A former glamour model who was filmed sunbathing naked in her garden by a police officer in a helicopter has won her legal battle against the force.
Tracy Dixon, 54, claimed South Yorkshire Police invaded her privacy and caused her distress by refusing to reveal how often she was spied on by Adrian Pogmore, 54.
Pogmore filmed her naked using the force’s helicopter, which had a camera capable of reading a number plate from two miles away.
Pogmore, who was part of the air support unit, also used the equipment to spy on other sunbathers and a couple having sex on their patio.
He was sacked from the force and jailed for one year in 2017.
Ms Dixon previously told how she had attended the same school as Pogmore and feared he had been secretly stalking her ‘for decades’. She said: ‘He is a taxpayer-funded pervert. While he was flying around for his own sexual kicks, criminals were on the run.’
She has now reached a settlement with South Yorkshire police, but did not disclose whether they paid the full £200,000 she demanded, The Mirror reports. The force said in a statement: ‘All parties are bound under the confidentiality schedule relating to these proceedings. All criminal, civil and misconduct proceedings have concluded.’
Pogmore, whose dismissal from the force ended his 22-year career, had admitted four charges of misconduct in public office by using the helicopter’s camera for ‘sexual spying’.
In court, he was was described as ‘a swinging and sex-obsessed air observer’, who ‘quite literally’ considered himself above the law as he spied on people from 1,000ft.
Two pilots and two police observers were also found not guilty of misconduct in a public office. The force said in a statement: ‘One PC was given a final written warning for breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to Duties and Responsibilities and remains employed by the force.
‘The second PC, who had resigned from the force prior to the hearing, was cleared of misconduct. The two other members of staff were not South Yorkshire Police employees and therefore not subject to SYP misconduct proceedings.’