Investigation into Detective Constable’s relationship with a vulnerable woman – Kent Police, June 2020

In May 2015, a woman reported to the police that she had been assaulted by her former partner. She later reported her partner had also raped her.

A crime report and a domestic abuse, stalking and harassment (DASH) risk assessment form were created and completed by officers. The DASH form recorded the woman was at high risk.

A detective constable assigned to the woman’s assault case began processing the investigation, carrying out numerous actions including arresting and interviewing the woman’s ex-partner and taking her victim personal statement. Our evidence indicated that the detective constable began messaging the woman privately, and the relationship became sexual, lasting several years.

In May 2020, during the course of an unrelated IOPC investigation where the woman was identified as a witness, she disclosed she had previously been in a relationship with the detective constable which started after the domestic abuse incident in 2015.

We received a conduct referral from the force in June 2020 and decided to independently investigate the nature and appropriateness of the relationship between the detective constable and the woman, and the failure to report the relationship to Kent Police. We also examined whether the actions and decisions of the detective constable were in line with relevant national and local policies and procedures.

Our investigators interviewed the police officer (who by then was a detective sergeant), reviewed his mobile phone records and email accounts, and obtained witness statements from the woman’s colleagues.

The woman decided not to give a statement and did not want to be involved in our investigation.

We concluded there was insufficient evidence that the officer had committed a criminal offence but had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found that the detective constable was acting as a public officer at the time he met the woman, entering into a personal relationship with her. We found the detective constable was aware he should not develop such a relationship with anyone he met through the course of his policing duties and acted wilfully in contravention of the relevant policies and expectations. The woman was also a vulnerable victim of domestic violence, and the detective constable was in a position of significant trust and influence, which he abused.  

We found that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to pursuing a sexual or improper emotional relationship with the woman and failing to tell Kent Police about this relationship. 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 officer 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 recommended that Kent Police review specific training and force policy for officers and staff on abuse of position for sexual purpose.