South Yorkshire Police officer sacked over 'if I lick you, will you be mine?' question to fellow cop
A serving student police officer with South Yorkshire Police accused of speeding, completing false overtime forms and asking a colleague “if I lick you, will you be mine?” has been sacked.
Serving student police constable Sam Clee was dismissed without notice at the conclusion of the five-day misconduct hearing, ending on August 1, during which six allegations against him were set out.
The panel found that the former officer breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of five of the six allegations, and that the breaches amounted to gross misconduct.
“I can’t stop thinking about that sign. If I lick you, will you be mine?”
The misconduct panel heard how, in respect of one of the proven allegations, PC Clee made a sexualised comment to a fellow officer, named only as Ms A, during their first meeting, asking her: “If I lick you will you be mine?”
Ms A was driving a vehicle with PC Clee as a passenger at the time of the incident on June 19, 2023, the panel heard.
Prior to making the comment, Ms A had shown PC Clee pictures of her new kitchen, and inadvertently swiped to an image of a neon sign, which read “I’ve licked it so it’s mine.”
Documents, detailing the panel’s findings, state: “She says that PC Clee responded by saying ‘I bet that’s what your fella said on your first date’.
“Ms A states that she found this a ‘little inappropriate’ as she had only known PC Clee for a few hours and explained that it was a family joke about her daughter and licking doughnuts.
“PC Clee’s account is that the picture of the neon sign was clearly capable of being seen as risqué.
“Whilst returning to the station, Ms A states that PC Clee referred to the sign again, saying ‘I can’t stop thinking about that sign. If I lick you, will you be mine?’
“Ms A states that this took her by surprise and, under cross examination, said that she considered that he was making a sexual comment, due to the manner in which he said it and the changing of the word ‘it’ to ‘you.’
“He made further comments during the return drive, about not having ‘met a victim I fancy’ and ‘it’s not like they look like me. I don’t know how you keep your hands off me’.
The panel heard how Ms A felt PC Clee’s comments made her feel ‘uncomfortable,’ and believed them to be a ‘little forward,’ particularly given the fact they had just met. She decided, however, that she could manage the situation by herself.
However, PC Clee is alleged to have continued in his sexualised behaviour the following day, when the pair were assigned to a prison visit together.
The panel documents state: “As they were walking to the car, PC Clee said ‘I thought you were wearing a dress today?’ She responded ‘Sam, it’s p***ing it down, why would I wear a dress?’
“Whilst she was driving, he informed Ms A that he heard a song that reminded him of her and then Bluetoothed a song to the car stereo. The first two lines included the words ‘sexting me’ and ‘get out of my bed.’
“Ms A says that she was shocked, and that PC Clee had gone beyond what was acceptable.
“She told him to turn it off, snapping back ‘why the f*** does this remind you of me. Get it off.’ She says that she tried to deflect the conversation by speaking about her husband as she felt annoyed and uncomfortable.”
The panel, comprised of the force’s Assistant Chief Constable Lindsey Butterfield and independent panel members Eileen Hall and Jo Cairns, also heard how PC Clee made further comments including: “You look nice in that dress that you wore to the Italian meal.”
“Ms A says that this made her feel very uncomfortable. She was shocked by the Officer’s comment and attempted to stop the conversation by saying it was an anniversary meal with her husband,” papers state.
“PC Clee responded ‘no that was the pink dress, definitely don’t wear that to work. Although I would love it if you wore that to work’.
Ms A recalls that the pink dress was a very strappy dress she would wear when socialising but the officer’s reference to it led her to believe that PC Clee had been through all of her Facebook posts, which she thought was creepy, and she then wanted to get back to the station as soon as possible.
“During cross examination, she stated that she was panicking and didn’t want an argument in the car,” documents state.
During his evidence to the panel, PC Clee is said to have made limited admissions to potentially making a light-hearted joke about the sign and to commenting on Ms A’s clothing, albeit he provides a different context that the panel have considered.
