Outcome of Accelerated Misconduct Hearing - Former PC Christopher Eaman

JavaScript is not enabled

Without JavaScript enabled forms will not work.

Outcome of Accelerated Misconduct Hearing

Officers name: Former PC Christopher Eaman

Date of the hearing: 14/07/2026

Time of the hearing: 09:00

Location: Professional Standards Department, Sheffield

A description of the conduct:

On 20 May 2026, the officer attended a shopping centre store and left the store without paying for multiple items, the value of these goods totalling £147.10.

On 20 May 2026, the officer received a Simple Adult Caution for theft.

This is a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of Honesty and Integrity and Discreditable Conduct.

The matters set out above are breaches of the Standards which are so serious as to justify dismissal and therefore constitute gross misconduct.

The Chair found that the former officer breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of these allegations and that the breaches amounted to gross misconduct.

The outcome of the hearing was that the former officer would have been dismissed without notice. He will also be added to the College of Policing Barred List.

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020

IN THE MATTER OF AN ACCELERATED MISCONDUCT HEARING

FORMER POLICE CONSTABLE 1246 CHRISTOPHER EAMAN

___________________________________________________

DETERMINATION OF CHIEF CONSTABLE LAUREN POULTNEY

___________________________________________________

Preliminary matters

The accelerated misconduct hearing for Former Police Constable Christopher Eaman was held in public on 14^th July 2026 at Professional Standards Directorate, Churchill Way. The Appropriate Authority was represented by CI Gareth Thomas from PSD. The Former Officer was not legally represented, but was he represented by PS Shafaq Ashraf of the Police Federation today.

PC Eaman did not attend the hearing and he has not provided a Regulation 54 Response. He has resigned and his last day in service was 13^th July 2026. PC Eaman was interviewed during the investigation and he admitted the criminal offence and allegations and the breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour. He was not present to accept the allegations before me in the hearing, but his Federation Representative did so on his behalf and confirmed that Former PC Eaman accepted breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour and that his conduct amounts to gross misconduct. I have no mitigating material put before me, save for that contained in his service record.

Allegations

On 1^st July 2026, the Former Officer was served with a Regulation 51 notice of accelerated misconduct hearing proceedings outlining the allegations, which if proven, were assessed as amounting to gross misconduct.

In summary, the allegations are that:

On 20 May 2026, you attended at Marks and Spencer in Meadowhall and left the store without paying for multiple items, the value of these goods totalling £147.10.

On 20 May 2026, you received a Simple Adult Caution for theft.

These allegations are said to amount to breach of the following four Standards of Professional Behaviour:

Honesty and Integrity, and
Discreditable Conduct

These are said to amount to gross misconduct individually and cumulatively.

Determination of conduct

In making my determination, I have assessed all relevant information made available to me in the supplied bundle. It was confirmed that all parties had access to the same information. I have considered all representations helpfully made on behalf of the Appropriate Authority by CI Thomas. I have not heard any evidence from the Former Officer, nor any submissions on his behalf. I have utilised the relevant sections of the College of Policing Document ‘Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings’ in formulating the rationale for my determination.

Before making my determination, I reminded myself of the definition of misconduct and gross misconduct as prescribed by regulation 2.

My findings are that the allegation is proven, on the balance of probabilities, and that the Former Officer has breached the Professional Standards of:

Honesty and Integrity, and
Discreditable Conduct

His conduct constitutes gross misconduct.

The basis for my finding that the allegations are proven is:

Allegation 1

I have read the statement of Meadowhall security officer **** **** who observed this Former Officer’s conduct. I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness, accuracy or veracity of Mr **** statement. His account has not been questioned by the Former Officer. I have also seen a receipt with the itemised amounts and total of the goods attempted to be stolen by the Former Officer and have been told in detail what actions he took to conceal the items he attempted to steal.

The Former Officer has admitted the allegation in his criminal interview, a summary of which I have read in the IO’s report. His Federation Representative also accepted this on his behalf.

He accepted this conduct when he accepted the caution.

Allegation 2

I have seen a copy of the caution signed by him dated 20^th May 2026.

