The officer’s name has been placed on the police barred list
A police officer has been dismissed without notice after accessing the police computer to check records of their sister’s new boyfriend. A misconduct hearing was held by South Wales Police at the Waterton Centre in Bridgend over three days this month into the alleged misconduct of constable Sonia Lewis in relation to police computer misuse.
The allegations were that between March 2020 and October 2021, that constable Lewis undertook searches on police systems for no policing purpose. A report stated that on July 6, 2020, whilst on a rest day, she searched her sister, an ex-partner of hers, and that ex-partner’s sister, with “an aggravating factor” that she shared some of the information about the ex-partner with her then partner.
It further stated that on July 15, 2021, she had searched for her sister’s then partner. Other allegations stated she had conducted searches relating to other family members, the streets where they lived, and the street where she herself lived. On August 4, 2020, she had also conducted a search of a person believed to be in dispute with a family member, it was alleged. Stay in the know by making sure you’re receiving our daily newsletter.
The report stated: “PC Lewis accepts that she did access police systems as alleged, and that she did not have a policing purpose for doing so. She does not accept that she shared information in the manner described, but does accept that she made mention of the information she had gleaned from accessing the relevant record on July 6, 2020.”
It added that PC Lewis accepted that her conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, and that her conduct amounted to misconduct. But she denied that the ‘standard of honesty and integrity’ had been breached and maintained that her conduct did not amount to gross misconduct.
The Appropriate Authority did not accept PC Lewis’ assessment of seriousness, the report stated, and “maintains that the repeated instances of deliberately accessing confidential systems without a policing purpose, in circumstances where PC Lewis had adequate experience and training to know that she should not undertake such activity, would amount to gross misconduct, particularly given the variety of circumstances in which she does so and the extended period (approaching a year) of systems misuse.”
Concerning the searches on July 6, a statement from PC Lewis read: “I did the searches outlined in the circumstances I stated in interview. I had messages from an unknown male and then spoke to the male on the phone.
“I did not know who the person was. It looked like the male was from Essex. Initially did not know if the messages were genuine. At the time I was unaware of my sister being with anyone and did not know she was ‘dating’. I was in a panic. I was crying and upset by what the male was telling me. I did tell someone I was going to check to see if I could find out what was going on.
“When I did this, I did not then consciously relay what I had found out to them, but as I was doing the searches I recall saying out loud what I was seeing on the system, as it was feeding into my panic and anxiety. I did not hold a conversation with them about what was on the system.”
It added: “I appreciate I should not have done the searches. It was wrong and I should have dealt with the situation in a different way.
“At the time I was not in a good place in my personal life and the panic and anxiety I felt when I received the messages and calls triggered my reaction. I did not gain anything from what I did and I did not deliberately pass any information to anyone.”
It further added: “I did the search in June 2021 to try and ‘vet’ the address that I was hoping to move to. I should not have done the searches. I appreciate this was being done for personal reasons and was not appropriate. I did not pass any information to anyone. Though it does not justify my actions I hope that the above helps explain why I did it, and that at the time I did not think rationally about the seriousness of what I was doing, but was simply driven by my emotions.”
The judgement stated: “The officer repeatedly told us that she knew what she had done was wrong at the time of the incidents and that she would not do the same thing again. She also expressed remorse. She accepted that every time she opened the force system that a pop-up warning about all key aspects of the appropriate use of police systems had to be proactively acknowledged before access to the system was granted.
“This would have routinely reminded her of her obligation not to access the information on the computer, unless it was for policing purposes – she repeatedly disregarded this instruction.
“Overall, on the balance of probabilities, the panel concluded that the officer completely disregarded the sanctity of a core tenet of policing in relation to data access and security and effectively treated the police data as something that she had a right and entitlement to use, as she pleased, for her own purposes (and that of her family). The panel also concluded that the officer had not been completely open and honest with the panel and that many of her actions were motivated by a general disregard for rules and her pursuit of her own best interests.”
Dealing with breaches of the standards of professional behaviour, the panel found find that the officer had breached the ‘honesty and integrity’ Standard of Professional Behaviour, an allegation she denied, on the basis that it said integrity “directly relates to an individual’s requirement to adhere to the ethical standards of their profession.” It said it had “no doubt that PC Lewis abused her position.”
Gross misconduct
Misconduct hearing chairman, Ian Arundale QPM, wrote in the judgement: “Overall, we consider that the officers offending is very serious and we have carefully applied the purposes of the misconduct regime to all our sanction deliberations to apply an outcome which most closely meets its overall objectives.
“We first considered a final written warning and if it would meet the purpose of the regime. Gross misconduct is proved in this case and for this type of offence it is clear that, ‘dismissal is likely to follow’.”
He adds: “The officer’s conduct is contrary to significant training and awareness that she has received. As indicated, every time she accessed the police system, she casually disregarded the clear and precise warning about computer misuse. She chose not to follow her specific training in relation to this area, nor adhere to the clearly understood expectations of the police service.
“The panel considers that police officers, in the course of their duties, have access to very private and personal information, often acquired when members of the public are at their most vulnerable. In holding that information, police officers must be trusted completely and without exception. If police officers cannot be trusted then, naturally, members of the public are less likely to make disclosure and support police investigations. That access to information puts police officers into a position of authority that they should never abuse.
“The panel reminded itself that its central concern, having regard to the principle of proportionality and weighing the interests of the public and the officer, is the reputation or standing of the policing profession rather than the punishment of the officer.
“Accordingly, the panel concludes that, having found gross misconduct, the officer’s behaviour did/will cause great harm to public confidence in the profession of policing.
“Having considered the lesser potential outcome first, and given full and serious consideration to the option of a final written warning, we are satisfied that the misconduct was so serious in this case that only an outcome of dismissal without notice is justified and commensurate with the stated objectives of the police misconduct regime.
“We direct that the officer’s name be placed on the police barred list (Police Barred List Police Advisory List Regulations 2017).”
Get daily breaking news updates on your phone by joining our WhatsApp community here. We occasionally treat members to special offers, promotions and ads from us and our partners. See our Privacy Notice.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login