Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

Officer challenged failure to disclose evidence to panel.

The High Court sat in Leeds for the case

 

A former detective dismissed for looking up information about his son on police computer systems has lost an appeal against the process at the High Court.

Ex-detective constable Steven O'Connor challenged his dismissal from West Yorkshire Police, mainly on the grounds that evidence in his favour should have been disclosed to a misconduct panel.

O'Connor was dismissed from the force after he was found to have viewed the nominal record of his son Thomas six times between mid-2014 and late 2015.

In November 2016 a panel found there had been no malicious motive and no criminal investigations were compromised but felt public confidence needed to be maintained, and dismissed him.

O'Connor claimed he did look up the info for policing reasons.

The hearing was told that Thomas had apparently been shot and an inspector had spoken to him about this.

But after it retired to consider the allegations, it emerged the panel had not been told about an email from the retired inspector to an officer investigating misconduct. He said he could understand why the claimant would have been approached by police personnel seeking to get hold of Thomas and why discussion should take place between O'Connor and his colleagues about it.

Phillip Benson, the retired inspector who worked with O'Connor, said he was aware the former detective had been asked to get a message to his son.

He said DC Leanne Horsfield, investigating the misconduct allegation, asked if he would have given O'Connor permission to use police computer systems and replied he had not told him to. But he added: "If he had done so to achieve the task that I had set him, then in my opinion that was for a policing purpose, there was nothing wrong with it and I would back him 100 per cent."

Despite this, the investigating officer's note on Mr Benson said the ex-inspector could not remember "any specific incident involving DC O'Connor and his son".

The former officer appealed his dismissal on the grounds that the withheld statement provided additional support to his argument he had been acting for a policing purpose, that the case against him was put together in bad faith by DC Horsfield and it was unfair.

Having lost an appeal against the ruling at a tribunal, O'Connor lost another appeal at the High Court, sitting in Leeds, last week.

His Honour Judge Saffman found the appeal judge was right to rule the investigating officer was entitled to believe Mr Benson's evidence was not relevant and that it was unlikely to have made a difference to the panel's decision.

This is because it did not prove the detective had been asked to look up the information, rather he may have been backed if he had done so.

Crucially, the judge also noted: "[The allegations put in front of the misconduct panel] related to access to the police computer systems at various times, many months later where there had been no request by another officer for the claimant to do anything with regard to Thomas.

"These were accesses which were entirely at the claimant's [O'Connor's] initiative and not for a purpose associated with any other officer's enquiries."

Accusations of bad faith were "unsupported conjecture" the judge chairing the first appeal ruled, and the High Court upheld this aspect too.

View On Police Oracle

 

 

 

[Sir Penguin 648]

Not sure why this still happens. People get dismissed and disciplined for it all the time and it’s always publicised so why would you risk it?

[Mac7 808]

Not sure why this still happens. People get dismissed and disciplined for it all the time and it’s always publicised so why would you risk it?

If it’s one thing that is going to you sacked, it’s this. Everyone inside the organisation knows that.

[Pavillion 43]

58 minutes ago, Sir Penguin said:

Not sure why this still happens. People get dismissed and disciplined for it all the time and it’s always publicised so why would you risk it?

It may point to a problem with what the employees believe will happen to what actually happens.

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

38 minutes ago, Pavillion said:

It may point to a problem with what the employees believe will happen to what actually happens.

No, we all know that actions have consequences and, the consequence  for this behaviour is dismissal. Every single officer knows this.

[Pavillion 43]

6 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

No, we all know that actions have consequences and, the consequence  for this behaviour is dismissal. Every single officer knows this.

Then Sir Penguins comment below, bares no relation to the real world and was completely useless. My comment was a response to Sir Penguin's comment.

 

1 hour ago, Sir Penguin said:

Not sure why this still happens. People get dismissed and disciplined for it all the time and it’s always publicised so why would you risk it?

My response to the above comment, below.

 

It may point to a problem with what the employees believe will happen to what actually happens.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Pavillion

[BlueBob + 692]

Not condoning the OP's actions.  As a curiosity observation - Police can't be the only organisation that holds sensitive personal/personal data and have employees who look at it for no business reasons - I just wonder what happens, if anything, in other organisations?  

[Beaker 817]

I just wonder what happens, if anything, in other organisations?  

I work for a large electrical and mobile phone provider. If we are caught logged against our own sales record, or that of a family member we are instantly dismissed.

[sierragolf95 + 55]

5 hours ago, BlueBob said:

Not condoning the OP's actions.  As a curiosity observation - Police can't be the only organisation that holds sensitive personal/personal data and have employees who look at it for no business reasons - I just wonder what happens, if anything, in other organisations?  

The security industry, particularly CCTV, is very strict on this. Since video footage is classed as personal data under the data protection act, If I was seen going through footage to try and find one of my colleagues falling down the stairs, it's trivial to most and would probably be a funny video, but I'd get sacked. If I was in a control room and used CCTV to monitor a member of staff on their phone and I had a go at them for it, I'd be on a disciplinary because CCTV isn't allowed to be used for that. If one of my friends were to be in my venue drunk and I recorded it on my phone and sent it to the next morning, I'd be knee deep in it if my employers phoned that.

Even before I got my CCTV licence, if I were to look back at my own bodycam footage for any reason whatsoever, I'd be sacked and the SIA would be looking to prosecute me for carrying out licensable activity without the correct licence. 

Yet I'm sure so many people have done the above thinking they'd get away with it, a lot do, but those that get caught really get screwed.