Final Determination of Accelerated Misconduct Hearing for Former PC Hetherington held on 14th November 2024

IN THE MATTER OF AN ACCELERATED MISCONDUCT HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE CONDUCT REGULATIONS 2020

 

RE: FORMER POLICE CONSTABLE HETHERINGTON

 

DETERMINATION OF CHIEF CONSTABLE WEBSTER

 

Preliminary matters

 

1. The accelerated misconduct hearing for former Police Constable Hetherington was held in public on 14 November 2024. The Appropriate Authority was represented by Temporary Inspector Victoria Doherty, and the former officer, who was not in attendance for the hearing, was represented by Police Sergeant Carl Baker from the Police Federation.

 

Officer’s non-attendance

 

2. The former officer did not attend the hearing, having resigned on 29^th October 2024. Having ascertained that she had been given proper notice of the hearing and the allegations against her, I was content that the proper course was to proceed in her absence.

 

Allegations

 

3. The former officer was served with a notice of accelerated misconduct hearing proceedings outlining allegations, which if proven, were assessed as amounting to gross misconduct. Those allegations were:

 

a.) On Sunday 5th May 2024, whilst off duty, you have driven a motor vehicle on a public road whilst unfit through alcohol.

 

b. ) Officers located your vehicle on Windy Hill Lane, Marske with you standing over the road. You handed your vehicle keys over to attending officers.

 

c.) Due to officers believing you were intoxicated, you were requested to provide a sample of breath.

 

d.) You provided a sample of breath at the roadside with a reading of 54ug per 100ml of breath and as a result you were arrested for an offence contrary to Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act.

 

e.) You were conveyed to Peterlee Custody Suite where you completed the MGDD/A procedure and provided two samples of breath.

 

f.) The two samples were, 45ug and 42ug of alcohol per 100ml of breath, the legal limit being 35ug of alcohol per 100ml of breath.

 

g.) You attended Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ court on 4^th July 2024 where you pleaded not guilty. You again attended Newton Aycliffe Magistrates court on 5^th September 2024 where you pleaded guilty to the offence.

 

h.) On 5^th September 2024, you were convicted at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court for driving whilst over the prescribed limit of alcohol. You were sentenced to a 12-month disqualification from driving, a fine of £420, costs of £200 and a victim surcharge of £168.

 

i.) This conduct engages and breaches the standards of professional behaviour in respect of discreditable conduct and amounts to gross misconduct.

 

4. The burden of proof is on the Appropriate Authority to prove that the former officer behaved in the manner alleged and that in doing so, she breached the standards of professional behaviour. The Appropriate Authority must further satisfy me that the manner of the breach is of such a nature or degree that it amounts to gross misconduct.  The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

 

5. The former officer has not engaged with these proceedings. Therefore, a Regulation 54 Response was not submitted by her. It is unknown whether she admits the factual basis of the allegations. It is unknown if she accepts the breaches or whether she admits those breaches amount to gross misconduct.

 

Determination of conduct

 

6.  In making my determination, I have assessed all relevant information made available to me in the supplied bundle. It was confirmed that all parties had access to the same information, and no submissions were made to introduce additional information on the day of the hearing. I have considered all representations made on behalf of the Appropriate Authority and on the former officer’s behalf. I note there is no Regulation 54 Response by the former officer, nor did former PC Hetherington provide any comment in her criminal interview that would otherwise assist me in my determination. I have utilised the relevant sections of the College of Policing Document ‘Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings’ in formulating the rationale for my determination.

 

7. Before making my determination, I reminded myself of the definition of misconduct and gross misconduct as prescribed by regulation 2.

 

8. My findings are that this allegation is proven, on the balance of probabilities, and that the breaches of the Discreditable Conduct standard constituted gross misconduct.

 

9. The basis for my finding that the first allegation is proven is:

 

a.) I have seen the witness statement of PC Lockwood and the transcript of his body worn footage (though not the footage itself), and the MGDDA form in the bundle, all of which have not been challenged by the former officer and all of which set out the facts of the former’s conduct on Sunday 5^th May 2024. These are clear and credible and, in the case of the MGDDA form, incontrovertible.

 

b.) The Officer has provided no response either in her criminal interview or through any formal document in these proceedings to the allegations that challenges the facts as put forward by the Appropriate Authority in respect of the first allegation.

 

10. The basis for my finding that the second allegation is proved is that the former officer pleaded guilty to the offence at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court. I have seen her antecedent record in the bundle, which contains the conviction for this criminal offence. For the avoidance of doubt, I consider this evidence to be incontrovertible.

 

11. The basis for my finding that the allegation breaches the Discreditable Conduct standard is that the former officer’s behaviour brings discredit on the police and undermines public confidence, and that she has been found guilty of a criminal offence, which in itself is a matter of misconduct.

 

12. The basis for my finding of gross misconduct is:

 

a.) That the officer is culpable and entirely responsible for her actions, which were intentional. She has pleaded guilty to a criminal offence. A court has also determined that this is a criminal offence and has imposed sanctions.

 

b.) Those actions significantly harm public trust and confidence. Driving over the prescribed limit of alcohol is extremely dangerous, and it is unacceptable for a serving officer to be convicted of a crime of this nature.

 

13. This breach exceeds the threshold of purely unacceptable or improper behaviour and reaches the threshold of being so serious that it justifies dismissal.

 

Determination of outcome

 

14. Having determined that this allegation constituted gross misconduct, I invited representations from the Appropriate Authority and the officer’s representative on the appropriate outcome in this matter.

