South Yorkshire Police officer slapped woman & pulled her hair during date, misconduct panel finds
“This is askin to criminal conduct”
A South Yorkshire Police officer who slapped a woman and pulled her hair during the course of a date has been found guilty of gross misconduct.
The officer, whose identity has been withheld by the force and is referred to only as “FO (former officer),” would have been sacked had he not already resigned from the force, a panel presiding over his misconduct hearing concluded.
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, with the force now saying it will no longer provide an explanation for their decision to withhold an officer’s identity.
The hearing, held earlier this month, heard how PC A pulled the hair of his date - a woman referred to as “Person A” - whilst the pair were in the cinema, and subsequently went on to slap her in the face, as the pair were both in his car. This took place after FO drove Person A home.
The proven conduct occurred in November 2024, when FO was still a serving officer with the force.
The misconduct panel’s findings, which have now been published by South Yorkshire Police (SYP), state: “The panel find that the FO pulled Person A’s hair in the cinema. The context to that was a light-hearted joke from Person A about Cadbury’s Fruit and Nut and the FO’s nut allergy and lactose intolerance.
“The panel accept that he took hold of her hair, at the back of her head and pulled it for some five seconds, telling her to take the joke back. Person A’s evidence is that she thought it was meant to be humorous or flirtatious. However, the panel readily accepted how upsetting she found it to be, whatever the FO’s intentions might have been.”
Moving to the slapping incident, the panel continue: “She did accept a lift from the Officer, and we find that he slapped her face in the car. In the recorded interview at her house, she demonstrated how hard she recalled that to be.”
The FO did provide answers during an interview, when he was represented, but subsequently failed to attend his misconduct hearing which proceeded in his absence.
Person A gave evidence to the hearing, and her evidence was found to be “clear, consistent and credible”
Moving to their findings, the panel state: “This was a deliberate act. The FO must have known that he was risking harm, by upsetting Person A, and acted anyway. The Officer had no basis to think Person A might consent to this.
“As such he must have known that what he was doing was firstly disrespectful and secondly could amount to criminal violence against a woman.”
They added: “It does engage the concerns about Violence Against Women and Girls. Further, this is akin to criminal conduct. Both of those factors are highly relevant to culpability for the simple reason that police officers know how important those issues are.”