PSNI officer dismissed over sexual relationship he initiated on duty

The investigation by the Police Ombudsman found he had also failed to disclose multiple conflicts of interest, intimidated a former partner, attempted to falsify evidence and asked a colleague to lie.

Ombudsman Jacqui Durkin (pictured, inset) has described the police officer’s behaviour as a “catalogue of corruption” which had “the potential to do serious damage to public trust and confidence in policing”.

The case was referred to the Police Ombudsman by the chief constable for independent investigation and stemmed from an assault allegation made to the police by one woman, woman A, against another, woman B, towards the end of 2018.

Woman B then also made a counter assault allegation against woman A.

The police officer responsible for investigating the allegations, police officer A, asked a colleague, police officer B, to take a statement from woman B, which he duly did.

The ombudsman said police officer B did not disclose that he had been in a sexual relationship with woman A in 2016 and was still in contact with her socially.

Within 24 hours of meeting woman B to take her statement, he had contacted her through Facebook and Snapchat, and then began a sexual relationship with her.

The ombudsman said a short time later they were living together and had a child before their relationship ended in early 2020.

Ms Durkin described the actions of the officer as “appalling”.

She said: “Every action he took from the point he chose not to disclose his original conflict of interest with woman A compounded his failure.

“It is appalling that within 24 hours of meeting woman B he had taken advantage of his position as a police officer to contact her and to form an inappropriate relationship with her.

“The power imbalance between a police officer and a woman who is not only accused of a crime but has also alleged that she was a victim of a crime herself could not be more stark.

“Police officers know the standards which are expected of them and the professional boundaries which they must not cross.”

She said that five weeks after police officer B had taken woman B’s original handwritten statement, he created a typed version, changed the date on which it had been taken and brought it home to be signed by her.

She told Police Ombudsman investigators that while she was unaware of the implications of signing the altered statement, her account of what happened had not been changed.

The ombudsman said that as well as obtaining her fresh signature and falsely recording the date, police officer B also replaced his own name with that of police officer A.

He asked police officer A to sign the statement, telling him that he knew woman B because she lived close to some of his family members.

Police officer A refused to sign the statement and reported the matter to his supervising sergeant.

The ombudsman said that a further conflict of interest also emerged when her investigators found that a week prior to meeting with woman B to take her statement, police officer B had been appointed as the investigating officer for an assault allegation involving woman B’s former boyfriend.

That investigation continued until March 2019, overlapping with the relationship between police officer B and woman B.

She said that though he was aware the man was a former boyfriend, police officer B did not disclose that he was living with woman B, in an intimate relationship with her and that she was expecting his child.

Ms Durkin said: “At this point, police officer B has not one, but three separate conflicts of interest in ongoing criminal investigations.

“He has not disclosed his original relationship with woman A.

"He has not disclosed his relationship with woman B and also attempted to conceal it by falsifying an official record and trying to make a colleague complicit in his lie.

“And, finally, he has not disclosed that he is investigating woman B’s ex-boyfriend.

“Each of these conflicts compromised his position as a police officer and brought his integrity, independence and impartiality into question at any future criminal proceedings.

“This behaviour can do serious damage to public trust and confidence in policing, and it is vital that officers who choose to behave in this way know there will be serious consequences.”

At the conclusion of the investigation, a file was sent to the PPS.

The PPS directed no prosecution and a misconduct file was subsequently sent to the PSNI’s Professional Standards Department.

The PSNI misconduct panel found that police officer B had misconducted himself by breaching the PSNI code of ethics and he was dismissed.