South Yorkshire cop framed her ex as a stalker, leading to his arrest, despite sexting him at the same time
Woman police officer falsely accused her ex of stalking her
A South Yorkshire Police officer framed an ex as a “stalker,” resulting in his arrest, when she was in fact “meeting, exchanging sexualised messages and asking to stay at his home,” a misconduct panel has found.
“PC A,” whose identity has been withheld by the force, was employed by SYP at the time.
However, she resigned on May 3, 2026 - three days before her misconduct hearing was due to begin.
When asked to provide an explanation for the decision to withhold PC A’s identity, a force spokesperson said: “This was on the basis that the nature of the allegations are intrinsically linked to the personal life of the officer, their ex-partner and family.”
The misconduct panel, chaired by SYP chief constable Lauren Poultney, found gross misconduct had been proven, and PC A would have been sacked had she not already resigned.
PC A did not attend the hearing.
Allegations examined and found to have been proven included one in which the cop was accused of providing an inaccurate and/or misleading account in relation to her ex-partner, which resulted in a criminal investigation and his arrest.
Another aspect of PC A’s proven conduct related to her giving an inaccurate and/or misleading account, and in doing so she was deliberately dishonest/reckless as to the accuracy of information provided to the officers who were tasked with this criminal investigation.
Detailing their findings in a document published by SYP, the panel state: “In the time period where she alleged stalking and harassment (between May -June 2022) the panel note there is evidence of reciprocated communication which supports the view that there was a consenting attraction/relationship between them.
“This is entirely at odds with her later account to officers where she portrays her former partner as someone who is stalking and harassing her and the panel find there is no evidence within their communication records or messages that support her allegations.
“There is of course scope to consider differences in perceptions of a relationship however, as the AA (appropriate authority) stated in their opening, there is no scope for framing a man as a stalker and procuring his arrest when one has in fact been meeting, exchanging sexualised messages and, asking to stay at his home.”
The documents reveal that PC A provided a signed witness statement in February 2024 in which she made allegations against her former partner, referred to as “Mr X,” with whom she has a child.
PC A alleged Mr X “started becoming inappropriate both in person and during contact over text, something which I felt crossed our parenting boundaries.”
She added: “He would send me messages of a sexual nature and asking for naked images which made me feel uncomfortable and I ignored them.”
The panel responded to this allegation with the following finding: “In fact, you had engaged in two-way WhatsApp conversations containing references of a sexual nature/physical touching with Mr X over that period.”
In the witness statement, which was dated February 9, 2024, PC A also alleged that she asked Mr X “to delete any explicit images of me and I agreed to do the same so the fact that he still had these was worrying to me”.
She added that he “unexpectedly sent me some images of us together when we were in a relationship and then several intimate images of me. I felt concerned and looking back I allowed a lot more to happen than should have”.
The panel responded to this allegation with the following finding: “In fact, over this period, you had engaged in two-way WhatsApp conversations exchanging images and referring to photographs, including but not limited to a discussion on 28 October 2020 in which Mr X said he had no photographs of your bottom and you replied that, ‘I sent loads of my bum... so your loss xx’ and on 2 December 2020, when Mr X sent a photo of you together, you replied to say you loved it, adding references to your own body.”
In the same signed statement, PC A also alleged that Mr X began stalking and/or harassing her in May/June 2022.
The panel responded to this allegation with the following findings: “In fact, you had frequent two-way contact over this period including, but not limited to:
- “Telling him you were still attracted to him on 24 June 2022;
- “Still meeting together;
- “Stating on 13 July 2022 that you were trying not to give up on your relationship with him;
- “Asking X if you could sleep at his house in May 2022;
- “Continuing to accept gifts from him, for example telling him on 24 February 2023 you appreciated the rose and the money he had spent; and
- “Asking him to buy things and asking to borrow his things.”
The panel concluded: “In providing an inaccurate and/or misleading account, you were either being deliberately dishonest or reckless as to the accuracy of information you were giving the police officers who were tasked with investigating the serious alleged crimes of stalking and harassment.
“The above conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Honesty and Integrity and Discreditable Conduct and amounts to gross misconduct.”
Considering the mitigating factors in the case, the panel noted PC A was “undergoing personal stress” and had taken “limited responsibility for her actions” given she admitted to misconduct - but had denied gross misconduct.
They also noted no other conduct issues had been raised within PC A’s short policing career.
They referred to comments from her supervisors who said she performed her role to a “very high standard and was a conscientious officer and her standard of work was excellent considering she was someone with so little service.”
After finding that PC A’s gross misconduct had been proven, the panel concluded “that the only outcome commensurate with the Former Officer’s misconduct is that she would have been dismissed if still serving.”
They added: “The information in this notice concerning the Former Officer should be included on the Police Barred List.”