PS 1865 Wharton, Leicestershire Police Professional Standards, Uphold My Complaint
Today I received notification that my complaint against Sgt Wharton has been upheld.
When I appeared in court in September 2013 PS Wharton was a witness in the case and
gave evidence in the trial.
The CPS dropped his case against me.
In the course of giving his evidence and when under cross examination by my legal representative, he repeated a defamatory statement twice which he had also made on Twitter.
After the court case I made a claim against Leicestershire Police's Chief Constable for the defamatory abuse I had suffered.
I also raised a professional standards complaint against Sgt Wharton.
Inspector 53 Smith has upheld my complaint.
.
His findings are as follows:
That during a court case Sgt Wharton said in open court that Mr Brookes was a ##############
Sgt Wharton has not denied that the he referred to Mr Brookes as a ########## in a Twitter posting and then confirmed this whilst giving evidence in court.
Police Officers are entitled to a private life in the same as any other member of the public and their use of or engagement in social media whilst off duty is acceptable.
However, what is not acceptable is for a police officer, whether on or off duty, to engage in, or behave in such a manner that discredits the police service or undermines public confidence.
Although Mr Brookes was not named in the posting, it would be churlish to believe that his identity would not be apparent as he his well known in the local community.
Mr Brookes found the comment offensive and distressing and resulted in him making a complaint,
Allegation upheld.
Recommendations / Action Taken by Leicestershire Police.
The allegation is upheld.
Sgt. Wharton was disrespectful to the complainant and his conduct on this occasion falls below the acceptable level expected of Leicestershire Police. The officer's failing on this occasion is a breach of the standards of professional behaviour in relation to Discreditable Conduct.
However the failing does not warrant formal misconduct proceeding and the recommendation is that the officer is given formal management words of advice.
My response, I am pleased Leicestershire Police have acknowledged and upheld one of my complaints, for the first time since 2009.
The level of disrespect and conduct of some officers based at Oakham Police Station has been disgusting for far too long now.
As for the action taken against the officer in this case, I don't believe I expected any more from a force that polices itself.
The good work of Leicestershire Police continues, next week I am meeting with detectives from Leicestershire Police Anti Corruption Unit. Who are investigating other matters relating to the conduct
of police and persons attached to our local councils.
This afternoon I spoke with Leicestershire Police Legal People and was told the report and findings by professional standards has now changed the dynamics of the defamation claim which I have brought against the Chief Constable. (poor man has to shoulder the responsibility for all his poor officers conduct).
Today I received notification that my complaint against Sgt Wharton has been upheld.
When I appeared in court in September 2013 PS Wharton was a witness in the case and
gave evidence in the trial.
The CPS dropped his case against me.
In the course of giving his evidence and when under cross examination by my legal representative, he repeated a defamatory statement twice which he had also made on Twitter.
After the court case I made a claim against Leicestershire Police's Chief Constable for the defamatory abuse I had suffered.
I also raised a professional standards complaint against Sgt Wharton.
Inspector 53 Smith has upheld my complaint.
.
His findings are as follows:
That during a court case Sgt Wharton said in open court that Mr Brookes was a ##############
Sgt Wharton has not denied that the he referred to Mr Brookes as a ########## in a Twitter posting and then confirmed this whilst giving evidence in court.
Police Officers are entitled to a private life in the same as any other member of the public and their use of or engagement in social media whilst off duty is acceptable.
However, what is not acceptable is for a police officer, whether on or off duty, to engage in, or behave in such a manner that discredits the police service or undermines public confidence.
Although Mr Brookes was not named in the posting, it would be churlish to believe that his identity would not be apparent as he his well known in the local community.
Mr Brookes found the comment offensive and distressing and resulted in him making a complaint,
Allegation upheld.
Recommendations / Action Taken by Leicestershire Police.
The allegation is upheld.
Sgt. Wharton was disrespectful to the complainant and his conduct on this occasion falls below the acceptable level expected of Leicestershire Police. The officer's failing on this occasion is a breach of the standards of professional behaviour in relation to Discreditable Conduct.
However the failing does not warrant formal misconduct proceeding and the recommendation is that the officer is given formal management words of advice.
My response, I am pleased Leicestershire Police have acknowledged and upheld one of my complaints, for the first time since 2009.
The level of disrespect and conduct of some officers based at Oakham Police Station has been disgusting for far too long now.
As for the action taken against the officer in this case, I don't believe I expected any more from a force that polices itself.
The good work of Leicestershire Police continues, next week I am meeting with detectives from Leicestershire Police Anti Corruption Unit. Who are investigating other matters relating to the conduct
of police and persons attached to our local councils.
This afternoon I spoke with Leicestershire Police Legal People and was told the report and findings by professional standards has now changed the dynamics of the defamation claim which I have brought against the Chief Constable. (poor man has to shoulder the responsibility for all his poor officers conduct).
