In June 2018 a member of the public found a work book and loose papers that contained police data – including sensitive information relating to sex offenders, victims and family members near a skip. The member of the public initially handed the papers over to an online news reporter, who subsequently returned it to Cleveland Police. The force identified the work book as belonging to one of their officers, who had stored it at their home. Cleveland Police recovered the rest of the sensitive material from the officer’s home and returned it to police premises.
Cleveland Police referred this to us as a conduct matter. The force also contacted all the people named in the work book to inform them of the release of their information to the public. Seven of them made complaints about the breach of their personal data, and the impact on them personally. We also investigated some of their complaints.
The evidence obtained during our investigation indicated that a Cleveland Police officer removed two bags containing some sensitive work-related material from police premises to their home. Our investigation found evidence that this material had been stored at the officer’s home for approximately four weeks before some of it was found by a member of the public.
Our investigators interviewed the officer and obtained statements from other relevant officers and several witnesses. We also reviewed relevant policies, guidance and legislation.
The evidence confirmed that the officer did remove the bags containing sensitive material from police premises and took them home, knowing some of the material was sensitive. While the officer explained why they stored the bags in their study, which the officer considered to be secure, the officer did not appear to have properly considered the risk to the data within their home, nor made attempts to secure or remove the sensitive material from their study to police premises at any time during the following 27 days.
The officer provided an explanation for how the material ended up outside of their house, which eventually led to a member of the public subsequently finding one of the work books in the road and contacting a national newspaper reporter. In our opinion, that served to undermine the officer’s stated view that they believed the material was safe in their study.
Police officers have a responsibility for the information they handle and process. Although officers can take sensitive material away from the police station when required to do so for a legitimate policing purpose, the increased risks to the security of this material should be considered. We saw little evidence that the officer had due appreciation of these risks, and there was no legitimate policing purpose in the officer removing this material from the police station and retaining it at their home for such a period.
We found no evidence that the officer deliberately disposed of the sensitive material by placing it outside their house. However, taking such material home and leaving it unsecure within their properly would amount to a very serious error on the officer’s part, if proven.
Based on the evidence available, we were of the opinion that a reasonable panel, properly directed, could find a case to answer for gross misconduct for the officer.
Our investigation also identified that another officer appeared to have failed to ensure the sensitive material that was contained in the bags was stored, processed or protected in a manner compliant with the Data Protection Act or Cleveland Police force policies. We were of the view that this officer may benefit from receiving management action.
We also suggested that the force may consider reviewing their Data Protection policy.
We completed our investigation in August 2019.
After reviewing our report and provisional opinions, Cleveland Police initially determined that the officer had a case to answer for misconduct only. We did not accept that determination. After further exchanges of views, the force agreed that the officer should attend a gross misconduct hearing. Cleveland Police also advised they would review their Data Protection policy to ensure it is adequate.
The officer attended a gross misconduct hearing in autumn 2019 where gross misconduct was proven. The officer was given a final written warning.
An act of parliament that provides the core framework of police powers to combat crime and provide codes of practice for the exercise of these powers.
Leads and manages the development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The body that represents the interests of all police constables, sergeants, and inspectors.
Deals with someone’s inability or failure to perform to a satisfactory level, but without breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Focuses on putting an issue right and preventing it from happening again by encouraging those involved to reflect on their actions and learn. It is not a disciplinary process or a disciplinary outcome.
Department within a police force that deals with complaints and conduct matters.
Refers to lower-level misconduct or performance-related issues, which are dealt with in a proportionate and constructive manner.
This means doing what is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the facts and the context in which the complaint has been raised, within the framework of legislation and guidance.
The average is calculated using the individual results of the forces in that most similar force group.
An investigation carried out by IOPC staff.
Carried out by the police under their own direction and control. The IOPC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report when it is complete. Complainants have a right of appeal following a supervised investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
This act sets out how the police complaints system operates.
How a police force is run, for example policing standards or policing policy.
An investigation carried out by the police under the direction and control of the IOPC.
The organisation that is responsible for assessing how to deal with a complaint. For example – whether it can be handled locally or reaches the criteria for referral to the IOPC. The appropriate authority may be the chief officer of the police force or the PCC for the force. If a complaint investigation finds that someone has a case to answer for misconduct, the appropriate authority is responsible for arranging any misconduct proceedings. If you make a complaint, the appropriate authority for your case will contact you.
An intelligence-led agency with law enforcement powers, it is also responsible for reducing the harm that is caused to people and communities by serious organised crime.
Policing bodies include police and crime commissioners, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
Investigations carried out entirely by the police. Complainants have a right of appeal following a local investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
IOPC guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.
A complaint or recordable conduct matter that doesn’t need to be referred to the IOPC, but where the seriousness or circumstances justifies referral.
Parameters within which an investigation is conducted.
A person is adversely affected if he or she suffers any form of loss or damage, distress or inconvenience, if he or she is put in danger or is otherwise unduly put at risk of being adversely affected.
This is where a manager deals with the way someone has behaved. It can include: showing the police officer or member of staff how their behaviour fell short of expectations set out in the Standards of Professional Behaviour; identifying expectations for future conduct; or addressing any underlying causes of misconduct.
This could be the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A breach of standards of professional behaviour by police officers or staff so serious it could justify their dismissal.
A matter where no complaint has been received, but where there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
Quarter 1 covers 1 April - 30 June
Quarter 2 covers 1 April - 30 September
Quarter 3 covers 1 April - 31 December
Quarter 4 covers the full financial year (1 April - 31 March).
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
Used to house anyone who has been detained.
Complainants have the right to appeal to the IOPC if a police force did not record their complaint or notify the correct police force if it was made originally to the wrong force.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts behind a complaint, conduct matter, or DSI matter and reach conclusions. An investigator looks into matters and produces a report that sets out and analyses the evidence. There are three types of investigations: local, directed and independent.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
A person who makes a complaint about the conduct of someone serving with the police.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
List of officers and staff who have been dismissed from policing, or would have been if they had not retired or resigned.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
An independent judicial officer, the coroner enquires into deaths reported to him/her.
A breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that would justify at least a written warning.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
A record is made of a complaint, giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
This is a format where information is written in plain English and short sentences.
The IOPC must be notified about specific types of complaint or incidents to be able to decide how they should be dealt with.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
Casework involves assessing appeals. Casework staff also have a role in overseeing the police complaints system to help ensure police forces handle complaints in the best possible way.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
Conduct includes acts, omissions, statements and decisions (whether actual, alleged or inferred). For example: language used and the manner or tone of communications.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
