails after then to seek updates from the officer, none of which were acknowledged or responded to.
After considering mitigation, which included the officer’s relative inexperience and failings in the standard of supervision provided to him, the panel decided to impose a final written warning.
This related to failures to keep accurate records, to provide a prompt and thorough investigation, to update the complainant, and for conduct likely to bring the police service into disrepute. The officer’s supervisor also received a disciplinary sanction.
In the second case, an officer accepted he had misled the victim of an assault at a north coast bar in 2021 by falsely stating that he had viewed CCTV of the attack.
The officer was also criticised for closing the case by issuing the perpetrator with a Community Resolution Notice (CRN). Police Ombudsman investigators found the injuries caused were too serious to be resolved through a CRN, and the officer had failed to follow police procedures by checking whether the injured party was content with the outcome.
The disciplinary panel noted, however, the officer had informed his line manager immediately after learning that the injured party was dissatisfied, resulting in swift action to minimise the harm caused.
The panel also recognised it had been an isolated incident, and the officer, who was inexperienced, was remorseful and had learned from it.
The sanction related not only to dishonesty, but also to a failure to follow police policy, and behaviour likely to bring discredit on the PSNI.
Confirming that two officers had been disciplined, the PSNI said their actions had fallen short of the force’s expectations.
Chief Superintendent Stephen Murray, head of the PSNI’S Professional Standards Department, said: “We welcome the Police Ombudsman office investigation into these matters as we expect our officers to act with professionalism and integrity at all times.
“As a result of these investigations, two constables were provided with final written warnings, alongside management advice for a sergeant. These outcomes were decided by a Misconduct Panel, which included a layperson. The panels considered the full circumstances of the cases and the mitigation presented.
“Where the conduct of an officer is alleged to have fallen short of these high standards, as identified in these cases, it is right that they should face an impartial, thorough enquiry by the Police Ombudsman’s office and the relevant misconduct proceedings progressed.
“The misconduct findings by the Panels confirm that actions of these officers do not represent the expectations of the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the victims in these cases.”