PPS will review decision not to prosecute policemen sacked by PSNI for misconduct
The PPS has said it will review its decision not to prosecute two policemen who were sacked by the PSNI for gross misconduct.
There has been a political outcry over the case after details emerged today in a report from the Police Ombudsman.
The PPS said in a statement that it “recognises the concerns raised” about why the case did not merit prosecution.
The two officers are known in the report simply as A and B.
Officer A, the more senior of the two, “recorded videos and took pictures of people who had requested police assistance, reported crimes, were intoxicated or considered at risk of self-harm,” said the ombudsman, adding that this included footage filmed in hospital.
Some of this was later shared on WhatsApp, “often accompanied with sexualised, derogatory and demeaning commentary” (the ombudsman has not revealed what exactly was said).
The second officer, B, “took photographs of two vulnerable women, which he then shared with Police Officer A along with messages which referred to the women in derogatory terms”.
Files were sent to the PPS concerning “potential misconduct in public office” by Police Officer A, and “potential data protection offences” by both A and B.
However the PPS ordered no prosecution, though it “noted that offences under the Communications Act would have been relevant if they had not already been statute barred before the Police Ombudsman discovered the material”.
This is understood that this is a reference to the fact that, under the 2003 Act, prosecution must generally start within six months of an offence being committed.
In response to questions about why no prosecution was possible, the PPS has tonight said: “Great care was taken in reaching the PPS’s original decisions not to prosecute the officers in relation to the conduct outlined in the Police Ombudsman investigation files.
"It is important to underline that civil misconduct proceedings differ from criminal proceedings in both scope and standard of proof. In disciplinary matters, the civil standard of proof applies, namely the balance of probabilities, which is lower than the criminal standard.
“However, the Director of Public Prosecutions recognises the concerns raised about why these cases did not meet the evidential threshold required for a prosecution to be brought.
“Given the public interest in these cases, and to provide reassurance around our decision-making processes, the Director of Public Prosecutions has initiated a review of the decisions not to prosecute.
“This review is underway and will involve independent counsel who has had no previous involvement in the prosecutorial consideration of these matters.
“The review will be progressed as quickly as possible whilst ensuring proper consideration of the relevant material and caselaw.
“It is well documented that misconduct in public office is a common law offence which has a high threshold for prosecution and is not well-defined.
"This is why the Law Commission in England and Wales recommended that it be replaced with statutory offences which are contained in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, introduced at Westminster in September 2025.
"These statutory offences have not yet passed into law.
“We cannot provide any further comment on this matter while the review is underway.”
‘CONDUCT LIKE THIS AIDS DISSIDENTS’:
Among those commenting on the case was UUP leader and former head of discipline for the PSNI, Jon Burrows.
He told the News Letter that the ombudsman’s report had revealed “contemptible behaviour and an appalling betrayal of vulnerable people”.
He said he is “deeply uneasy at the PPS’s decision not to prosecute”, adding that “given the repeated, egregious abuse of trust, it is difficult to understand why the threshold was not met for the offence of misconduct in public office”.
Mr Burrows added: “This conduct betrays decent officers and hands ammunition to dissidents seeking to discredit policing.”
Also speaking out was justice minister and Alliance leader Naomi Long.
She said: “I felt angry and let down and disappointed, because I think that what they did was not just an abuse of their position, which is bad enough, but to humiliate and degrade individuals who are vulnerable and in need of support is just indefensible and despicable.”
DUP Policing Board member Trevor Clarke said the loss of the officers’ jobs is “the absolute bare minimum they should face”, and that it was “very disappointing” that there was no prosecution.
SDLP board member Colin McGrath said “the dismissal of the officers concerned was absolutely necessary, but dismissal alone cannot be the end of this matter”, while Sinn Fein MLA Linda Dillon said “the current threshold for criminal prosecution for such disgusting behaviour is also clearly too high and must be addressed”.
EXAMPLES OF MISCONDUCT:
The ombudsman said that “one of the most disturbing videos” recorded by Officer A was in June 2021, when he and Officer B were called to the home of a woman “with learning difficulties and mental health needs” amid concern for her safety.
"The video shows the woman in bed in her nightwear, with Police Officer B standing at the foot of the bed,” said the ombudsman’s report.
"Police Officer A asked a highly inappropriate question using a slang term and apparently relating to the woman’s sex life, after which his Police Officer B shouted a comment and invited her to repeat it.
“The woman responded by holding up her electronic tablet and advising that she was recording the officers, after which the Police Officer A stated that they were having ‘craic’ and told the woman to ‘lighten up.’”
The ombudsman did not reveal the words which were actually spoken.
Another video found on Officer A’s phone “featured an elderly and apparently vulnerable man” and showed “the poor state of the man’s living conditions and included the officer asking highly inappropriate and mocking comments about his sex life”.