A former Thames Valley Police officer has been found to have committed gross misconduct against another former officer.
The officer, known as officer A, sent the victim inappropriate messages including a photograph of him in a bath showing his feet and commenting on the size of the knickers she might wear.
The hearing was concluded on Thursday, December 9 and the police officer did not attend, claiming that he could not be there due to health reasons.
Both the victim’s and the offender’s identities were kept anonymous to protect the identity of the victim.
During the misconduct trial, those at the hearing heard from police officer B (the victim) who “clearly found the experience traumatic’ according to the Full Account for the Reasons of the Findings.
The full account also detailed that police officer A had warned her of his potential to “use inappropriate behaviour and comments.”
According to the full account, police officer A also refused to recognise B as vulnerable during an interview but knew about her mental health issues.
On February 17 2021 police officer A had contacted the victim, police officer B, to offer her support and assistance as a representative of her Staff Association.
Police officer A continued to offer support to police officer B and this included when she had a ‘crisis’ on March 16.
On March 21, police officer A invited the victim to install an app where they could have ‘confidential chats’ which get deleted after a period of time.
On this app, police officer A sent inappropriate messages including a photograph of him in a bath showing his feet and commenting on the size of the knickers police officer B might wear.
He also dared police officer B to run around her house naked and show the mirrors as she did and suggested that she might be ‘hairy all over’, sending her an image of Chewbacca in a bikini.
Reporters from the BBC and Hyde News and Pictures asked for reporting restrictions to be removed regarding the police officer’s name, but this was not granted, as to protect the identity of the victim.
The officer was not a serving one at the time of the allegations and the misconduct hearing found that if he had been one he would have been dismissed without notice.
The hearing concluded that the former officer had committed gross misconduct and noted that the motivation was sexual and flirtatious.