Officer Misconduct Hearings are held in public for openness and transparency.
At a hearing the facts are heard by a panel, often with help of witnesses, so a finding can be made.
If an officer is found to have committed gross misconduct, depending on the circumstances, the available outcomes are:
- Dismissal without notice
- Dismissal with notice
- Final written warning
- Extension added to a final written warning
- Written warning
- Management advice
1. Name of officer: Police Constable 10865 Tincello
2. The date, time and venue of the hearing: 24/25/26 June 2019 in the County Room, Kent Police Force Headquarters, Sutton Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 9BZ, commencing at 10:00 hours.
3. The conduct and how that conduct is alleged to amount to gross misconduct:
1) On 8 July 2018 Police Constable Tincello was on duty with PC A when he was called to the scene of a single-vehicle road traffic collision in Tunbridge Wells. It was suspected that the collision had been caused by a drunk driver.
2) At the scene of the collision, in the presence of a paramedic Ms M, PC Tincello used an EBA machine to administer a roadside breath test to the driver of the vehicle involved, Mr J.
3) The EBA machine showed a positive (ie ‘fail’) reading indicating that the amount of alcohol in Mr J’s breath was 65mcg per 100ml. The legal limit is 35mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath. PC Tincello knew this to be the case but he did not arrest Mr J on suspicion of drink-driving.
4) PC Tincello said in Ms M’s presence that Mr J’s breath test result was “almost double the legal limit” and PC Tincello showed Mr J the reading of 65 on the EBA machine. Ms M recorded this figure in Mr J’s patient notes.
5) PC Tincello subsequently told PC A that Mr J’s breath test result was “over double”. However, PC Tincello also told her that he would tell PS G that Mr J’s test result was “slightly over”.
6) Very shortly thereafter PC Tincello spoke to PS G on the telephone and told him that Mr J’s breath test result was “only just over”. When asked by PS G to clarify what this meant, PC Tincello said that Mr J “blew 43”.
7) PC Tincello then said to PS G words to the effect that by the time Mr J got to the hospital and any formal testing procedure was started he would be below the legal limit. If this were to be true it would mean that there would be less paperwork and other procedures to complete and undertake.
8) Mr J was taken to hospital by ambulance. He was accompanied by PC A, Ms B and an emergency care support worker.
9) At the hospital PC A arrested Mr J on suspicion of drink-driving. The necessary paperwork consequential upon the arrest of Mr J (being the Hospital (Drink/Drugs) Procedure Form MG DD/C) was to be completed at the hospital by PC R and PC B. In order that they could do this PC Tincello told them that the result of Mr J’s roadside breath test was 65mcg/100ml.
10) PC Tincello’s actions in giving PS G a false impression of the potential state of intoxication of Mr J and in relaying to him a breath alcohol level that PC Tincello knew to be significantly lower than was correct were dishonest and a breach of the Standard of Professional Behaviour that requires all police officers to act honestly and with integrity.
11) PC Tincello’s conduct in failing to arrest Mr J when he knew had a breath alcohol level of 65mcg/100ml and/or in providing misleading and inaccurate information to PS G were a knowing failure properly to perform his duties as a police officer and were a breach of the Standard of Professional Behaviour that requires you to be diligent in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities.
12) At various times during the shift in question PC Tincello told both PC A and PS G that he needed to finish that shift on time in order to attend to an appointment in connection with an authorised secondary employment in which he was than engaged.
13) PC Tincello acted as described above in order to ensure that he did finish the shift on time and were not detained by paperwork or other procedural requirements at the hospital. Such behaviour, if known to the public, would discredit the police service and undermine their confidence in it. This is a further breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
14) PC Tincello’s breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour are so serious that his dismissal from Kent Police would be justified and, as such, have been categorised as amounting to gross misconduct.
To register your interest to attend a hearing, please complete an application and send by midday on 20 June 2019 as no applications to attend will be considered after this date. Application forms can be obtained on request by emailing: [email protected] or call 01622 652320.
Date of Misconduct Hearing:
2 April 2019
Name of officer: Ex-Special Constable 18990 Grace Crawford
The conduct and how that conduct was alleged to amount to gross misconduct:
The allegation arose between 2017 and 2018, when Special Constable 18900 Crawford, whilst serving as a Special Constable, including while simultaneously employed as a Designated Detention Officer, inappropriately used the Police Computer systems to access personal data without a lawful policing purpose and disclosed the information obtained.
It was considered that the Special Constable Crawford’s conduct had breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Orders and Instructions, Confidentiality and Discreditable Conduct. The finding of the hearing was that Special Constable 18990 Crawford would have been dismissed if she had not already resigned as a member of Kent Police.