Private misconduct hearing outcome
An officer has been issued with a final written warning after he was found to have breached the standards of professional behaviour.
Two officers appeared at the three-day misconduct hearing which started on Monday 14 September.
Both officers – officer A and officer B – were facing an allegation that between 16 November and 12 December 2018, they breached the standards of professional behaviour; namely honesty and integrity, challenging/reporting improper conduct and discreditable conduct.
It was alleged that Officer A facilitated Officer B coming into possession of interview questions in relation to an internal police staff role prior to the interview intending that the questions would be passed onto a staff member who was a candidate for the role. This would therefore provide the staff member with an unfair advantage in the process.
It was alleged Officer B was provided with the interview questions which he then provided to a staff member who was a candidate for the role. This would have provided the staff member with an unfair advantage in the process.
It was also alleged Officer B failed to challenge or report Officer A who provided the interview questions.
Following the three-day hearing, the case against officer A was found not to be proven.
The allegations against officer B were found to be proven. It was found that gross misconduct had been committed in regards to honesty and integrity and discreditable conduct and that misconduct had been committed in regards to challenging/reporting improper conduct.
The Legally Qualified Chair Jayne Salt considered if the hearing could be held in public but directed that anonymity of the officers should be maintained and the hearing would take place in private. This decision was made due to the extremely sensitive nature of the work of the officers involved and the fact that the matter of the case has not arisen from public complaint and did not involve an operational policing matter. It was concluded the circumstances of the case outweighed the public interest in holding the hearing in public.