The basis for my finding that the Former Officer has breached the Honesty and Integrity Professional Standard is:

The conduct is fundamentally dishonest. The Former Officer attempted to steal items from the shop without paying for them, which is a dishonesty offence. Any officer, or indeed member of the public, who acts in this way is acting dishonestly and without integrity.

The basis for my finding that the Former Officer has breached the Discreditable Conduct Standard is that:

The Officer now has a criminal caution, and his behaviour was criminal in nature. It is unacceptable for a police officer, who is responsible for upholding the law, to break the law themselves. Any criminal behaviour is serious and will likely have a significant impact on public trust and confidence. A member of the public would be very concerned to learn that a Constable behaved in this way.

The basis for my finding of gross misconduct is:

The Former Officer’s actions significantly harm public trust and confidence. Any example of dishonesty and lack of integrity is extremely serious, and it is unacceptable for a serving officer to commit an offence of this nature. The officers of South Yorkshire Police work hard to investigate and prosecute those members of the public who commit such crimes. For a serving officer to act in this way is completely unacceptable.

Indeed, this cumulatively, these breaches exceed the threshold of purely unacceptable or improper behaviour and reach the threshold of being so serious that they justify dismissal.

Determination of outcome

Having determined that these proven allegations constitute gross misconduct, I invited representations from the Appropriate Authority on the appropriate outcome in this matter.

I received legal advice by Mr Pickin, in line with the update to the Regulations provided by the Police (Conduct, Performance and Complaints and Misconduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, that if I find gross misconduct is made out at Stage 1 of these proceedings, there is a presumption that I find the outcome to be dismissal without notice, unless I find there are exceptional circumstances to the contrary. The AA did not disagree with this advice.

The Former Officer did not provide any submissions to the contrary. There were no exceptional circumstances put forward by him. In any event, I proceed through the staged process in relation to outcome and address exceptional circumstances below.

South Yorkshire Police holds itself to the highest standards in respect of the rule of law, the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Professional Behaviour, but also the standards expected by every member of our community that the police will operate with a higher level of trust as it is their duty to protect people. When an officer compromises that, it is important that a full and thorough investigation occurs, and an appropriate sanction is imposed that helps to restore any lost trust and confidence.

Any action I take today has been to balance the Former Officer’s rights proportionately with the requirement to maintain public confidence, and the public interest that may be served by retaining an officer.

Having found earlier at stage one of proceedings that the conduct constitutes gross misconduct, there is a presumption of dismissal. I have not been addressed on any particular exceptional circumstances by either the AA or the Former Officer.

I do not find that this case is an exceptional one. There are no reasons put before me to say it is. An Former Officer committing a criminal offence is extremely serious indeed. This Force, like every police force, is committed to preventing crimes such as this. Indeed, our officers work hard to prevent such crimes. For an officer to commit such an offence, it has to be treated extremely seriously.

I have received legal advice as to what constitutes exceptional circumstances. There is no Home Office Guidance or College of Policing Guidance on this topic. It is not addressed in the current Guidance and there has been no update to that Guidance since the changes in the Regulations came into force in May 2025. I take the view that I must consider all the circumstances in this case and the Former Officer’s circumstances and make a decision as to whether there is any exceptionality to them. Neither the facts of this case, nor the Former Officer’s circumstances, from what I know of them, do not allow me to move them into the exceptional range. I have taken all of the circumstances into account when making my decision about this.

In any event, and for the sake of completeness, I have still gone on to perform a seriousness assessment, in line with the Guidance on Outcomes.

I make it clear, that had there been an option, the only other option would have been to find no disciplinary action, and I would be compelled to consider this first, in line with the Guidance on Outcomes.

I conduct the exercise as per section 4 of the College of Policing’s Guidance on Outcomes and adopt a three-stage process:

assess seriousness;

keep in mind the purpose of imposing sanctions; and

choose the sanction that most appropriately fulfils the purpose for the seriousness of the conduct.

Seriousness

I have considered the seriousness of the misconduct that gave rise to these proceedings, in accordance with the Guidance.

Culpability

I have considered the Former Officer’s culpability in this case, and I make the following observations:

The Former Officer acted deliberately and intentionally. He planned this conduct by taking a freezer bag with him to place items into which he did not intend to pay for. He removed security tags from items, hid those, moved clothing around to conceal what he had done and placed the items he intended to steal in the freezer bag, which shows he did indeed intend to steal them.

