Neil Wilby Media

,

Retiring chief constable spares ‘hero’ traffic officer after he committed criminal offence whilst on duty

At a misconduct hearing held at North Yorkshire Police headquarters in Northallerton on 21st December, 2023, PC Andrew Forth was found guilty of gross misconduct but kept his job as a key member of the force’s Traffic Bureau. The meeting was chaired by Chief Constable Lisa Winward, who retires shortly from her post, and it…

Neil Wilby
5–8 minutes
, , , , ,

At a misconduct hearing held at North Yorkshire Police headquarters in Northallerton on 21st December, 2023, PC Andrew Forth was found guilty of gross misconduct but kept his job as a key member of the force’s Traffic Bureau.

The meeting was chaired by Chief Constable Lisa Winward, who retires shortly from her post, and it was alleged that:

On or around 7th September 2022, he disclosed confidential, or personal information, which he had obtained whilst working in his capacity as a police officer in the North Yorkshire Police Traffic Bureau.

In particular, he disclosed information to an individual pertaining to a member of their family. The nature of the information disclosed related to the manner and style of driving in connection with a potential driving offence.

Just over one year later, on 11th September 2023, PC Forth received an adult caution for knowingly or recklessly disclosing the aforementioned personal data contrary to section 170(1) and 196 (2) of the Data Protection Act 2018, having admitted his guilt to that offence.

CC Winward, in her official report of the proceedings, found that “these breaches do collectively amount to gross misconduct. Whilst the officer’s conduct was thoughtless, there was the potential for serious harm as a result and whilst the officer’s culpability is reduced because he did not deliberately breach the Standards of Professional Behaviour, those standards were still breached and the outcome of the officer’s thoughtlessness has been a criminal investigation and his accepting of a criminal caution whilst on duty. Dismissal could be justified in these circumstances.”

PC Forth admitted the facts of the allegations against him, and that they breach the Standards of of Professional Behaviour relating to confidentiality and discreditable conduct. He did however contend that these breaches did not amount to gross misconduct and that he ought not to be dismissed.

At the hearing, the Appropriate Authority (who is not named in the chief’s report) and PC Forth’s representative made submissions. The officer did not give evidence. The name of the force’s legal adviser present at the hearing has been redacted by NYP.

The chief’s report goes on to say:

Culpability

“For the avoidance of doubt I consider that the evidence set out above is all incontrovertible, as it consists of text messages and recorded admissions by the officer.
I accept the submission made on behalf of the officer that he did not intend to breach the
standards of professional behaviour and that he made the disclosure without properly thinking ti through.

“I have accepted that he did so in the erroneous belief that there was nothing wrong with sharing that information, and he did not do it for any personal gain. Nevertheless, as a trained and experienced officer, he ought to have known that this was a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

“This is therefore a medium level culpability case.”

Harm
 
“If the public were aware of all the circumstances of this case, Iwould expect that there would be high harm to public confidence:
 
“The purpose of the disclosure was road safety.
 
“The officer acted thoughtlessly not maliciously.
 
“Whilst the officer has committed a criminal offence on duty, this is because he has performed his role in a thoughtless manner. This is not equivalent to a situation where an on duty officer commits a criminal offence unconnected to the execution of their duty or for malicious reasons or personal gain. I give little weight to this consideration;
 
“A member of the public might think that at the point of disclosure the Officer did not
know that would have consented. Had he not done so, then there was a high risk of harm both to him and to the reputation of the force. This could have had a significant impact on public trust in the confidentiality of matters disclosed to the police.
 
“There was also a risk of harm to himself either through distress at having information about the offence he may have committed, or through the potential for that relationship to deteriorate or for the disclosure to lead to abuse.
 
“In the event, he has suffered no harm and has made it clear that he would have consented if asked.
 
“The Appropriate Authority submits that his conviction causes issues with this officer being in the evidential chain. The officer submits that because there was no corruption of any investigation here, this would not cause difficulties with his being in the evidential chain. I agree with the officer’s submissions that when all of the circumstances of this case are known this would not cause significant difficulties for any investigation that he might be involved with in the future. Plainly, a criminal conviction for breaching the Data Protection Act will require to be disclosed in certain circumstances, so there is some harm here, but the circumstances of this case do not undermine the officer’s credibility overall.
 
“This is therefore a case of high harm.”
 
Aggravating features
 
This was a significant deviation from instructions by an officer with appropriate training who ought to have been aware of his obligations about confidentiality.
 
Mitigation
 
There are some mitigating features here: This was a single episode, and there is some remorse shown, and he believed that there was a legitimate purpose to his actions, albeit he now accepts that this was wrong.

Outcome
 
CC Winward found that the appropriate outcome in this case was a Final Written Warning:
This, she says, is “sufficient to uphold the purposes of these proceedings in circumstances where an officer has unintentionally disclosed information and broken the law. This will deter future misconduct by him and by others, and will suffice to maintain public confidence.”
 
She added that the written warning sends a message that this conduct is not acceptable, but is proportionate to the seriousness of the breach.
 
In conclusion, the chief says she considers that a well-informed member of the public would agree that it was reasonable to give this PC Forth a Final Written Warning, because of the unintentional nature of the breach, the fact that the purpose of his actions was to deter crime and dangerous driving.
 
She believes the officer when he says that he will not make the same mistake again, adding that “it was obvious from his demeanour at the misconduct hearing that he deeply regrets having behaved as he did.”
 
“This is not a case where the officer’s special skills have led to a lesser sanction than dismissal. A Final Written Warning would have been appropriate in the circumstances of this case whether or not this officer had valuable skills.”
 

Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.

Page last updated: Thursday 4th January, 2024 at 0605 hours

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: NYP

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2024. 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.

Leave a comment

Trending