An officer who accessed confidential information on police systems with no legitimate policing purpose has been handed a two-year final written warning.
Police Constable Michael Watson attended a misconduct hearing, which was open to both the press and the public, at Force HQ on Monday (8 December).
The hearing was told that on 27 August 2024, a woman reported to police that someone had created a fake social media account in her name and circulated explicit images and videos of her without her consent.
PC Watson, who had met the woman while investigating a previous incident, accessed police systems to view a log created for the incident before it had been allocated to an officer.
After PC Watson returned from annual leave, and the incident had been assigned to another officer, he again used systems to access the file and also viewed explicit images attached to it on 2 September 2024.
The material viewed was not shared internally or externally.
PC Watson denied that viewing the log on 27 August was a breach of standards, as he claimed to have had a legitimate policing purpose to do so.
He admitted misconduct relating to viewing material on 2 September and was “apologetic and remorseful” about his actions but denied gross misconduct.
However, the misconduct hearing panel, chaired by Assistant Chief Constable Suk Verma, found the officer guilty of gross misconduct in relation to his actions on 2 September.
PC Watson was handed a two-year final written warning.
Following the hearing, ACC Verma said:
“Members of the public rightly expect that personal data held on police computer systems is treated in the very strictest confidence and only accessed for genuine policing reasons.
“PC Watson had no involvement in the investigation and so had no right to log into the force’s management systems and search for what he did.
“The actions of this officer fell below the very high standards we expect and were rightly challenged by colleagues.”
The panel, which consisted of two members of the public and ACC Verma, took into account all factors presented, including the officer’s previous good service, acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and remorse.
ACC Verma added:
“The outcome is a timely reminder for all of our officers that we expect them to conduct themselves to the highest standards of service at all times.”
