Northumbria Police officer groped colleagues and made sexual comments

Michael Poxton left the officers feeling deeply uncomfortable with his sexually suggestive remarks and advances, a misconduct hearing concluded.

The former Northumbria Police officer resigned before the hearing took place, but it ruled he committed gross misconduct and would have been sacked.

The panel concluded that between April 2022 and August 2023 he repeatedly made sexualised comments to female colleagues, commented on their appearance and bodies, and deliberately touched two women on the thigh while driving police vehicles.

Poxton denied the allegations and did not show for the hearing.

In relation to Officer A, the panel found Poxton repeatedly made unwanted sexualised comments despite her making clear she was not interested in a relationship.

According to the panel, he told her when she wore her hair in a ponytail that it would allow him to “wrap his hand around it and pull it”, regularly looked her up and down saying “Ooh, I would”, suggested she should have sex with him as a birthday present, and repeatedly told her: “If I painted myself black, I’d be your type then.”

The panel found Officer A’s evidence credible and supported by another police witness.

Its decision said: “The comments were plainly sexual in nature, including suggestions of sexual activity, comments about her physical appearance, and references about Officer A’s type and dating outside of her race.”

The panel added: “The comments were unwanted by Officer A and that should have been obvious to former PC Poxton.”

Officer B told the hearing Poxton discussed his “type” in women before deliberately moving his hand down her thigh while they were travelling in Gateshead in November 2022.

She later alleged that during a shift in Newcastle city centre he told her: “Well, I love that sassy attitude you have in SIU, so seeing that out on the streets is just so attractive.”

The panel rejected Poxton’s explanation that the touching was accidental.

Its decision stated: “The Panel does not accept the former officer’s explanation that the contact amounted to a brief accidental ‘nick’ caused by unfamiliarity with the Vauxhall Corsa’s gear mechanism.”

The panel found the touching, together with his comments, amounted to sexual harassment.

Officer C described how Poxton commented on her work clothes in August 2023, telling her a pair of trousers looked “as though they had been painted on” and saying he scored her outfits out of 10.

She also alleged he deliberately placed his hand on her upper thigh for several seconds while driving.

The panel accepted her evidence.

It found Poxton had “Commented upon Officer C’s clothing, including making remarks about her bottom being prominent in a pair of trousers and describing the trousers as appearing to have been painted on; Told Officer C that he scored her outfits out of ten and discussed particular outfits she wore to work; and Deliberately placed his hand on her upper thigh during the return journey.”

Officer D told the hearing Poxton repeatedly called her “beautiful” and “stunning” after she had her hair done, commented that she had a “nice arse” and said it was “okay to look but not touch”.

She also alleged he suggested she was only with her boyfriend for his money and was performing sexual acts on him for money.

The panel found her account more persuasive than Poxton’s denials.

It said the comments “were sexualised and objectifying in nature” and concluded they amounted to harassment and sexual harassment.

The panel concluded the incidents formed “a repeated pattern of behaviour directed towards multiple female colleagues over a period of approximately sixteen months.”

The decision said: “Female officers are entitled to attend work without being subjected to sexual comments and without fear of unwanted physical contact.”

The panel found Poxton’s behaviour was deliberate and that he should reasonably have foreseen the harm caused.

It also concluded his conduct had the potential to seriously undermine public confidence in policing.

Because Poxton had already resigned, the panel could not dismiss him. Instead, it found he would have been dismissed without notice had he still been serving.

The outcome means Poxton will be placed on the College of Policing Barred List.