Leicestershire Police Officer PC Edwards sent video image to another
serving officer, in June 2020 which was inappropriate and/or offensive, in that it consisted of a
depiction of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal.
PC Edwards also sent another image with the underlying caption
“Seen ya sun bathing in a field today”. The ‘GIF’ image depicted a naked adult male lying in a field with cows licking his face and his penis.
PC Edward received a written warning.
In the matter of Police Conduct Regulations 2020, paragraph
re: Police Constable 1889 Ian Edwards.
Hearing on the 2nd November 2020
The Reasons for the Decision on the Finding of Facts.
Documentation
The panel considered the disclosure pack and three relevant images contained within
PC Edward’s mobile phone. Secondly the panel considered the Appropriate
Authorities Opening Note dated 21st October 2020.
Witnesses
There were no witnesses called by the Officer or by the Appropriate Authority.
Standard and Burden of Proof
The panel in deciding matters of fact is required to apply the civil standard of proof,
namely on the Balance of Probabilities.
The alleged conduct will be proven on the balance of probabilities if the panel is
satisfied that it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred. The more
serious the allegation of misconduct, the more persuasive the requisite evidence will
need to be in order for it to meet the standard.
The Burden of Proof falls on the Appropriate Authority to prove the allegations on the
required standard.
The Allegation
It is alleged that on 26th June 2020 PC Edwards conduct breached the Standards of
Professional Behaviour by virtue of the transmission of a video image to another
serving officer, which was inappropriate and/or offensive, in that it consisted of a
depiction of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal.
On 29th June 2020 the Professional Standards Department was informed by a serving
officer that PC Edwards had sent the offending image, unsolicited, on Friday 26th June
at 18:39hrs with the underlying caption “Seen ya sun bathing in a field today”. The
‘GIF’ image depicted a naked adult male lying in a field with cows licking his face and
his penis.
On the 7th August 2020 an evidential capture of the image was obtained in the course
of the investigation by the investigation, and it was concluded that the image was
capable of amounting to extreme pornography.
On the 13th August 2020 PC Edwards, whilst under Police Caution, admitted to
receiving and sending the image. He stated that he did not realise the image or the
forwarding of it constituted an offence. He apologised stating he genuinely did not
mean to cause offence. Further, PC Edwards stated he did not in any way find the
image to be sexually arousing and found it to be funny, sending it to others who he
thought would also find it funny.
On the 27th August 2020 the CPS determined that the evidential test for an offence
under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was met, but the public interest
test for a prosecution was not achieved.
In all the circumstances the panel find that PC Edwards was in possession of the
image and forwarded it to another serving officer and a relative.
Accordingly, the panel finds the allegation Proven and amounts to Misconduct
The proven conduct engages the standards the Professional Standard of Behaviour
of Discreditable Conduct.
Outcome
Legal Considerations
The Home Office guidance provides that when determining the appropriate outcome
to impose, the panel should consider the purpose of police misconduct proceedings.
The purpose of the Misconduct regime is threefold;
I. Maintain confidence in and the reputation of the Police Service,
II. Uphold high Standards in policing and deter Misconduct
III. Protect the Public
The assessment of the seriousness of the conduct lies at the heart of the decision on
outcome. In the determining the outcome the panel must apply the following three
stage, namely;
1. Assess the seriousness of the misconduct
2. Keep in the mind the purpose of imposing sanctions
3. Choose the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the
seriousness of the conduct in question.
The seriousness of the proven conduct must be considered by reference to;
I. The officer’s culpability for the Misconduct
II. The Harm caused by the Misconduct
III. The existence of any aggravating factors
IV. The existence of any mitigating factors
The most important purpose of imposing disciplinary actions is to maintain public
confidence in and the reputation of the policing profession as a whole. The dual
objective must take precedence over the specific impact that the sanction has on the
individual whose misconduct is being sanctioned.
Consideration of personal mitigation such as testimonials and references are to be
considered after the panel has assessed the seriousness of the conduct.
Culpability
The panel concludes that PC Edward’s conduct was not planned and had
unintended consequences. PC Edwards did not appear to give any consideration to
any risk of harm that may have been caused by forwarding the image.
The panel noted that the proven conduct is criminal in nature. However, in the
present context this does not enhance the officers culpability, having regard to the
reason he sent the image.
Harm
The harm or risk caused by police misconduct may include reputational harm. Where
an officer commits an act that harms public confidence and the circumstances are
known to the public the panel may take this into account.
The panel acknowledges that no actual harm has resulted from PC Edwards sending
of the image and notes that the recipient officer stated that he was not personally
offended and accepted it was intended to be a joke.
However, the panel may also consider whether such conduct if known about by the
public would undermine public confidence in policing. The panel has considered the
following:
1. The evidence identifies that this is an isolated act and single episode
2. It is accepted that there is no identified ulterior motive or intent for possessing
or sending the image, sexual or otherwise.
3. The image is an exert from a longer video. The officer has not seen this
longer version.
4. The message contains a text that supports the assertion that the intention was
to be humorous and funny, not harmful.
5. The public perception to this type of ‘GIF’ may differ, but the panel concludes
in this context, there is limited damage to public confidence in policing.
Mitigating Factors
Mitigating Factors are those tending to reduce the seriousness of the misconduct.
Such factors may include;
1. Where misconduct is confined to a single episode or brief duration.
2. Open admissions at an early stage
3. Evidence of genuine remorse, insight and/or acceptance of responsibility for
one’s actions.
The panel notes that the proven misconduct occurred on a single occasion and that
PC Edwards has shown genuine remorse, insight and acceptance of responsibility
for his conduct. Further, he admitted his conduct at the earliest opportunity when
being interviewed in the context of the criminal investigation and subsequent
misconduct investigation.
Personal Mitigation
The Officer has shown remorse and in the character references it is clear he has
accepted and taken responsibility for his actions, he is well regarded by his referees
and within his local community. The Officer has demonstrated reflective practice in
accepting responsibility, recognising the impact on himself, his family, the
organisation and police confidence and he acknowledged the support provided
during this period.
Outcome
The Panel finds the proven conduct amounts to misconduct and considers the
appropriate outcome to be a Written Warning.
