Senior SYP officer accused of misusing police systems to access records on ex-partner & her son
The officer, who was a serving detective constable with South Yorkshire Police at the time of the alleged conduct, is set to go before a misconduct panel this week
A detective constable with South Yorkshire Police is accused of misusing police systems to access records linked to their ex-partner and her son.
The officer, whose identity has been withheld by the force and is referred to only as “DC A (detective constable A),” is set to attend the misconduct hearing on Thursday (August 13, 2026).
DC A is understood to have been a serving officer with South Yorkshire Police (SYP) at the time of the alleged conduct, but has since left the force.
Documents detailing the allegations against DC A, which have been been published by SYP, state: “On various dates between 4th July 2018 and 15th March 2021, the former officer accessed the South Yorkshire Police system ‘Connect’ and carried out searches and accessed records linked to their ex partner and ex partners’ son, without a legitimate policing purpose.
“On 21st February 2021, the former officer accessed the South Yorkshire Police system ‘Smart Contact’ and reviewed an incident log that was linked to their ex partner, without a legitimate policing purpose.
“This is a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of Discreditable Conduct, Honesty & Integrity and Orders & Instructions.
“The matters set out above are breaches of the Standards which are so serious as to justify dismissal and therefore constitute gross misconduct.”
The Star is campaigning for the identities of police officers found to have committed gross misconduct to be made public.
This came after the identities of three officers were withheld in recent, successive hearings this year, with the force now saying it will no longer provide an explanation for their decision to withhold an officer’s identity.
Responding to The Star’s campaign, SYP Chief Constable Lauren Poultney said previously: “Police forces have a legal duty of care to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of officers.
“As such, decisions to privatise a hearing or anonymise an officer may also be based on formal evidence from medical professionals.
“And, in some proceedings, officers must be granted anonymity due to existing legal orders.
“Since April 2021, hearings concerning two officers have been held in private, and a total of nine officers have been granted anonymity. While the three most recent outcomes on our website are anonymised, you have my assurance that this is based on the circumstances as opposed to a change in policy or opacity.
“In SYP, misconduct proceedings are not influenced by fear or favour, and neither privacy nor anonymity reduce the sanctions our officers face.”
Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, Kilvinder Vigurs, added: “Transparency and accountability in policing are vitally important to maintaining public trust. I take concerns like this seriously and have sought assurance from the Chief Constable on this issue.
“I am assured that decisions regarding anonymity are not taken lightly and that each case is considered on its individual circumstances, including the need to protect victims, vulnerable individuals, and the integrity of proceedings. The Chief Constable and I meet regularly to discuss misconduct matters, including where anonymity may or may not be appropriate.
“It is essential that the public has confidence in the systems in place to hold officers to account and I will continue to ensure that transparency and fairness remain at the heart of this work.”