An experienced police sergeant made inappropriate advances to three young female trainees he was supervising, a disciplinary hearing has been told.
Though the chair of the hearing concluded that the Dorset officer’s actions amounted to gross misconduct, he banned publication of his name to protect his family’s welfare.
The sergeant, who was a police officer for 20 years, was disciplined by his superiors for pursuing one of the trainees, referred to as Officer C, in June 2021.
He admitted having a “thing” with her and claimed it had been a “wake-up” call when his son almost caught them kissing in his garage. Yet just a few weeks later he made advances towards two other trainees, Officers A and B, in the same unit.
He and Officer A swapped sexualised messages and images. They had “phone sex” and the sergeant had to be talked out of sending her an explicit photo of himself. The relationship culminated in the pair engaging in a sexual act at his home after a night out. Officer A was considered “vulnerable” at the time because she had made a complaint of domestic abuse against her former partner.
As soon as Officer B joined his unit, he asked for her number and sent her flirtatious messages.
The sergeant’s behaviour towards female trainees became common knowledge among his squad at the police station. An internal inquiry began and the sergeant resigned from the force in August.
Deni Matthews, the legally qualified chair overseeing the tribunal, determined that the officer’s actions amounted to gross misconduct.
He said the officer’s actions had been a “discredit to the police service”, adding: “These were individuals who were members of his team, he was in a position to influence their careers.
“We conclude the only disposal capable of maintaining public confidence in the police service is that, had the officer not resigned, we would have imposed an immediate notice of dismissal.”
Explaining why he imposed the anonymity order preventing the identification of the officer, he said: “The purpose is to protect the welfare of family members of the officer concerned.”
