“Being made subject to a non-molestation order in response to an identified risk of harm in the context of a personal relationship has a particularly detrimental effect on public confidence in policing”

A serving inspector with South Yorkshire Police has been sacked without notice, after he was found to have committed gross misconduct by being made the subject of a non-molestation order.

Inspector Lee Wilson went before a misconduct panel earlier this month, when the ruling on his gross misconduct and dismissal was made.

placeholder image — Inspector Lee Wilson went before a misconduct panel earlier this month, when the ruling on his gross misconduct and dismissal was made. Stock picture of police officer | 3rd party

A non-molestation order is a type of injunction that can be issued by family courts in England and Wales, in order to prohibit a named person from carrying out abuse or harassment against a person or their child, or to prevent a person from coming near to someone’s home.

Documents published by South Yorkshire Police (SYP) show Inspector Wilson was issued a five-year non-molestation order, but upon appeal the order was subsequently varied by the court to one year.

They also reveal that the woman who took out the non-molestation, with whom Inspector Wilson had been in a relationship, considered it necessary to impose such an order to “avoid a risk of harm, such was her assessment of the text messages before her.”

“The order was imposed urgently in part due to safeguarding concerns,” the documents state.

The misconduct panel, chaired by SYP chief constable Lauren Poultney, concluded that Inspector Wilson’s non-molestation order amounted to gross misconduct on the basis it “is inconsistent with the values of modern policing that an officer should behave in a way that such an order should be considered necessary.”

The findings, which have been attributed to Chf Con Poultney, add: “There is also significant public concern about the conduct and attitudes of male officers towards women and girls, including those whom they are in relationships with, and this concern is clearly illustrated within the reports to date of the Angiolini Inquiry.

“Being made subject to a non-molestation order in response to an identified risk of harm in the context of a personal relationship therefore has a particularly detrimental effect on public confidence in policing.

“This conduct therefore reflects very significant harm to public confidence in the police.”

The hearing documents reveal that in addition to asserting that being issued with a non-molestation order does not amount to gross misconduct, Inspector Wilson also argued it would not be appropriate for the matter to be investigated and adjudicated by SYP due to an alleged conflict of interest.

On the conflict of interest issue, Chf Con Poultney concluded she did not believe “a fair minded and informed observer” would consider that there was “a real possibility of bias.”

“I therefore reject the officer’s argument in respect of the matter being remitted to another police force for determination,” she said.

In reaching the gross misconduct determination, Chf Con Poultney said the panel had taken into consideration Inspector Wilson’s mitigation, which included testimonials submitted on his behalf and his police record.

This included his long record of serving the public, particularly through the “investigation and disruption of serious organised crime groups, where he has proved to be a hardworking, skilled and reliable detective.”

It was also suggested Inspector Wilson’s misconduct related to off duty behaviour and because “his relationship broke down quickly and he was therefore unable to take steps to avoid it becoming necessary for an order to be imposed.”

Chf Con Poultney concluded however: “In my judgment, the officer has engaged in highly culpable misconduct and reflects very significant harm to public confidence in the police and amounts to gross misconduct.”