Misconduct Panels convened by West Yorkshire Police recently have seen two of their officers dismissed from the force over alleged sexual touching incidents that both happened in public bars in Leeds whilst off-duty.
PC Adam Moreton of West Yorkshire Police was on a night out with officer colleagues in Leeds when ‘heavily intoxicated’ he grabbed the woman’s bottom three times and touched her breast once.
The officer had been drinking alcohol for almost six hours after the officer when the incident took place, in October 2021, in the Mean Eyed Cat.
The Misconduct Panel found that the officer’s actions were “abusive, oppressive and harassing”. Their report went on to say:
“The Panel determined in this case that PC Moreton had malign intent. He carried out the sexual assaults for his sexual gratification. His actions were repeated. There were four separate sexual assaults involving grabbing Ms A’s bottom three times and touching her breast.”
Adding: : “PC Moreton has not shown any appreciation of what he has done. Instead, he tried to blame his context and surroundings and the actions of others on his behaviour.”
PC Moreton was said to be “argumentative and evasive” when giving evidence before the Panel. He accepted that his actions were inappropriate but refused to concede that sexual impropriety was present.
The Crown Prosecution Service decided, after reviewing the case against PC Moreton, that no further action would be taken.
On 5th June 2023, a misconduct hearing was convened to deal with allegations against former Police Constable Remifiusz Serafin which West Yorkshire Police assessed as amounting to gross misconduct. On 16th December 2021, officers from Leeds and Bradford District Patrol Team 5 attended a team night out. The officers, including PC Serafin and PC A (the alleged victim of sexual touching to whom the Panel granted anonymity) went to the Revolution Bar in Leeds.
PC A provided an account of what happened in a video recorded interview. The incident occurred at about 2230hrs. She said by that time she and PC Serafin were drunk. They were dancing together when he touched her bottom. At that time, she thought the touching was accidental. However, PC Serafin then went on to pinch and slap her bottom. PC A was wearing jeans. After touching her bottom, PC Serafin was behind PC A when he reached around her front and touched her between her legs in the area of her vagina.
PC A said she did not consent to the touching of her bottom or her vagina.
PC A left the dance floor and reported the incident to her friends PCs Nicholson and Sheldon, and to Police Sergeant Williams.
When interviewed about the allegation, PC Serafin admitted to touching PC A’s bottom but said that he believed she consented to the touching because of the intimate way they were dancing together. He denied touching her on the vagina.
The Panel watched the CCTV recording which, due to the position of the camera and the location of the two officers, was not of good quality. However, it was sufficient to show both officers dancing with each other in a close and tactile manner.
The evidence showed PC Serafin stroking PC A’s bottom and PC A then putting her arms around PC Serafin’s neck. The couple were then obscured by other people and furniture and so the alleged touching between the legs was not observed.
The Panel had to decide which account, PC A’s or PC Serafin’s, was the more credible and carried greater weight: Both officer’s recollection of events was clouded by alcohol in the Panel’s assessment, but the Panel found PC A’s account to be the more likely.
The Panel accepted PC A’s evidence in regard to being touched on the bottom and the genitals. This was a memorable event which caused her to leave the dance floor and to make an immediate report to three of her police colleagues. Although hearsay, the Panel found this recent complaint to be cogent evidence which strongly supported PC A’s version of events.
The Panel was satisfied that PC A did not give her consent to being touched on the bottom or on the vagina.
The CCTV evidence confirmed that PC Serafin did touch PC A’s bottom and this fact was not in dispute. The issue to be determined was whether or not PC A consented to the touching. The Panel carefully considered the video evidence which showed PC A putting her arms around PC Serafin’s neck after the touching of her bottom. The Panel did not find that this amounted to evidence of consent. PC A was drunk, and the Panel was satisfied that PC A chose not to take issue with PC Serafin over the touch to her bottom and in her evidence, she thought the first such touch was accidental. In effect she chose to ignore it and to carry on dancing with him, but that decision did not amount to consent. The Panel concluded that PC Serafin took advantage of PC A in her state of intoxication and the touching of her bottom was without consent.
PC Serafin denied touching PC A’s vagina when interviewed, but he elected not to contest the allegation at the hearing. The Panel found that the touching of PC A’s vagina was without consent. It was clearly a more sexual form of touching than the touching of the bottom and it caused PC A to immediately distance herself from PC Serafin and to tell her colleagues what he had just done, which indicated that the touching was unwanted.
Although the Panel was not tasked with deciding if PC Serafin was guilty of a criminal offence, namely a sexual assault contrary to Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, they did find, as an inescapable fact, that the touching amounted to an assault, and it was sexual.
They also found that PC Serafin’s conduct towards PC A was disrespectful and discourteous way he treated a female police colleague and breached policing Standards.
The Panel also found a further breach in that PC Serafin’s behaviour would undoubtedly bring discredit on the police service and undermine public confidence in policing.
In conclusion it was found that PC Serafin’s behaviour amounted to gross misconduct and so serious that dismissal could be justified.
If still serving he would have been dismissed without notice. The Panel took into account the fact that PC Serafin’s gross misconduct was a single episode of brief duration. No personal mitigation was offered on former PC Serafin’s behalf.
Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.
Page last updated: Tuesday 4th July, 2023 at 09h25
Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.
Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.
Picture credit: WYP
Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments via this link. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.
© Neil Wilby 2015-2023. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Neil Wilby Media 
Leave a comment