Investigation into the pursuit of a sexual and improper emotional relationship by a police officer – Kent Police, February 2020

In 2019, a woman called Kent Police to report an elderly woman in the care of the company she worked for had been burgled. A police officer contacted the woman and took her statement, exchanging emails and text messages relating to the investigation into the burglary.

Over the next three months, the officer contacted the woman when on and off duty, exchanging hundreds of messages. Most of these messages were of a personal nature, sometimes using suggestive or lewd language, and nothing to do with the investigation. The woman frequently ignored these messages, diverting the conversation back to the investigation.

The woman complained to the force, and we received a conduct referral from Kent Police in February 2020. We decided to independently investigate allegations that the officer had abused his power for a sexual purpose by sending inappropriate messages to a witness he had met through the course of his duties. We examined the nature and appropriateness of the relationship between the officer and the woman, and the failure to report this relationship to Kent Police.

We found that the officer had met one of the woman’s friends at an event. The friend had attended the event with the officer’s sergeant. It was reported that the sergeant was aware of the officer’s attempts to form an inappropriate relationship with the woman and had failed to challenge this conduct as his supervising officer. It was also reported he influenced the friend to withdraw her evidence in relation to the officer’s contact with the woman.

We decided to investigate the advice the sergeant gave to the woman’s friend, resulting in her decision to withdraw her statement, and the sergeant’s decision not to report or challenge the pursuit of the relationship by an officer serving under him. 

Our investigators examined the officer’s mobile phone, emails, calls and location data. We interviewed the officer, who declined to answer, so we obtained a statement from him. We obtained statements from several witnesses, including the woman.

Our investigation ended in February 2021. 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 contacted the woman when on and off duty, exchanging hundreds of messages with 86 per cent of them of a personal nature and nothing to do with the investigation. He also tried to arrange to meet up with the woman for sex.

Our investigation found the officer knew he was behaving inappropriately, asking if the woman was getting his messages and if he had overstepped the line.

Guidance for officers shows the responsibility lies with them to maintain a professional boundary. Officers who abuse their position for a sexual purpose have no place in policing and their behaviour damages the public’s trust and confidence in police officers.

We referred a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider criminal charges in relation to the officer’s attempt to form an improper relationship with the woman. The officer was charged and put on trial where a jury found him not guilty of misconduct in public office in August 2024.

We found that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to pursuing an improper relationship with a woman he had met during the course of his duties. 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 misconduct hearing.

The misconduct hearing concluded in July 2025. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for honesty and integrity; authority, respect and courtesy; duties and responsibilities; and discreditable conduct. These amounted to a finding of gross misconduct and the officer was dismissed with immediate effect. He was also placed on the barred list, preventing him from working as a police officer again.

We also found the officer’s sergeant had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found that the sergeant had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to interfering with a witness and her evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation into the actions of his subordinate officer. We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the sergeant and that they should take the form of a misconduct hearing.

We did not find any evidence that the sergeant was aware of the officer’s attempts to form an inappropriate relationship with the woman or failed to challenge this conduct.

The sergeant was dismissed at a misconduct hearing in January 2025 following an un-related IOPC investigation into reports of inappropriate sexual conduct. He was placed on the barred list, preventing him from working as a police officer 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 did not identify any organisational learning in this case.