A former Humberside Police officer, granted anonymity on health grounds, will face a misconduct hearing this morning (Wednesday 27th March, 2024) over unpaid Humber Bridge toll charges.
The hearing will open at 10am in the former Magistrates’ Court Building, Estcourt Terrace, Goole, DN14 5AF.
In a notice on the force website the allegations are set out as follows:
Standard(s) of Professional Behaviour:
- Honesty and Integrity
- Duties and Responsibilities
The Chief Constable of Humberside Police authorises some officers to carry a Humber Bridge Tag allowing them to cross the bridge and not incur a charge if the crossing was on duty/connected to their duties as an officer.
Crossings not so connected must be paid for by the officer; there is no general immunity from paying the toll which applies to members of the public.
Allegations
1. Between February 2021 and March 2023, an officer used a Humber Bridge Tag on or around 99 occasions when the crossing was not connected with duties, rather it was for private or domestic reasons.
The officer failed to pay for those crossings, amounting to a total of £133.65 for which they have not remunerated Humberside Police. In doing so, they:
a) Have breached force policy ‘Humber Tags’ (PG10.08); and/or
b) Have not acted with honesty and integrity.
The above conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Honesty and Integrity and Duties and Responsibilities and amounts to gross misconduct.
In an Order dated 26th January, 2024 and issued by the Legally Qualified Chair (LQC), Nick Hawkins, of counsel, and seen by the author of this article, Neil Wilby, it has emerged that:-
The LQC having been informed by Humberside Police’s Hearing Officer that the former officer did not wish to attend the Hearing he reached the following conclusions:
– The Former Officer [FO] accepts the facts as presented.
– The FO accepts the Breach of Professional Standards
– The FO accepts Misconduct but denies Gross Misconduct
– It follows s/he does not accept that s/he would have been dismissed if still serving.
The FO makes it clear s/he does not want to attend the Hearing and is asking for privacy/anonymity. Not opposed by the force’s lead disciplinary officer, known as ‘the Appropriate Authority’.
Whilst there is a presumption of openness and transparency in police misconduct hearings, the LQC considers that the former officer’s case falls squarely within the provisions of the Home Office Guidance (at paragraph 11.75) as naming the officer could have a severe adverse effect on his/her health. He, therefore, granted the former officer anonymity.
Reporting restrictions apply to this case which prohibits directly or indirectly identifying the former officer.
The hearing will proceed in order to determine whether the alleged conduct amounts to misconduct (as admitted) or gross misconduct and the appropriate sanction in either case.
Neil Wilby, having considered the contents of the LQC’s Order, informed Humberside Police that, on the facts and the formulations of a very experienced barrister, Mr Hawkins, he did not consider that he would not be in the public interest, or proportionate, to challenge the anonymity provision and reporting restrictions applying to this particular case.
The potential loss of a police career, over an unpaid £134 in toll charges, would be considered more than punishment enough by the vast majority of readers.
Page last updated: Wednesday 27th March, 2024 at 0825 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: Humberside Police
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.
Neil Wilby Media 
Leave a comment