Aidan Walley, solicitor
This is a guest post by my colleague and fellow solicitor, Aidan Walley.
In 2014 the College of Policing released The Policing Code of Ethics, which included a clear set of policing principles that all police officers are expected to abide by:
Accountability – You are answerable for your decisions, actions and omissions.
Fairness – You treat people fairly.
Honesty – You are truthful and trustworthy.
Integrity – You always do the right thing.
Leadership – You lead by good example.
Objectivity – You make choices on evidence and your best professional judgement.
Openness – You are open and transparent in your actions and decisions.
Respect – You treat everyone with respect.
Selflessness – You act in the public interest.
These principles not only apply when an officer is on-duty; they are also “expected to use the Code to guide your behaviour at all times – whether at work or away from work, online or offline”. But what happens when a police officer decides to entirely forgo these professional and moral principles and lie? In the case of my client Adam, it had devastating consequences for his mental health.
Adam is a vulnerable individual with a history of mental health problems, including Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder following an unlawful arrest by the Metropolitan Police in 2011. After an arrest for a minor domestic matter in September 2022, Adam found himself homeless and was staying with a friend.
In order to get back on his feet, on 5 November 2022 Adam, in the company of his friend, viewed a room in a house of multiple occupancy in Yorkshire, owned by the landlord Mr Clasp. When viewing the room Mr Clasp informed Adam that a police officer, PC Roose of West Yorkshire Police, also resided in the house, however Adam did not actually meet PC Roose. When asked about any previous convictions, Adam was upfront and honestly informed Mr Clasp of his sole previous conviction for drink driving. Mr Clasp then offered the room to Adam. Adam accepted and after paying Mr Clasp a £1,200 deposit, intended to move in the next day.
However, PC Roose learnt that Adam was moving into the house, and later the same day, whilst on duty, PC Roose accessed information about Adam on the Police National Computer (PNC) at 21:42. Thereafter, at 21:45 PC Roose texted Mr Clasp falsely asserting that “UNFORTUNATELY WORK HAVE SAID THAT I CAN’T LIVE WITH HIM DUE TO HIS OFFENDING HISTORY AND HOW RECENT IT IS. SO, I’M GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE OUT”.
This was in fact a lie. PC Roose had not actually spoken to anyone in West Yorkshire Police about this matter, and no one had told him that he could not live with Adam, nor did PC Roose have any legitimate policing reason to access the information about Adam on the PNC. PC Roose had decided entirely on his own account to unlawfully snoop on police systems about his new neighbour, and declare Adam persona non grata, mendaciously presenting this as a Police leadership decision. By his actions PC Roose had thus violated almost every “policing principle”.
Indeed, after his initial illegal foray into Adam’s records, PC Roose then repeated the data breach by unlawfully accessing Adam’s PNC file for a second time in the early hours of the following morning.
After receiving PC Roose’s text, Mr Clasp contacted Adam and informed him that due to the information provided by PC Roose he would not allow Adam to live at the house. Further, on learning of the alleged reasons for Mr Clasp refusing him accommodation, Adam’s friend refused to allow him to return to their home. Therefore, as a direct result of PC Roose’s actions, Adam was immediately made homeless.
Mr Clasp did not return Adam’s deposit and as Adam was unable to afford a hotel he was forced to sleep rough that night. The following day Adam, was able to get a place in a homeless shelter where he then resided for several months. During that period, Adam was subject to assaults and thefts by other residents but was eventually provided with a council house. However, the damage had been done, and the actions of PC Roose caused Adam to suffer from severe anxiety, paranoia, sleeplessness, and suicidal thoughts as a consequence.
Adam submitted a complaint to West Yorkshire Police as regards PC Roose’s conduct. Through no fault of his own, Adam had once again found himself the victim of Police misconduct, heightening his distrust of the police. Although he had legitimate reason to complain about PC Roose, Adam also feared that he might be subjected to future reprisals from the Police because of his complaint.
Adam’s complaint was investigated by the Force’s Counter Corruption Unit, who were able to check the audit log on the Police National Computer and establish that PC Roose had indeed accessed Adam’s information without lawful justification. When asked, Mr Clasp provided the text from PC Roose to the Counter Corruption Unit, but claimed that he had not told PC Roose about Adam.