“He does not recall making the comment about his looks and says that he only commented on clothing due to pictures shown by Ms A and conversation made by her. He was merely trying to be friendly and regrets if this has been misinterpreted. In respect of him repeating the wording of the sign, he stated that he misquoted the words due to his ADHD,” the documents published by South Yorkshire Police state.
Detailing their findings, the panel said: “The panel is satisfied that the totality of PC Clee’s behaviour towards Ms A amounts to sexual harassment, being unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her, whether intended or not.
“The panel is also aware that people react differently to what they perceive as sexual or inappropriate comments and that there is no one, classic response.”
PC Clee drove at excess speeds and erroneously activated blue lights and sirens, panel finds
One of the other proven allegations relates to a number of instances, in which PC Clee is alleged to have driven at speeds in excess of the limit at 80, 82 and 84 miles per hour and activated his blue lights and sirens.
PC Clee’s SYP driving certificate, described as a ‘basic driving authorisation form,’ allowed him to drive for non-emergency purposes only, not to drive using the emergency audible and visual warning equipment save when stationary to protect a scene, and that he must not use emergency equipment to “facilitate progress through a traffic holdup or turn the police vehicle around”.
“The panel are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that PC Clee exceeded the restrictions imposed on his driving within his driving permit on the dates specified in the allegations. We accept the telematics technology and PC Clee’s explanations do not accord with the data,” the findings documents state.
The other three proven allegations relate to claims that on three occasions relating to separate days in June 2023 PC Clee was rostered to work a distance learning study day but did not complete any distance learning during that period and then worked a night shift, falsely stating on his overtime form that he had been on a “Rest Day”, resulting in an enhanced overtime payment being paid.
The panel stated they were satisfied on the ‘balance of probabilities’ that PC Clee did not complete any academic work on two of the study days, and did not attend university on the third. They also found that PC Clee ‘must have been aware from the outset that he was completing the overtime forms correctly,’ adding they did not ‘accept his account that he made errors’.
ADHD diagnosis
PC Clee has a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and referred to a report from Dr Appleyard dated February 9, 2025.
Summarising Dr Appleyard’s findings, the panel said: “He opines that the features are pervasive, occurring across situations though they can vary somewhat in different situations. These symptoms have a significant impact on his day to day activities and quality of life. They will impact on his relationships, both with colleagues and friends, his hobbies, occupation, and his general impulse control.”
In reaching their findings, the panel said they had ‘balanced the impact of the officer’s disability on one hand with the legitimate aim of upholding discipline on the other’.
The panel said: “In conclusion, having found allegation one, two, four, five and six proved to the requisite standard, the panel is satisfied that the breaches of the Standard in relation to Discreditable Conduct, Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Equality and Diversity, Honesty and Integrity and Orders and Instructions amounts to gross misconduct.”
Unproven allegation
An unproven allegation was also made against PC Clee from a fellow officer, Ms B, against whom he was reported to have made comments which were sexualised and/or amounted to sexual harassment and/or were inappropriate.
In relation to that allegation, the panel said they were not satisfied that the threshold for sexual harassment had been made, and believed the messages sent were ‘in keeping with the tone of their mutual exchanges’.
Panel’s conclusion
Detailing their reasoning for finding PC Clee should be dismissed without notice, the panel said: “The panel had a stark choice between dismissing PC Clee or imposing a sanction that allowed him to remain a police officer.
“The panel is mindful that any sanction must be a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of imposing disciplinary action, being maintaining public confidence in and the reputation of the police service, upholding high standards in policing and deterring misconduct and protecting the public.
“The panel gave serious consideration to a final written warning but considered that this would not achieve the legitimate aim.
“The public are entitled to expect that officers will conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in their professional conduct and behave appropriately towards women and girls.
“The panel concluded that the only sanction that meets the purpose of the police misconduct regime is that of dismissal without notice.”