Gross misconduct proven for ex-police officer over offensive WhatApp group messages

Gross misconduct was proven for the former officer, who has not been named by his force, after an accelerated misconduct hearing was held last month.

The officer, who was serving with the force at the time of the allegations, which date between May and August 2021, was made the subject of misconduct proceedings following five allegations relating to racist, offensive and/ or inappropriate messages and pictures posted online.

Details published by South Yorkshire Police state that the officer was accused of posting an ‘image of a staff trainer on a student officer WhatsApp group and added an inappropriate and/or offensive comment’.

The officer was also accused of two allegations of posting messages on a student officer WhatsApp group, which were said to be either ‘racist, offensive, inappropriate and/or discriminatory’ or ‘offensive and/or inappropriate’ in nature.

The officer was also accused of posting an image in a student officer Whatsapp group ‘which was racist, offensive, inappropriate and/or discriminatory in nature’; and of posting on a student officer WhatsApp group ‘two pictures showing graphic images of dog bites taken from an online training presentation from the Dog Section’.

Summarising the panel’s findings, documents state: “The matters set out above are breaches of the Standards which are so serious as to justify dismissal and therefore constitute gross misconduct.

“The panel found that the officer breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of the above allegations, and that the breaches amounted to gross misconduct.

Get Sheffield’s biggest stories as they’re happening - sign up for the new breaking newsletter

“The outcome of the hearing was that, had the officer not already resigned from the organisation, they would have been dismissed without notice.”

The officer’s conduct was said to amount to a ‘breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of discreditable conduct, equality and diversity and authority, respect and courtesy’.

Explaining the decision not to name the officer, a South Yorkshire Police spokesperson told The Star: “An application was made the Chief Constable to hold this misconduct hearing in private on the grounds of health.

“The application was authorised and therefore we are unable to name the officer involved in the hearing.”

The SYP spokesperson continued: “These decisions are not taken lightly and follow Home Office guidance.

“In this case, para 11.84. section F of the Home Office guidance was considered relevant:

“The physical and mental health and/or welfare of the officer subject to the misconduct hearing.”

Detailing the ‘purpose’ of public misconduct hearings, South Yorkshire Police’s website states it is to ‘show’ that their ‘disciplinary system is open and transparent’ and to demonstrate that the force does ‘hold officers who breach the standards of professional behaviour, or those where misconduct is found proven, accountable for their actions’.

Hearings should be heard by a panel of three people that should be chaired by an independent legally qualified person chosen from a pool held by the local policing body, further guidance states.