In the face of the overwhelming evidence against him, PC Roose was forced to admit the truth that he had accessed Adam’s information contrary to Force policy and entirely unlawfully. However, despite accepting his wrongdoing, PC Roose attempted to mitigate his actions by claiming that the possibility of living with our client caused him “concern for his own safety”.
The Counter Corruption Unit ultimately determined that PC Roose had cases to answer for misconduct as follows:
It is alleged that PC Roose has looked at police systems and informed his prospective landlord of [Adam’s] offending history resulting in the tenancy offer being withdrawn. As a result of audits, it has been established that on 05/11/2022 at 21:42hrs and 06/11/2022 at 04:12hrs, whilst on duty, you checked the nominal record of [Adam]. It is believed that you did not have a policing purpose to conduct the checks.
As outlined within Regulation 27(3) Police (Complaints & Misconduct) Regulations 2020 it is my opinion that: There is a case to answer in respect of Misconduct
It is further alleged that PC Roose has passed the details obtained from the police systems to his landlord.
As outlined within Regulation 27(3) Police (Complaints & Misconduct) Regulations 2020 it is my opinion that: There is a case to answer in respect of Misconduct
However, despite the clear findings of the Counter Corruption Unit, the Professional Standards Department instead, and entirely incorrectly in my opinion, determined that PC Roose did not have a case to answer for misconduct. Their decision maker wrote:
Taking the above into account, I consider that whilst the officer has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, his conduct is not deemed so serious that it would meet the threshold for misconduct (conduct so serious that at least a written warning would be justified). This is because the conduct alleged is limited to a single incident and appears to have been conducted in good faith (albeit inappropriately). Furthermore, the disclosure made to Mr [Clasp] is limited in nature and there is no evidence the disclosure was made maliciously. It is my view that this matter would be more appropriately dealt with as a performance matter with the officer being subject of Practice Requiring Improvement under the Reflective Practice Review Process framework.
(I would here observe that Professional Standards Department investigators commonly behave in this manner, as if they are the advocates of the Officers complained about and opponents of the complainants).
Despite the Professional Standards Department’s claims that PC Roose’s actions had been “in good faith”, it should not be forgotten that he had directly lied to Mr Clasp, who took PC Roose’s word as a Police officer on trust. PC Roose had tried to shirk personal responsibility by pretending that it was his ‘bosses’ who had made the decision.
Furthermore, by framing his message in the way that he did, PC Roose clearly ‘chilled’ both Mr Clasp and Adam’s friend with fear about the supposed seriousness of an “offending history” which would cause senior officers to allegedly react in this way.
Ultimately, a Detective Superintendent apologised to Adam for the incident and PC Roose, via the Professional Standards Department, also sent a letter of apology to Adam in what can only be described as the style of a ‘naughty schoolboy’:
I would like to apologise to [Adam] for my actions, regarding stopping him from moving into a property I was a resident of. I know now that my actions were wrong and sincerely apologise for any distress or problems, that my actions caused [Adam].
I feel ashamed of my actions and would like to say I am sorry for what I have done. I will never do this again and I hope that [Adam] is able to fully recover from this incident.
Sincerest apologies,
PC Roose
As rare as it is to see an officer personally apologise to his victim for his actions, this in no way mitigated the harm caused to Adam. To try and rebuild his life and sense of justice, Adam instructed me to bring a claim for compensation against West Yorkshire Police.
I recognised that the actions of PC Roose were not only a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, but also represented a gross violation of Adam’s right to a personal and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, PC Roose’s conduct was far worse than merely “snooping” on the Police National Computer, given that he then deliberately lied in order to manipulate Mr Clasp into rejecting Adam’s tenancy. I had no doubt that a Court would accept that this was a malicious act of deliberate dishonesty by a serving Police officer and that he was not acting “in good faith” as asserted by the Professional Standards Department. Therefore, I also believed that PC Roose had committed the tort of misfeasance in public office, which requires proof that a public officer has abused their power or position with the intent to cause deliberate harm.
I am pleased to say that in response to the claim, West Yorkshire Police’s legal services quickly admitted liability and, after vigorous negotiations, a significant financial settlement has recently been reached.
PC Roose should regard himself to be very lucky to have come away from this incident with no more than a slap on the wrist and would do well to remember the Policing principles in the future. If he or any other officer forgets, then my colleagues and I will swiftly remind them.
(The name of my client and the landlord have been changed.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.