 

15. Submissions were made by the Appropriate Authority that the appropriate outcome in this case would have been dismissal had the officer not resigned. In brief, they submitted that:

 

a.) This is a serious matter, in which culpability and harm are high, which would have a significant impact on public confidence in policing;

 

b.) Any personal mitigation should be given limited weight.

 

16. I cannot take into account any mitigation which would have been contained in the former officer’s Regulation 51 Response, as I am told there has been no Regulation 51 Response. However, I have considered a document contained in the Bundle called “Appendix 5 - My Police Employment” and taken into account the mitigation put forward in that document, as well a letter from the former officer that was read out on the day of the hearing. I identified the following points of mitigation:

 

a.) She has a long and unblemished career in the police.

 

b.) She was experiencing a decline in her marriage at the time.

 

c.) She is remorseful for her behaviour and resigned on 29^th October 2024.

 

17. Cleveland Police holds itself to the highest standards in respect of the rule of law, the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Professional Behaviour, but also the standards expected by every member of our community that the police will operate with a higher level of trust as it is their duty to protect people. When an officer compromises that, it is important that a full and thorough investigation occurs, and an appropriate sanction is imposed that helps to restore any lost trust and confidence.

 

18. Any action I take today has been to balance the former officer’s rights proportionately with the requirement to maintain public confidence, and the public interest that may be served by retaining an officer.

 

19. Having found earlier at stage one of proceedings that the conduct constitutes gross misconduct, and given that former PC Hetherington is no longer a police officer the outcomes available to me are:

 

a.) To decide to take no disciplinary action.

 

b.) To decide that dismissal would have been appropriate.

 

20. I considered these potential outcomes in order from the lowest sanction (taking no disciplinary action) through to dismissal and assessed them as to how they may meet the need to fulfil the purposes of the misconduct proceedings, and the purpose of imposing sanctions.

 

Seriousness

 

21. I have considered the seriousness of the misconduct that gave rise to the officer’s appearance at the hearing today, in accordance with the College of Policing’s Guidance on Outcomes.

 

Culpability

 

22. I have considered the former officer’s culpability in this case and make the following observations:

 

a.) I have found that the former officer’s misconduct is criminal, and it is unacceptable for police officers, responsible for enforcing the law, to break the law themselves (as per paragraph 4.17 Guidance on Outcomes). Cleveland Police’s own policy is clear about this as well.

 

b.) Driving over the prescribed limit is dangerous, and poses a real risk to other road users and to the driver themselves. The former officer would have known this as a serving police officer at the time.

 

c.) The former officer’s conduct was deliberate and intentional.

 

d.) I therefore assess her culpability as high.

 

Harm

 

23. I have considered the harm caused by the officer’s actions in this case and make the following observations:

 

a.) There was a high risk of harm to other road users. As I have said, driving over the prescribed limit is dangerous.

 

b.) There would be serious reputational harm if a member of the public was aware of the circumstances of this case, which seriously undermine public trust and confidence in policing.

 

c.) I find therefore that the harm in this case was high.

 

Aggravating Factors

 

24. I have carefully considered the aggravating factors listed within the guidance and any other issues outside of those, and I do not find there are any further factors that aggravate the misconduct further than those set out in my findings under culpability.

 

Mitigation

 

25. The purpose of mitigation is to reduce the seriousness of the conduct. I have found the following in relation to mitigation:

 

a.) This was a single episode of brief duration.

 

b.) I do find that there is some remorse on the part of this former officer, who pleaded guilty to the offence and accepts in her mitigation that she has let herself, her family and the force down. She has not engaged with these proceedings, but I do not hold that against her.

 

26. However, I do not consider that any of these matters significantly reduces the officer’s culpability.

 

Personal Mitigation

 

27. I have taken account of the decision in R (on the application of Williams) v Police Appeals Tribunal and another [2016] EWHC 2708 as to the weight to be given to personal mitigation in police misconduct proceedings.

 

28. I was not provided with character references. I heard brief submissions on personal mitigation from the former officer’s representative, in particular the letter written by the former officer and read out on her behalf, in conjunction with the letter I have read that is contained in the bundle at page 80. I have heard that she was, in her words, experiencing a decline in her marriage at the time.

 

29. I also accept that being a police officer was a job that she loved, and I have heard and read good things said about her. Former PC Hetherington was clearly a good officer, having worked in many difference capacities within the police over a 24 year career. However, that does not excuse or mitigate her actions.

 

30. In my view, because of the importance of maintaining public confidence in and respect for the police service, the potential of such mitigation is necessarily limited. This is a case which significantly threatens the public’s confidence in, and respect for, the police service. This is because the conduct has resulted in a criminal conviction which is discreditable for a police officer and the reputation of the service.

 

Determination

 

31. I find that the appropriate outcome in this case would have been dismissal had the officer not resigned:

 

a.) For the reasons set out above this is a very serious matter, with limited mitigation.

 

b.) No other outcome than dismissal would be adequate to uphold public confidence in policing and maintain the high standards that I expect of officers of Cleveland Police.

 

c.) I am concerned to ensure that it is plain that criminal conduct by officers of Cleveland Police will not be tolerated, and to deter future misconduct by other officers. I consider that dismissal would help to prevent future misconduct.

 

d.) I have also considered the need to prevent this officer from committing future misconduct. That can only be achieved by determining that dismissal would have been appropriate and placing her on the barred list.

 

32. As a consequence of the above, I indicate that the former officer’s details should be included within the Police Barred List (Regulation 3(2) of the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017).

 

33. I am aware of the former officer’s right to appeal in accordance with the Police Appeals Tribunal Rules 2020. The officer should provide notice of her intention to appeal to the Appropriate Authority within 10 working days of receipt of this written determination.

 

 

Chief Constable Webster

14^th November 2024