I have found that the Former Officer’s misconduct is criminal, and it is unacceptable for police officers, responsible for enforcing the law, to break the law themselves (as per paragraph 4.17 Guidance on Outcomes).

The Former Officer ought to have known what he was doing was wrong.

Dishonest conduct is particularly serious, as per the relevant sections of the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes.

I therefore assess his culpability as high.

Harm

I have considered the harm caused by the Former Officer’s actions in this case and make the following observations:

There was no financial harm to the shop in this case, as the items were returned, however, had the Former Officer managed to carry out the offence to its fruition, there would have been some financial loss.

Moreover, I am concerned that there would be serious harm to public trust and confidence in policing if a member of the public was aware of the full circumstances of this case.

I find, therefore, that the harm in this case is high.

Aggravating Factors

I have carefully considered the aggravating factors listed within the Guidance on Outcomes at paragraphs 4.76. I am careful not to double count any features already taken into account at the culpability stage. I find the following apply:

It was extremely improper and he ought to have known this.

This was done with malign intent, i.e. financial gain or personal advantage.

There are multiple proven allegations and/or breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour here.

Mitigation

The purpose of mitigation is to reduce the seriousness of the conduct. I have not been informed of any mitigation by this Former Officer, however, I do note that he accepted his conduct immediately when he was interviewed criminally and he accepted a caution.

Further, I note the mitigating features as listed in the non-exhaustive list at paragraph 4.81 of the Guidance on Outcomes that are relevant are:

This was confined to a single episode of brief duration. Whilst I do not accept this was a “moment of madness” as the Former Officer said in his interview, it was offending for a short period.

He has not contested these proceedings, and he has resigned.

In the circumstances, I do not find the present mitigating features lessen the seriousness, and there is nothing that would be deemed exceptional so as to avoid a decision of dismissal.

Personal Mitigation

I have taken account of the decision in R (on the application of Williams) v Police Appeals Tribunal and another [2016] EWHC 2708 as to the weight to be given to personal mitigation in police misconduct proceedings. I have also considered the comments of Mr. Justice Collins in Giele v. General Medical Council [2006] WLR 942.

I have not been provided with any character references, but I have seen positive comments about this Former Officer in his service record, and I note he was a serving Constable for just over five years, and had passed his sergeant exam.

I have not heard submissions on personal mitigation about or from the Former Officer, but his Federation Representative did put forward the Former Officer’s apology to me.

I have considered carefully all of the material about this Former Officer. However, in my view, because of the importance of maintaining public confidence in and respect for the police service, the potential of any mitigation is necessarily limited. This is a case which significantly threatens the public’s confidence in, and respect for, the police service. This is because the conduct was criminal and severely affects the public trust and confidence in the service.

Determination

I keep in mind the nature and purpose of police misconduct proceedings in making my determination.

I find that the appropriate outcome in this case must be a finding that the Former Officer would have been dismissed had he remained in service because:

There is a presumption for me to find such, and I do not find any exceptional circumstances here.

No other outcome than dismissal would be adequate to uphold public confidence in policing and maintain the high standards that I expect of officers of South Yorkshire Police.

I am concerned to ensure that it is plain that such serious discreditable conduct by officers of South Yorkshire Police will not be tolerated, and to deter future misconduct by other officers. I consider that dismissal would help to prevent future misconduct. I need to send a very clear message that officers cannot commit offences. I cannot endorse this behaviour with anything less than the most serious sanction because it is such a serious breach of the Professional Standards.

I have also considered the need to prevent this Former Officer from committing future misconduct. That can only be achieved by determining that dismissal would have been appropriate.

As a consequence of the above, the Former Officer’s details should be included within the Police Barred List (Regulation 3(2) of the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017).

I am aware of the Officer’s right to appeal in accordance with the Police Appeals Tribunal Rules 2020. The Officer should provide notice of his intention to appeal to the Appropriate Authority within 10 working days of receipt of this written determination.

Chief Constable Poultney

14^th July 2026

Cookies

Outcome of Accelerated Misconduct Hearing - Former PC Christopher Eaman