A Northumbria police inspector who inappropriately touched a colleague and asked others to have sex with him has been sacked.
Inspector John Hodgson worked at the Ponteland Communications Centre in Ponteland, Northumberland. The 35-year-old worked there initially as a sergeant until he was promoted to the rank of Inspector in February 2021.
A misconduct hearing heard how he sent sexual and flirtatious messages to colleagues while on and off duty and also used social media to ask two of the women for sex.
Read more: Sex, motorboating and drink driving: The North East cops sacked or punished for their behaviour
A panel heard how he had put his hands on the hips of one of the women and stroked her back, without her consent. They ruled that the inappropriate touching happened more than once and he took advantage of his position.
During the disciplinary hearing, which was held on January 20 this year, he faced four allegations:
His behaviour was found to be gross misconduct in relation to inappropriate, flirtatious and sexualised behaviour and inappropriate touching. He was also found to have breached professional standards.
While deciding the outcome of the hearing, the panel took into account health issues and the fact Inspector Hodgson had made some admissions at an early stage.
However they concluded that the only appropriate outcome was dismissal without notice.
We have outlined the details of the allegations which he faced below:
1. Inappropriate, flirtatious and/ or sexualised communication with junior members of staff
The allegation related to six female members of staff between 2020 and 2021. All of the employees, except from one (witness B), were junior to Inspector Hodgson in terms of status within the force.
A panel heard how Witness A worked under the direction of Inspector Hodgson. She indicated that she became attracted to him and asked him out for a drink. He declined on account of the work relationship which existed at the time however he kept in touch by way of text message and Instagram messaging.
The hearing heard how a series of persistently sexual messages were exchanged between the officer and Witness A which included the officer referring to sexual arousal and libido, sexual activity and the physical attributes of Witness A. The panel said: "There is no dispute that around this time, Inspector Hodgson messaged Witness A on Instagram and asked her for sex."
The panel concluded that the sexualised nature of the messaging was fully encouraged and perpetuated by Inspector Hodgson and this was "improper".
They said: "Further, the suggestion of sex was wrongful conduct by a relatively senior officer to an impressionable junior member of police staff, who had very recently worked under his control. The Panel has concluded that there was clearly an imbalance of power which amounted to an abuse of position by Inspector Hodgson."
The misconduct hearing heard that Inspector Hodgson also engaged in a series of flirtatious police Skype exchanges and email messages with another colleague, known as Witness B.
The nature of the messages included Inspector Hodgson's interest in her tattoos and whether she was going to take bikini shots of her body when next on holiday.
The panel found the nature of the messages from Inspector Hodgson to Witness B indicated flirtatious conduct, with an implied request of her to take photographs of herself, which he would ultimately wish to see. They said: "That behaviour was inappropriate."
The hearing heard that Inspector Hodgson was also part of a Facebook group chat with a colleague, known as Witness C, and sent police Skype messages to her.
They heard that, Witness C messaged him saying "Hiya, thank you, how much do I owe you?" in response to a small favour done by Inspector Hodgson, which probably related to the provision of some food from a nearby shop.
In response to this Inspector Hodgson replied: "Just a BJ", which he accepted meant "blow job". The response by Witness C in reply indicated that she knew he had asked for oral sex as she declined and reminded him that such exchanges could be traced.
The Panel said: "The casual sexualised communication between Inspector Hodgson and this member of police staff on the police Skype system, along with the communications on the Facebook messenger group chat when sexual matters were openly discussed, amounts to wholly inappropriate sexualised communication between this officer and junior staff whilst both on duty and off duty."
Another woman, known as Witness D, accepted that she had a sexual relationship with Inspector Hodgson, which ended around December 2020. She stated that her conversations with him outside of work were often sexualised but that this was always consensual and did not make her feel uncomfortable.
The hearing heard how Inspector Hodgson sent Witness D a police Skype message on February 12, 2021 in response to Witness D's question: "Why would you be doing this?". He replied: "Because I miss your big chebs!"
The Panel said: "The officer was referring to breasts when he sent this message. The Panel find that this message sent during work time on the police Skype system was improper sexualised behaviour."
Another woman, known as Witness E, said Inspector Hodgson asked her for sex over Instagram in early 2021, however the officer denied this. The Panel said: "The Panel found witness E to be frank and credible about this. Whilst she regarded his request as a joke, she was absolutely clear that the request was made."
