A Sunderland detective, whose job involved trying to recruit secret informants for the police, has been cleared of wrongly looking at people's files and details purely because he was "nosy".
Hull Crown Court heard that Detective Constable Trevor Pugh spent 80% of his time on police computers, researching people and material about them, or linked to them, for possible use in bringing informants on board for covert information purposes. However a police sergeant who looked into his police computer activities decided some of what he was doing had "no apparent police purpose" and was for his own personal curiosity, HullLive reports.
DC Pugh, 44, denied 14 charges involving misusing a police computer system by securing unauthorised access to computer materials between February 2017 and March 2019. He was cleared of all the charges by a jury after a trial.
Read more: Naked Northumberland pensioner lured boy with promise of Christmas gift then carried out sex attack
The matters originally came to light as part of a corruption investigation into DC Pugh's dealings with another man but it was decided, after a "comprehensive and thorough investigation", that there was no corruption. "There is no evidence whatsoever of corruption," said Judge John Thackray QC.
DC Pugh worked at the time in the Dedicated Source Unit of Northumbria Police, carrying out "highly sensitive" work on researching and identifying possible covert sources of information from informants. But Judge Thackray said that the prosecution claimed that DC Pugh was "being nosy" in his role as an informant handler when he accessed information on police computer systems and allegedly misused it. The charges were brought under the Computer Misuse Act of 1990.
Judge Thackray said that DC Pugh had claimed that, because he was born and bred in Sunderland and lived and worked there, he was never really off duty and used knowledge from his time as a police officer in researching whether somebody could be recruited as a covert informant. Possible informants could come from every aspect of society, including businessmen, professional people and potentially even a local pub landlord, said Judge Thackray.
DC Pugh spent 80% of his time on computers carrying out research on possible informants and his boss expected him to have carried out thorough checks on possible recruits before making a business case for using them. A "thorough review of all potential evidence" would need to be carried out before the boss was consulted about any approach to someone because of the potential risk to them and the public, the court heard.
A police sergeant who saw what DC Pugh had been accessing decided that, on repeat occasions, there was "no apparent police purpose" for him to be looking at the material that he had been accessing on the computer systems. She believed that he viewed personal information.
He knew one man from his time as a policeman on the beat, it was claimed. DC Pugh claimed that he was considering suggesting the man as an informant and wanted to know what his level of criminality was.
DC Pugh also searched for information on a woman connected with the man but the sergeant claimed that there was also "no apparent police purpose" for this. DC Pugh insisted that it was because he was considering recruiting the man linked with her as a source of information.
DC Pugh denied that he did the research because of "nosiness" and Judge Thackray said that it was up to the prosecution to prove that it was purely for non-police purposes.
DC Pugh also claimed that research into a second man was because he saw the person as a potential source of information.
Other searches by DC Pugh for information were also branded by the police sergeant as for "no apparent police purpose" but he claimed that it was part of the "scoping process" for possible recruitment of informers over a period of months. It involved looking at the direction of lifestyle of a person, he claimed.
When he was arrested, DC Pugh claimed that looking at potential informants took a lot of time over a period of weeks and months.
References given to the court as part of DC Pugh's defence case, including from police officers who had known him throughout his career, described him as trusted, helpful, having integrity, courteous, having a high level of morality, dedicated and proud.
He was described as a close and trusted friend and as committed and always seeking to improve. He had no previous convictions.
After the not guilty verdicts, DC Pugh was discharged and a defendant's costs order was made in his favour. Outside the courtroom, he was given the chance to comment on the case but declined to do so. The prosecution earlier confirmed that DC Pugh was a serving officer but that he was believed to be currently suspended.
It was also confirmed by the prosecution that there was, at one point, an order in force prohibiting the reporting of the officer's name, as well as those of the people whose files he accessed, but the order regarding the identification of DC Pugh was discharged, partly after an application by Reach Plc newspapers. The lifting of the order allowed publication of DC Pugh's details and what was said in open court. The names of the others involved in the files that he accessed cannot be reported, however.
The prosecution decided that the evidence surrounding the original claims of corruption did not support more serious charges.
The defence confirmed that DC Pugh was a detective constable but that he had been suspended and, irrespective of the verdicts, was likely to face disciplinary action.
