South Yorkshire Police officer accused of forging signatures guilty of gross misconduct, hearing panel finds
A South Yorkshire Police officer accused of forging the signature of an alleged assault victim has been found guilty of gross misconduct.
The allegation was made against Shaid Nazir, who was a serving police constable at the time of the alleged conduct, but subsequently left the force.
A South Yorkshire Police misconduct panel, which included force chief constable Lauren Poultney, concluded that Mr Nazir would have been sacked had he not already resigned.
The panel reached the decision at the conclusion of a misconduct hearing held on March 26, 2026.
Documents published by the force on April 1, 2026 reveal that Mr Nazir’s misconduct arose out of an incident in which he was present as one female allegedly assaulted another female in December 2024.
Following the incident, and an interview with the suspect, it was suggested the incident could be dealt with by community resolution.
The victim wanted to proceed with formal action against the suspect, however, and refused to sign the community resolution form.
Mr Nazir is alleged to have forged the victim’s signature by “putting a line” where her signature should have gone.
“It therefore appeared to anyone viewing the form that the victim had signed it herself and consented to the process,” Chf Con Poultney said in documents published by SYP.
Mr Nazir is alleged to have continued in the misconduct by forging the signatures of both the victim and the suspect in a separate form completed in January 2025. When asked, Mr Nazir told a colleague that the victim had signed the first form.
“Your replies were dishonest. You knew the victim had refused to sign the form and you had signed for her instead and you knew the victim and suspect had not been stood next to each other when the form was signed,” Chf Con Poultney told Mr Nazir.
In live evidence provided to the panel by Mr Nazir he denied being dishonest, said he had “done everything for the right reasons, not the wrong reasons” and claimed that when he forged the signatures on the second form he believed it to be a “box ticking” exercise as it was going to be “filed” in any case.
Detailing why the panel believed gross misconduct had been proven in the case of Mr Nazir, Chf Con Poultney said his case is one which “significantly threatens the public’s confidence in, and respect for, the police service.”
She added: “This is a very serious matter, with limited features of mitigation highlighted, which are misconceived.”
“No other outcome than dismissal would be adequate to uphold public confidence in policing and maintain the high standards that are expected of police officers.”
“These proven breaches exceed the threshold of purely unacceptable or improper behaviour and reach the threshold of being so serious that it justifies dismissal.”
In addition to the gross misconduct finding, Mr Nazir will now also be added to the College of Policing Barred List.
Detailing the purpose of public misconduct hearings, South Yorkshire Police’s website states it is to “show” 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.”