Witness E also sent a partially clothed photograph of her bottom, whist wearing underwear, to Inspector Hodgson in March 2021 for his birthday. She said she sent the photograph with the caption: "That's all you're getting".
She said that Inspector Hodgson responded with a heart-eye emoji and she regretted sending the photograph shortly after it was sent.
The panel said: "Her evidence was clear that Inspector Hodgson had asked for such an unclothed photograph on a few occasions and the Panel find that this was the case, even though the officer denied asking for it."
Another colleague, known as Witness F, confirmed that she commenced a sexual relationship with Inspector Hodgson after December 2020.
The hearing heard how Witness F was mentored by Inspector Hodgson during which time she asked him out. He acknowledged it would be improper to engage in a relationship with at the time and declined her request.
Inspector Hodgson said he stopped mentoring Witness F when she asked him out. Around five months later, a sexual relationship began between Inspector Hodgson and Witness F.
The panel concluded that his behaviour amounted to inappropriate, flirtatious and/or sexualised communications both on, and off, duty. They said it also breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of both Discreditable Conduct and the Authority, Respect and Courtesy Standard.
They found Inspector Hodgson's behaviour to be gross misconduct.
2. Engaging in a sexual relationship with witness D and witness F between 2020 and 2021 and failing to disclose it
The panel looked at the relationships which Inspector Hodgson had with Witness D and Witness F.
They decided there was insufficient evidence to prove a breach of either of the two Professional Standards of Behaviour in relation to Witness D.
However the panel said that Inspector Hodgson's relationship with Witness F amounted to an abuse of trust and power given the mentor-mentee relationship and the short period after which the relationship became sexual.
They said: "The Panel find that there is a breach of the Discreditable Conduct Standard of Professional Behaviour and a breach of the Authority, Respect and Courtesy Standard by Inspector Hodgson engaging in that sexual relationship and by his failure to disclose it to senior management."
They decided that his behaviour amounted to misconduct.
3. Intentional touching
Inspector Hodgson was accused of intentionally touching Witness B.
She said Inspector Hodgson, who was aware that she was recently bereaved, unexpectedly came up behind her and placed both of his hands on her hips / waist area and then stroked her back, whispering the words "Are you ok?"
Inspector Hodgson said that he never touched her and that he does not understand why she said that it happened when it did not occur. He said that CCTV footage would exonerate him, but no footage was available.
The panel said: "The panel finds that this unwanted contact did occur in the way described by Witness B. The panel finds her account to be credible and convincing.
"The panel finds that Inspector Hodgson used the cloak of concern and empathy, to touch Witness B in an unwanted manner, which was in part intimate and overall inappropriate."
The panel also found that, the following month, Inspector Hodgson stood very close behind her and placed an unwanted hand on her back while they were in the "prayer room" of the premises.
They also accepted her account that he touched her back on a handful of times in the early part of 2021 when such contact was not necessary, usually as she was passing through a doorway.
The panel said they consider that Inspector Hodgson did abuse his position in relation to Witness B, knew she was vulnerable following her recent loss and sought to take advantage of that.
They said: "Whilst it is correct to observe that Witness B was happy to perpetuate a mildly flirtatious relationship with Inspector Hodgson, it is clear to us that she did not really know how to stop that relationship developing and did not want to make a fuss, even though she knew that Inspector Hodgson had overstepped the mark on a number of occasions."
They said the unwanted touching of a female member of staff amounted to Discreditable Conduct and breach of the Authority, Respect and Courtesy Standard of Professional Behaviour.
The panel decided that Inspector Hodgson's behaviour was Gross Misconduct.
4. Accessing police data systems
Inspector Hodgson admitted accessing the 3 Force Wide Incident Number Logs between October 8, 2020 and April 22, 2021 without a policing purpose, breaching Confidentiality Standard of Professional Behaviour.
The panel said: "In fact, it is clear that the Logs were accessed by him purely for amusement having been sent to him by a member of police staff."
They highlighted that, although he explained to them that he had accessed them "without thinking", it is clear that from the moment they were sent to him there was no policing reason for him to look at them at all.
They Panel said: "As an inspector it is obvious to the panel that he should not have looked at them. Furthermore, by looking at the first one and expressing some amusement about it, this undoubtedly encouraged the same member of police staff to send another Log for him to view some months later."
The hearing heard how no financial gain was achieved by viewing the Logs and that viewing them was not malicious on Inspector Hodgson's part.
The panel decided his behaviour amounted to Misconduct.
Read more:
