Outcome of Misconduct Hearing - PC Adam Rashid

Misconduct Hearing

Officer's name:                  PC 3231 Adam Rashid

Date of the hearing:         19 – 20 March 2025

Time of the hearing:         10:00

The place at which the hearing took place: The Professional Standards Department, Sheffield.

A description of the alleged conduct:

It was alleged that, following attendance to an incident on 4^th August 2023, the officer failed to appropriately investigate and / or record matters. It was also alleged that the officer submitted deliberately dishonest log entries in relation to these matters on 4^th August 2023 and 12^th August 2023.

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

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

The panel found that the officer breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of the above allegations, and that the breaches amounted to gross misconduct.

The outcome of the hearing was that the officer has been dismissed without notice.

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020

CONCERNING

PC 3231 RASHID

DECISION OF THE PANEL

1) Alleged Conduct – as set out in the Regulation 30 Notice: -

 

It is alleged that PC Rashid breached the Standards of professional Behaviour in that:

 

1.After attending incident 962 (and linked incidents) on 4^th August 2023 and despite being provided with clear information about a number of criminal offences having been committed which included criminal damage, public order offences and a domestic assault, he failed to appropriately investigate and/or record those matters.

 

 

2. After attending incident 962 (and linked incidents) on 4^th August 2023 he submitted deliberately false log entries in which he:

 

1. Stated that the caller was not sure who the male was and where he was from whereas Mr ****** knew the identity of the male;
2. Stated that he had checked the vehicles, there was no damage to anything at the shop or around the shop when he had not conducted checks on the vehicles and Body Worn Video shows that there were clear complaints of damage to a moped and damage to a door;
3. Stated that no threats were made to delivery drivers at Dominos and that they were merely obstructed when he was repeatedly told that drivers had been threatened;
4. Stated that the description of the male at Dominos did not match the description of the male subsequently spoken to (****** ******);
5. Omitted that he had been told by the male at Dominos that the female had been assaulted by being punched.

 

 

3. Having been directed to investigate the allegations, on 12^th August 2023 he submitted deliberately dishonest log entries in which he:

 

1. Stated that CCTV and house to house enquiries had been conducted;
2. Stated that he had officers check the door and there was no damage to this in person and the door closed fine when officers were present;
3. Stated that he had advised the victims that all reasonable lines of enquiry had been carried out, the matter would be filed due to evidential difficulties and crime prevention advice had been given.

 

The above conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct, Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Honesty and Integrity and individually and/or cumulatively amounts to gross misconduct.

 

2)Response to the Allegations

 

In respect of Allegation one, PC Rashid accepts, with the benefit of hindsight and the opportunity to reflect, that he failed to fully investigate and properly record the matters to which the incident relates.

Turning to Allegation two, PC Rashid accepts that his log entries were inadequate and that he could and should have recorded matters more clearly. He denies that he was deliberately dishonest but accepts that he made mistakes.

In respect of Allegation three, again, PC Rashid accepts that his log entries were inadequate and that he could and should have recorded matters more clearly and with more care. He denies that he was deliberately dishonest but accepts that he made mistakes.

 

PC Rashid accepts that the admitted conduct amounts to a breach of the Standards in respect of Duties and Responsibilities and Orders and Instructions to the level of misconduct only.

He denies breaching the Standards in relation to Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Discreditable Conduct and Honesty and Integrity.

 

3)Representation

Throughout the hearing the Appropriate Authority (‘AA’) has been represented by Mr Keenaghan of Counsel and PC Rashid by Ms Barlow of Counsel. The Panel would like to thank both for their assistance in hearing this case.

 

4)The Standards of Professional Behaviour are contained in Schedule 2 of The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020:

 

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Police officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any conditions imposed on them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice.

 

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

 

Authority, Respect and Courtesy

Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.

 

The Panel additionally considered the appropriate paragraphs pertaining to the Standard as set out in the Home Office Guidance and the Code of Ethics.

 

5)The Panel’s Approach

The Panel determined it was: -
-Required to consider the facts of the case and to make its findings of fact in relation to the disputed allegations;
-Determine whether those findings of fact found constitute a breach of the relevant standard;
-Determine whether the conduct, if found proven against the officer amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct.

The Panel reminded itself that the burden of proof is on the Appropriate Authority throughout, and that the standard of proof is the balance of probability, namely what is more likely than not.

 

In addition the Panel are to have proper regard to the Statutory Guidance on Professional Standards, Performance and Integrity in Policing Issued by the Home Office in 2020, known as the “HOG”.

 

The 2020 HOG states at paragraph 1.4: The procedures described in this guidance are designed to accord with the principles of natural justice and the basic principles of fairness. The process and procedures covered by this guidance, along with the accompanying legal framework, should be administered accordingly and applied fairly and consistently to everyone. The guidance on the individual procedures is designed to further the aims of being fair to the individual who is subject to the process, as well as all parties involved. It is intended to assist with arriving at a correct assessment of the matter in question and providing public and policing confidence in the system.
Later in the HOG the duty of the Panel is summarised thus: The persons conducting misconduct hearings will consider the facts of the case and will decide the facts (on the balance of probabilities) and whether the officer’s conduct amounted to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither. Having determined the facts and decided what they amount to, the Panel is then enjoined to decide what to do about them. We therefore proceed in accordance with this basic structure.

 

The aim of misconduct proceedings is not primarily punitive although they can have that effect on the officer concerned. The overriding objective is to set and maintain the highest standards of professional integrity, to ensure public confidence in the Police and for the public to see that these things are done in a fair, open and transparent manner.

 

The Panel in making a decision have taken great care in determining whether the alleged conduct of PC Rashid is proven or not, to exercise reasonable judgement and give appropriate careful consideration to the evidence.

 

Purpose of misconduct meeting/hearing
The purpose of a formal misconduct meeting/hearing is to:
-Give the Police Officer a fair opportunity to make his or her case having considered the investigation report including supporting documents and to put forward any factors the Police Officer wishes to be considered in mitigation (in addition to the submission which must be sent in advance to the person(s) conducting or chairing the meeting/hearing for his, her or their consideration).
-Decide if the conduct of the Police Officer fell below the standards set out in the Standards of Professional Behaviour based on the balance of probabilities and having regard to all of the evidence and circumstances.

 

6) Evidence

The Panel was referred to a bundle of documentary evidence (257 pages).

In our deliberations, we make it plain that the Panel reviewed and considered the entirety of the facts and evidence presented to us.

 

7)Background

PC Rashid has been employed by South Yorkshire Police since April 2019 and was a response officer at ************** at the time of these allegations.

On Friday 4^th August 2023, he was on duty and working a night shift when he was deployed to attend incident 962 with PC *******.

Control room staff linked further calls 993 and 995 due to the description of the location being the same and the incidents being similar in nature. PC Rashid subsequently closed all the incidents.

On the 7^{th of} August 2023, officers from IMT reviewed the incident and the body worn video of PC Rashid and a report was submitted to the Professional Standards Department.

 

PC Rashid was interviewed under caution on the 24^{th of} October 2023 on two occasions and then again on the 14^{th of} November 2023 and denied the allegations.

PC Rashid provided a Regulation 31 Response that the Panel have carefully considered.

 

8)The law

 

In respect of the allegation of dishonesty, we reminded ourselves of the test for dishonesty which is to be applied is that set out in (Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (trading as Crockfords) (2017) UKSC67).

This is:  a) what was the defendants actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; and b) was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

The issue in respect of Integrity or acting without integrity is a separate and distinct concept from dishonesty. The High Court has observed: “A lapse of integrity is very serious but can fall short of the quality of a lapse of honesty. Integrity in this context is not used in the sense of freedom from moral corruption rather in the sense of a failing to act in the right way, not behaving as the totally correct police officer would, in some way falling short of the whole. It is explained for police officers as “doing the right thing “(Chief constable of Thames Valley Police V (1) Police Misconduct Panel (2) Mark white (2017) EWHC 923 (Admin) para (15)).

 

9) Character

The Panel received the Good Character bundle submitted to us which consisted of testimonials from seven witnesses, who spoke highly of PC Rashid, both personally and professionally.

 

We directed ourselves that good character cannot by itself provide a defence to an allegation but is evidence which counts in the officers favour in two ways : a) good character supports his credibility and is something which we should take into account when deciding whether we believe his evidence ; and b) it may mean that he is less likely than otherwise might be the case to have committed the allegations which he faces.

In reaching its determinations on the facts, the panel considered the character bundle carefully.

 

10) Findings of the Panel

 

Our findings are as follows: -

 

1. A) Allegation One

 

This allegation is that PC Rashid failed to properly investigate evidence of criminal offences or record them. PC Rashid accepts, with the benefit of hindsight and the opportunity to reflect, that he failed to fully investigate and properly record the matters to which the incident relates. However, he denies breaches of the Standards as alleged.

PC Rashid attended incident 962 with PC *******. The Panel have had sight of Body Worn Video (BWV)evidence, CCTV and audio transmissions.

Incident 962 was a call to the police from *** *******, a staff member at Domino’s Pizza shop on Mexborough High Street.

That call was received at 20.21 hours on the 4^{th of} August 2023 and alleged that a male and female were outside the shop and that the male had been threatening to drivers going in and out.

Additional information was provided that the male was saying that he wanted to hit the drivers. A description of the male was also given, being a male, late 20s, with blonde hair, wearing a blue tracksuit.

There were further linked incidents. At 20.51 hours, details from incident 993 were added, stating that a male was attempting to kick the door in at 51 High Street and was “starting on” Domino’s drivers. A name of a suspect was provided to the call handler, being ****** ******. At 20.53, the incident response was changed to an emergency grading.

Incident 995 was called in at 20.55 by **** ********, a delivery driver for Dominos who reported that a violent male was threatening to kick someone’s face in. He said that he was on High Street outside Dominos. A description was provided of a “white male, no teeth, ginger hair, black jacket, dressed all in black, aged late 20s 5ft 10 slim build”. Additional information was that the male was “threatening to put her windows in and smash her face in” and that the male had “threatened caller an hour ago”.

At 20.56, the original caller, Mr ******* recontacted the police and said that the male had damaged one of the mopeds by kicking it over and stamping on it and that he had “just punched a female in the face” and “she has fallen to the floor”. A description of the female was provided.

At 21.29, Mr ******* contacted the police again and said that the male had returned to the premises and a further description was provided of “short blonde hair and wearing a blue tracksuit”.

BWV of PC Rashid’s attendance at the scene documents a conversation between the Officer and **** ******, and members of Domino’s staff, including *** *******. 

Mr ****** tells PC Rashid, as follows:

The male had “thrown all Dominos peds over, threatening drivers”.

That his front door was “absolutely ******”.

That the male had “thrown all the mopeds over”.

Mr ******* told Pc Rashid, as follows:

 The male had been “kicking off outside…threatening drivers..threatening driver after driver…then he actually smashed a ped, he kicked the ped over, started stomping on it now it’s not starting”.

When Pc ******* said she could not see any damage to the moped, Mr ******* told her “It’s just not starting”. He went on “it’s not starting I think the spark plugs come off or something”. PC Rashid acknowledges that statement when he replies, “err damage to moped, did you get a vrm”.

“Err he’s just with a girl with black hair, he did assault her actually it’ll be seen on cameras”. Mr ******* clarified to PC Rashid “well he just punched her, it were when I was on phone to you lot”.

The Panel have noted PC Rashid’s entry in relation to these incidents at 0100 hrs on the 5^{th of} August 2023. He stated that he had met with the caller (Mr *******) who stated that the male had been shouting and arguing with a female. The caller did not know who the male was. PC Rashid stated that he had checked the vehicles and there was no damage to anything at or around the shop. The male is recorded as saying that no threats had been made apart from the male being obstructive to delivery drivers. PC Rashid had caught up with a male and female who reported a verbal argument only. The description of the male at Dominos did not match the male spoken to.

On interview under caution, PC Rashid said that he was on nightshift with PC Parsons on the 4^{th of} August and attended a domestic incident that was happening outside Dominos on High Street. He spoke to a male named **** ******, the resident of ***********, who reported that his door had been damaged by his cousin’s partner. PC Rashid said that he had completed a visual examination of the door, and it was “flush”. He then spoke to Mr *******, the manager of Dominos. There were no drivers present to speak to about any threats and the information that had been passed to him en route about the moped being smashed to pieces did not correlate with the moped at the shop, which did not appear to be damaged. He said that the manager could not confirm what damage had been done.

He located a couple who did not match the description given by either Mr ****** or Mr *******. The male said that this was merely a verbal argument with his partner and that he had merely bumped into the moped, causing no damage. There was no complaint of assault from the female.

PC Rashid could not see any damage to the moped, although accepts that he was informed by staff that the bike was not starting.

He wrote off the investigation reports without completing any further enquiries and accepts that he should have done more. He stated that he did not have sufficient information to record ****** ****** as a suspect.

 

Decision on the facts alleged.

The Panel reminded itself of the burden and standard of proof.

 

On the totality of the evidence, the Panel are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that PC Rashid failed to appropriately investigate and/or record potential criminal offences. As such, we find allegation one proved to the requisite standard.

 

A Police Officer has a responsibility to identify and follow all reasonable lines of enquiry, to gather all reasonably available material and, where a suspect is identified, investigate towards and away from the suspect.

Indeed, the primary purpose of a criminal investigation is to identify the suspect and to ensure that they are brought to justice following a professional, ethical and robust investigation. This will help to prevent future offending, to improve public confidence in the police, and to reduce both crime and the fear of crime.

 

The entry at 01.00.47 on log 962 by PC Rashid directly contradicts the information given by Mr ******* when he contacted the police and said that the male had been threatening to drivers going in and out, he had damaged one of the mopeds by kicking it over and stamping on it and that he had just punched a female in the face.

 

There were identified victims and a named suspect.

 

The Panel are satisfied that the BWV and audio transmissions, together with witness accounts are strongly suggestive of a number of potential criminal offences having been committed by the same male, including Criminal Damage to the door and moped, threatening behaviour towards Dominos staff and Mr ****** and an assault by punching to the face of the female

The Panel are satisfied that PC Rashid must have been aware of the threatening behaviour of a named suspect towards Dominos staff, that the male had been witnessed kicking the door at number 51 and that the male had “bashed a female around the face”.

Under cross examination, PC Rashid accepts that there was an evidentially strong case at least for criminal damage and yet he wrote the offences off at approximately 1am, whilst on a toilet break, without having returned to the scene to capture CCTV and obtain witness accounts.

In connection with the alleged domestic abuse assault, PC Rashid accepted that he knew that the male suspect, Mr ****** had recently been released from prison and yet he didn’t make an arrest, despite third party reports of an assault and the potential capture of it on CCTV.

PC Rashid refers to a failure to properly record the matters and that he could have done better, but the Panel are satisfied that this was more than carelessness but rather a complete failure to record clear information that had been provided to him from multiple sources.

Following initial attendance by PC Rashid, no further efforts were made to secure and preserve evidence, establish what had happened, or obtain support and safeguarding for those who required it. PC Rashid’s failure to properly investigate evidence of criminal offences or record them increased the risk of the loss of evidence and potential harm to victims and witnesses. He had approximately four years’ experience at the relevant time, so was not inexperienced. In fact, he accepts that colleagues came to him for advice.

 

1. B) Allegation two

 

This relates to PC Rashid allegedly submitting deliberately false log entries after attending incident 962 and the linked matters.

PC Rashid accepts that his log entries were inadequate and that he could and should have recorded matters more clearly. He denies that he was deliberately dishonest but accepts that he made mistakes.

During his evidence in chief, he said that he was not aware of the content of the logs prior to attending this incident as he had just commenced his shift. He must not have heard the dispatcher provide the name of the suspect as he would have responded to this. The Panel have given the officer the benefit of the doubt in this regard and accept that he did not know the suspect’s name at that stage. He did acknowledge that he was informed that a female had been “bashed in the face”.

PC Rashid recorded in log 962 that the caller was not sure who the male was and where he was from notwithstanding that Mr ****** had provided the name of a suspect. The BWV footage from PC Rashid details that Mr ****** explained that the male he named was his cousin’s boyfriend, her name being ******** *****. She had asked Mr ****** if she could come to his flat and ring a taxi, as she had had an argument with her boyfriend.

In addition, PC Rashid and his colleague caught up with the suspect, who provided his name and said that he had been in the correct location at the relevant time, had been arguing with his partner and had nudged a moped.

It was incorrect of PC Rashid to record that the caller did not know who the male was or where he was from. He failed to record that he had been informed that the male was indeed Mr ******’ cousins’ boyfriend.

PC Rashid further recorded that he had checked the vehicles, there was no damage to anything at the shop or around the shop.

The BWV records that Mr ****** said that Mr ****** had “booted” his door and that it was “absolutely ******”. He walked towards his door and pushed on it to illustrate the damage.

During his evidence, PC Rashid said that he conducted a visual check only of the door, rather than physically checking whether it closed properly.

PC Rashid’s body worn video refers to Mr ****** stating that ****** ****** had thrown the Dominos mopeds over and a second male (Mr *******) saying that “it turns on but just spins” and that there were CCTV cameras outside the shop. Mr ******* elaborated saying that the suspect kicked the moped over, started stamping on it and now it would not start.

Despite being informed that the damage to the moped was not physical but rather that it wouldn’t start, PC Rashid again conducted a visual check only, which would not have provided any confirmation or otherwise as to the alleged damage.

There was ample evidence of seemingly consistent complaints of damage having been caused to both the moped and the door and PC Rashid’s recording in the write off is plainly not correct.

PC Rashid recorded that no threats were made to delivery drivers at Dominos and that they were merely obstructed despite having been repeatedly told that drivers had been threatened. This information was called in by Mr ******* and Mr ********, Mr ******* contacting the police for a second time stating that the male had been inside the shop threatening staff. In addition, witnesses repeatedly stated on BWV that Dominos drivers were threatened.

PC Rashid omitted to record that he had been told by the male at Dominos that the female had been assaulted by being punched.

This was called in by Mr ******* who could have been asked to provide a statement. He again referred to the female being assaulted when PC Rashid spoke to him, this being captured on BWV.

There was early disclosure of a possible domestic abuse related assault, that had been witnessed by a third party. The Panel are satisfied that Pc Rashid deliberately omitted this information from his crime report, despite it being significant enough to warrant an investigation.

As a serving police officer of some four years’ experience, the Panel consider that PC Rashid must have been aware of his responsibilities pursuant to the South Yorkshire Police’s Domestic Abuse Policy and that “where lawful, necessary, justifiable and proportionate domestic abuse offences should be progressed by way of an arrest-the presumption will be to arrest offenders unless the necessity test is not met”.

There was disclosure of a punch to the face of the female at an early stage and the Panel are satisfied that PC Rashid failed to follow the policy where the circumstances indicated that a male had assaulted his partner.

 

Decision on the facts alleged.

 

1. The Panel have considered the test for dishonesty as set out in (Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (trading as Crockfords) (2017) UKSC67).

We have given thought to PC Rashid’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts when he wrote off these linked incidents and submitted multiple factual inaccuracies. He had access to police systems in order to update the log and was able to see everything that had been documented in relation to these incidents already.

The Panel appreciates that officers will make mistakes, but this was not a singular false or inaccurate statement. It was a series of false statements against a background of seemingly credible and supportive complaints and evidence suggesting a series of criminal offences, that this officer wrote off.

The Panel have considered whether PC Rashid’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. We are satisfied that the officer knew he was acting dishonestly and find that his conduct would be regarded as dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. PC Rashid made false entries in order to avoid his public duty to investigate possible offences. Members of the public were in need of help and assistance but did not receive it from PC Rashid. The Panel are satisfied that PC Rashid deliberately submitted false log entries, rather than investigating seemingly legitimate complaints. In doing so, the Panel do not accept on the balance of probabilities that PC Rashid believed that his write off was an accurate reflection of the incident as he had been informed about on the day.

As such, the Panel find allegation two proved to the requisite standard and do not accept PC Rashid’s account that he made mistakes but was not deliberately dishonest.

 

1. C) Allegation three

The Incident Management Team conducted a review of PC Rashid’s write off in respect of all the linked incidents and directed PC Rashid to investigate the allegations. As a result, PC Rashid submitted further log entries on the 12^{th of} August 2023, having been instructed to progress investigations.

Allegation three alleges that these entries were deliberately dishonest. PC Rashid accepts that his log entries were inadequate and that he could and should have recorded matters more clearly and with more care. He denies that he was deliberately dishonest but accepts that he made mistakes.

PC Rashid accepted that his entries regarding CCTV and house to house enquiries were not correct and that the entry could have been worded differently to ensure that it was more accurate. He had not been contacted by Dominos about their CCTV and he himself had not conducted further enquiries.

On interview, PC Rashid said that he had only visually checked the alleged damaged door and despite the account of the complainant, the door was closed so PC Rashid decided that there was no damage.

In respect of the victim update, PC Rashid reported in his write off that he had updated the victims.

However, when attempting to contact the victims by phone he clarified that the number had merely rung out. He was unable to clarify with any certainty if or how he had updated the victims. He accepted that he should have visited the victims in person before submitting the closure reports.

PC Rashid admits writing off the alleged crimes without conducting any further enquiries and accepted that he should have done more.

 

Decision on the facts alleged

 

1. Once again, the Panel have reminded itself of the burden and standard of proof. We are satisfied that allegation three is proved and we reject PC Rashid’s explanation that he made mistakes rather than being deliberately dishonest.

 

This was not just matters where PC Rashid “should have done more” but rather, having been instructed to investigate following initial false entries, he further attempted to avoid his obligations as a police officer. The Panel are again satisfied that the officer knew he was acting dishonestly that his entries were an attempt to deceive, and we find that his conduct would be regarded as dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

 

Further, he failed to comply with the Victims Code of Practice by not making appropriate referrals to safeguard the potential victim, not recording accurate details and failing to provide them with updates about the investigation that he had written off. They were unaware of their right to review the decision and were left to chase an update.

 

PC Rashid did not comply with national crime recording standards, although the circumstances as reported amounted to several crimes in law.

 

1. D) On the totality of the evidence, the Panel did not find PC Rashid to be a credible witness. His repeated explanations of “I should have worded that better”, this was “my way of writing things” and it was “my mistake” were unconvincing when considered against the clear witness accounts and multiple factual inaccuracies recorded by him.

 

11)Decision on the Standard relating to Discreditable Conduct

Having made findings of fact, we moved on to consider the standard in relation to Discreditable Conduct. This says amongst other points that a police officer should avoid any behaviour which could discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

The Panel are satisfied that PC Rashid’s conduct did discredit the police service and has the potential to undermine public confidence, as the public would expect officers to carry out their role and responsibilities in an efficient, diligent and professional manner and to safeguard the potentially vulnerable.

 

12)Decision on the Standard relating to Honesty and Integrity

According to this standard, police officers must behave in a manner where they are honest and act with integrity at all times, without compromising or abusing their position.

The Panel have found that PC Rashid knowingly made multiple false written statements in a professional context, when completing logs and crime reporting. We are satisfied that it was more likely than not that the reason this officer made a series of false statements was with dishonest intent and to avoid carrying out his duties to investigate crime. The Panel find a breach of this Standard.

 

13) Decision on the Standard relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy

Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.

 

The Panel are satisfied that PC Rashid breached this Standard. Knowing that a woman could be vulnerable and a victim of domestic abuse, PC Rashid failed to investigate the alleged assault upon her or indeed safeguard her. In doing so, he failed to respect her.

He also failed to investigate complaints from Mr ****** and Dominos staff, closing their cases without communicating with them. This demonstrated a lack of respect and courtesy.

 

14) Decision as to Misconduct or Gross Misconduct

Having found a breaches of the Standards in relation to Discreditable Conduct, Honesty and Integrity and Authority, Respect and Courtesy the Panel has carefully considered whether the behaviour amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct. We have again reminded ourselves of the full circumstances of this case.

The Panel reminded itself of the need to protect public confidence in and the reputation of the police.

“Misconduct” is by definition a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action and “gross misconduct” is a breach of the Standards that is so serious as to justify dismissal.

The Panel are entirely satisfied that PC Rashid’s behaviour amounts to Gross Misconduct. In the Panel’s view, the breaches were so serious as to justify dismissal.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the following factors are present: -

 

-The Panel have had sight of an email from Inspector **** reporting that PC Rashid had received personal input and remedial training around his failure to record crimes, Home Office accounting rules and national crime recoding standards on the 23^{rd of} November 2022. In addition, he and some of his colleagues received reflective practice in 2022 for a failure to record a crime correctly. He was fully aware of his responsibilities in this respect.

 

-A robust and diligent police investigation is vital for upholding justice and ensuring the fair treatment of individuals involved in criminal cases. However, despite being instructed to do so once his initial failings had been brought to his attention, PC Rashid failed to conduct a thorough investigation, potentially resulting in significant consequences for victims and the justice system as a whole. He failed to treat victims with fairness and respect and ensure that they were safeguarded and afforded their rights under the Victims’ Code. This has the potential to damage their confidence in policing and that of the pubic as a whole, who may feel that any complaint they make is not going to be investigated and that they are not going to be supported.

 

- PC Rashid attempted to hide his actions by way of false and dishonest recording. Deliberately and dishonestly misleading supervision by using incorrect facts in order to write of offences departs significantly from the expectation clearly held by the public in terms of how an officer should conduct themselves. This was not a case of an officer making a mistake or exercising poor judgement whilst under extreme stress or provocation whilst doing their duty.PC Rashid deliberately chose to misconduct himself.

 

-Honesty and integrity are fundamental requirements for any police officer. In the words of Lord Justice Maurice Kay in Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset police officers:
“...carry out vital public functions in which it is imperative that the public have confidence in them. It is also obvious that the operational dishonesty or impropriety of a single officer tarnishes the reputation of his Force and undermines public confidence in it”
In the same case Mr Justice Burnett confirmed that: “The reasons which underpin the strict approach applied to solicitors and barristers apply with equal force to police officers. Honesty and integrity in the conduct of police officers in any investigation are fundamental to the proper workings of the criminal justice system. [...] The public should be able unquestioningly to accept the honesty and integrity of a police officer. The damage done by a lack of integrity in connection with the investigation of an alleged offence may be enormous. The guilty may go free. The innocent may be convicted. Large sums of public money may be wasted. Public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system may be undermined. The conduct of a few may have a corrosive effect upon the reputation of the police service in general”.
He concluded: “...the correct approach for a decision maker is to recognise that a sanction which results in the officer concerned leaving the force would be the almost inevitable outcome in cases involving operational dishonesty. That terminology itself recognises that there may be exceptions. In concluding that the case is exceptional, the decision maker must identify the features of the circumstances of the misconduct which support a different conclusion, recognising that the number of such cases would be very small. The decision maker would take account of personal mitigation but must recognise its limited impact in this area.”

-Everyone in policing holds a privileged position in society that depends on the consent of the public. Keeping the public safe relies on the police having public acceptance and cooperation. Officers must all strive to deliver an honourable and legitimate police service deserving of the public’s support.

The police earn the public’s confidence in part by being open and honest about their decisions.

In a system of policing by consent, it is vital to have regular confirmation from all sections of the community that the traditional trust in the police is sustained. Trust depends on the strength of mutual understanding and respect between the police and the community they serve, and every time an individual officer behaves badly, public trust and confidence in the whole Service is affected. The Panel have considered the risk of wider reputational harm to the police service. The Panel are satisfied that PC Rashid’s actions have the potential to damage public confidence in the legitimacy of policing to a greater extent.

 

15)In conclusion, the Panel is satisfied that the breaches of the Standards in relation to Discreditable Conduct, Honesty and Integrity and Authority, Respect and Courtesy individually and/or collectively amount to Gross Misconduct.

 

 

 

1)The Panel must now determine outcome.

 

2)In assessing the seriousness of this case we are required by common law (as usefully summarised in the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes in Misconduct Proceedings) to keep at the forefront of our minds the purpose and objective of these proceedings, which is to maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the Police, uphold high standards and deter misconduct and to protect the public.  We appreciate that the objective is not to punish the officer (although it may have that effect) and that we should therefore do no more (although also no less) than that which is necessary to satisfy the key objectives of the proceedings.  We must (and we have) considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the purpose of sanctions and chose an outcome which most appropriately meets that purpose.  Assessing the seriousness is to be approached in terms of the four factors set out in the Fuglers decision which we have carefully considered and will come onto in some detail in a moment.

 

3)The Panel have therefore followed the structured approach as set out in the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings.

 

1. In summary, the Panel:
   -Assessed the seriousness of the conduct and the behaviour of the officer.

        -Reminded itself of the purpose of imposing sanctions, namely:

Maintaining public confidence in and the reputation of the police service;
Upholding high standards in policing and deterring misconduct and protecting the public.

-Arrived at an Outcome which most appropriately fulfils the purpose of imposing sanctions in the light of the seriousness of the officer’s conduct.

 

The Panel heard representations from Counsel for the AA and from Counsel for PC Rashid before the question of outcome was considered. We clearly had these in mind when we proceeded to consider Outcome.

 

4)Seriousness of the Conduct and Behaviour:

In assessing the seriousness of the behaviour of PC Rashid, the Panel considered the following factors in line with the guidance in the CoP Guidance on Outcomes:

The culpability borne by him for his actions
The harm caused by his actions
The existence of any aggravating factors
The existence of any mitigating factors

 

5)Culpability

 

4. Para 4.9 -Culpability denotes the officer’s blameworthiness or responsibility for their actions. The more culpable or blameworthy the behaviour in question, the more serious the misconduct and the more severe the likely outcome.

The Panel consider that PC Rashid’s conduct was deliberate and intentional, therefore more culpable than conduct that has unintended consequences.

PC Rashid deliberately entered incorrect information in his completion of the relevant incident logs, both when initially writing off the alleged incidents and then again, having been directed to investigate them, thus increasing his culpability.

 

Certain types of misconduct should be considered especially serious:

- Operational dishonesty, impropriety or corruption

 

Para 4.26 -Honesty and integrity are fundamental requirements for any police officer. Treat any evidence that an officer is dishonest or lacks integrity seriously. In the words of Lord Justice Maurice Kay in Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset, police officers: ‘[…] carry out vital public functions in which it is imperative that the public have confidence in them. It is also obvious that the operational dishonesty or impropriety of a single officer tarnishes the reputation of his Force and undermines public confidence in it.’

 

Para 4.28- Impropriety involving corruption, deliberately misleading or compromising an investigation, or wilfully failing to give proper disclosure in a criminal prosecution is likely to be comparably serious to, and/or to involve, operational dishonesty.

 

The Panel are satisfied that the conduct of PC Rashid involved compromising an investigation.

PC Rashid has been found by the Panel to have deliberately entered false information into incident logs in order to justify writing off potential crimes, including a domestic abuse related assault. The dishonesty in recording information that he knew was untrue is at the heart of this case. PC Rashid prioritised his desire to avoid his responsibilities over his public duties.

 

Para 5.4 of the Guidance details the proper approach to cases involving operational dishonesty, derived from the case of Salter. It can be summarised as follows:

-dismissal will be almost inevitable in cases where operational dishonesty has been found proven

-there may be exceptions but the number of such cases will be very small

- where the person(s) conducting the proceedings concludes that a case involving operational dishonesty falls into this very small residual category, they must identify the features of the case that render it exceptional

The Panel do not find that the proven conduct puts this case into the category of exceptional cases.

In conclusion, we find PC Rashid’s culpability to be high.

 

6)Harm

 

The College of Policing Guidance then addresses the harm caused by the officer’s actions, indicating that this can be considered in various ways. The text refers to harm caused to particular individuals, but the guidance recognises that harm may also be caused on a wider basis:

“Where gross misconduct has been found and the behaviour has caused – or could have caused – serious harm to individuals, the community and/or public confidence in the police service, dismissal is likely to follow. A factor of the greatest importance is the impact of the misconduct on the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole.”

How such behaviour would be, or has been, perceived by the public will be relevant, whether or not the behaviour was known about at the time.

As was stated by Popplewell J in the case of Fuglers LLP V SRA [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin) at [29] the harm caused by the misconduct is not measured wholly or even primarily by financial loss caused to any individual or entity. A factor of the greatest importance is the impact of the misconduct upon the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole. Moreover, the seriousness of the misconduct may lie in the risk of harm to which the misconduct gives rise, whether or not as things turn out, the risk eventuates.

The legitimacy and effectiveness of UK policing is built on relationships between the police and the public. The Panel considered wider harm in relation to the public and how this type of behaviour might be viewed. PC Rashid’s actions run the risk of severely undermining public confidence in the police and their role in safeguarding vulnerable persons.

In addition, PC Rashid’s actions in making dishonest log entries has the potential to cause further damage to trust and confidence in policing. The public need to have confidence that officers will behave with honesty and integrity as anything else risks discrediting the police service.

Given the facts as found by the Panel, the risk of reputational harm to the police service is high.

 

7)The CoP Guidance then provides non-exhaustive lists of potential aggravating and mitigating factors.

 

1. The Panel considered the Guidance on Outcomes and reminded itself not to “double count” with matters already considered under culpability and harm. It concluded that the following additional aggravating features were present in this case:

 

Factors that indicate a higher level of culpability or harm include:

- significant deviation from instructions, whether an order, force policy or national guidance

- continuing the behaviour after the officer realised, or should have realised, that it was improper

1. Mitigating factors:

The Panel have not identified any mitigating factors.

Having considered culpability, harm, aggravating, and mitigating features the Panel concluded that this is a very serious case.

8)The CoP Guidance addresses personal mitigation.

 

The Panel has had regard to PC Rashid’s record of service and his personal mitigation

Regulation 42(14) of the Conduct Regulations requires the Panel to take account of the officer’s personal mitigation, but the weight to be accorded to that mitigation: a) is less than it would be in a criminal trial; and b) is dependent upon the extent to which the officer’s misconduct threatens the public confidence.

 

9)Outcome

Having followed the steps above, the panel went on to choose the disciplinary action which most appropriately fulfils the purpose of imposing disciplinary action considering the seriousness of the conduct in question (bearing in mind the need to act proportionately).

With respect to the purpose of imposing disciplinary action in police misconduct proceedings:

 

1. a) The primary purpose is to protect the public confidence in and the reputation of policing;
2. b) The second purpose is the declaratory purpose of maintaining high professional standards by demonstrating to other officers that misconduct of a certain kind and/or a certain seriousness will be dealt with by disciplinary action of a certain severity; and
3. c) The third purpose is to protect the public and/or officers and staff by preventing the officer from committing similar misconduct again by excluding them from the police service.

In R (Green) v Police Complaints Authority [2004] UKHL 6; [2004] 1 WLR 725, Lord Carswell stated at [78]: “Public confidence in the police is a factor of great importance in the maintenance of law and order in the manner which we regard as appropriate in our polity. If citizens feel that improper behaviour on the part of police officers is left unchecked and they are not held accountable for it in a suitable manner, that confidence will be eroded.” 256. Lord Bingham (when Master of the Rolls) had previously made the same point in relation to the solicitors’ profession in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512. In explaining the apparent harshness of sanctions imposed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal he identified the purpose of such sanctions and said at p.518H (emphasis added): “The second purpose is the most fundamental of all: to maintain the reputation of the solicitors' profession as one in which every member, of whatever standing, may be trusted to the ends of the earth. To maintain this reputation and sustain public confidence in the integrity of the profession it is often necessary that those guilty of serious lapses are not only expelled but denied re-admission. If a member of the public sells his house, very often his largest asset, and entrusts the proceeds to his solicitor, pending reinvestment in another house, he is ordinarily entitled to expect that the solicitor will be a person whose trustworthiness is not, and never has been, seriously in question. Otherwise, the whole profession, and the public as a whole, is injured. A profession's most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires.

The Code of Ethics also has a preventive role. It requires everyone in policing to prevent unprofessional conduct by questioning behaviour which falls below expected standards. Additionally, it supports reporting or taking action against such behaviour.

Mr Keenaghan, Counsel for the Appropriate Authority made the submission that the only possible sanction in view of our findings is that of dismissal without notice.

We have considered less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes. We considered the entire range of disciplinary sanction available to us. The more serious the conduct found proven against an officer, the more likely it is that dismissal will be justified.

The Panel had a stark choice between dismissing PC Rashid or imposing a sanction that allowed him to remain a police officer. There was one option short of dismissal, being the imposition of a Final Written Warning.

The Panel gave serious consideration to a Final Written Warning but considered that this would not maintain public confidence in policing, nor would it uphold high standards in policing or deter misconduct.

The conduct is very serious and potentially significantly damaging to public confidence in the police service.

 

The Panel concluded that the only sanction that meets the purpose of the police misconduct regime is that of dismissal without notice.

 

10)As a result of this Misconduct Hearing the following was found with effect from the 19^{th of} March 2025:

 

“Dismissal without Notice”.

 

As a consequence of this outcome PC Rashid will be placed on the College of Policing Barred List.

 

11) Right of Appeal 

 

The Panel is required to notify PC Rashid that he has a right of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal.

 

To PC Rashid:

 

“You have a right of appeal against the finding and/or the outcome imposed at a misconduct hearing. You may only appeal on the grounds that: - a) The finding or disciplinary action imposed was unreasonable. b) There is evidence that could not reasonably have been considered at the misconduct meeting which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action; or c) There was a serious breach of the procedures set out in the regulations or other unfairness which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action.

Should you wish to appeal you must do so in writing to the appropriate authority, clearly setting out the grounds for the appeal within 10 working days beginning with the first working day after the receipt of the notification of the outcome of the misconduct meeting (unless this period is extended by the appropriate authority for exceptional circumstances)

The Appropriate Authority will provide you with a notice as to the procedure to be followed in that regard”.

 

 

Lindsey Butterfield-ACC

Eileen Hall-IPM

Jane Bralsford-IPM