Police chief lets drink drive cop keep job after crash...
Discussion
Under which circumstances would you be allowed to only get a written warning for this?
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/police-chief-lets-...
"...the drink drive case was posted straight onto the "archive" section of the Devon and Cornwall Police misconduct hearings website rather than being placed on its main page"
"No other details of the case were given, including the location or date of the road traffic collision, how much the officer was over the drink drive limit, where the court case was heard nor the outcome of the court case"
"...the officer was of a federated rank"
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/police-chief-lets-...
"...the drink drive case was posted straight onto the "archive" section of the Devon and Cornwall Police misconduct hearings website rather than being placed on its main page"
"No other details of the case were given, including the location or date of the road traffic collision, how much the officer was over the drink drive limit, where the court case was heard nor the outcome of the court case"
"...the officer was of a federated rank"
I'd guess a very small amount over the limit like under 45 (possibly lower) on the breath test with mitigating factors like potentially a morning after offence (didn't deliberately drive back from the pub knowingly pushing his luck)and the crash having nothing to do with his driving ie rear ended while stationary. Without knowing the facts it's impossible to say if it's wrong....
Black_S3 said:
I'd guess a very small amount over the limit like under 45 (possibly lower) on the breath test with mitigating factors like potentially a morning after offence and the crash having nothing to do with his driving ie rear ended while stationary. Without knowing the facts it's impossible to say....
Exactly what happened to my Cousin back in the early 90's. Result was a ban.
Convicted - The Misconduct Hearing took place after the Officer had been convicted at Court.
That it was a special case hearing means there is something exceptional in the circumstances - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2632/pdfs/...
In the vast majority of cases, a conviction for Drink Driving whilst an Officer is serving would result in a Gross Misconduct Hearing and dismissal, however the full circumstances would be considered - in the investigation and then the hearing.
I am aware of an incident where an Officer crashed a car, causing no damage or injury to anyone else and (though not required to) called their Control Room to say that they had done so and that they had been drinking in the previous hours - a patrol attended, breath tested and found the Officer to be over the limit. The Officer was convicted. At the Misconduct Hearing, the Officer fully accepted his responsibilities but it was noted that the only reason there was any evidence of his wrong doing was his decision to call his Control Room and make full admission. These were considered sufficient by the Chair in that case for the Officer to keep his job - his integrity could not be called into question, only his (spectacularly) poor decision making.
You are correct - one rule for them, different to the rest of us - it would have been *possible* (though perhaps undesirable?) in this and in the example above, that the Officer be under the Drink Drive limit, the case be assessed as Gross Misconduct, and for the individual to lose their job, despite having done nothing illegal
That it was a special case hearing means there is something exceptional in the circumstances - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2632/pdfs/...
In the vast majority of cases, a conviction for Drink Driving whilst an Officer is serving would result in a Gross Misconduct Hearing and dismissal, however the full circumstances would be considered - in the investigation and then the hearing.
I am aware of an incident where an Officer crashed a car, causing no damage or injury to anyone else and (though not required to) called their Control Room to say that they had done so and that they had been drinking in the previous hours - a patrol attended, breath tested and found the Officer to be over the limit. The Officer was convicted. At the Misconduct Hearing, the Officer fully accepted his responsibilities but it was noted that the only reason there was any evidence of his wrong doing was his decision to call his Control Room and make full admission. These were considered sufficient by the Chair in that case for the Officer to keep his job - his integrity could not be called into question, only his (spectacularly) poor decision making.
You are correct - one rule for them, different to the rest of us - it would have been *possible* (though perhaps undesirable?) in this and in the example above, that the Officer be under the Drink Drive limit, the case be assessed as Gross Misconduct, and for the individual to lose their job, despite having done nothing illegal
Lol. The top cop and the drunk cop are probably both in the local Freemasons, or something like that.
A police officer can keep their job after one drink-drive offence if there are "exceptionally compelling circumstances". That is probably what is being used here to wiggle around a frightfully awkward situation.
A police officer can keep their job after one drink-drive offence if there are "exceptionally compelling circumstances". That is probably what is being used here to wiggle around a frightfully awkward situation.
Black_S3 said:
Yeah, he's been banned. This is about professional standards...
There must be millions of people who have been banned for drink driving and it's made zero impact on their ability to perform their job so assuming that this chap can have a desk job thus allowing him to continue his role as a policeman what would be achieved by sacking him?The punishment for drink driving is the ban/fine, how many punishments should there be?
aka_kerrly said:
Black_S3 said:
Yeah, he's been banned. This is about professional standards...
There must be millions of people who have been banned for drink driving and it's made zero impact on their ability to perform their job so assuming that this chap can have a desk job thus allowing him to continue his role as a policeman what would be achieved by sacking him?The punishment for drink driving is the ban/fine, how many punishments should there be?
aka_kerrly said:
Black_S3 said:
Yeah, he's been banned. This is about professional standards...
There must be millions of people who have been banned for drink driving and it's made zero impact on their ability to perform their job so assuming that this chap can have a desk job thus allowing him to continue his role as a policeman what would be achieved by sacking him?The punishment for drink driving is the ban/fine, how many punishments should there be?
Yipper said:
In ~99% of applications, a drink-driving conviction means you cannot join a UK police force. They will reject you. If you cannot join, there is a good argument you cannot stay. This particular case looks suspiciously like someone has done a favour for their old buddy.
You cannot apply for 10 years, after that you can apply, but it's likely another candidate will get the job ahead of you because they don't have the ? hanging over them... If someone's been in the job for years and has proven themself it's a different situation.Black_S3 said:
Yipper said:
In ~99% of applications, a drink-driving conviction means you cannot join a UK police force. They will reject you. If you cannot join, there is a good argument you cannot stay. This particular case looks suspiciously like someone has done a favour for their old buddy.
You cannot apply for 10 years, after that you can apply, but it's likely another candidate will get the job ahead of you because they don't have the ? hanging over them... If someone's been in the job for years and has proven themself it's a different situation.Yipper said:
Black_S3 said:
Yipper said:
In ~99% of applications, a drink-driving conviction means you cannot join a UK police force. They will reject you. If you cannot join, there is a good argument you cannot stay. This particular case looks suspiciously like someone has done a favour for their old buddy.
You cannot apply for 10 years, after that you can apply, but it's likely another candidate will get the job ahead of you because they don't have the ? hanging over them... If someone's been in the job for years and has proven themself it's a different situation.Bigends said:
Yipper said:
Black_S3 said:
Yipper said:
In ~99% of applications, a drink-driving conviction means you cannot join a UK police force. They will reject you. If you cannot join, there is a good argument you cannot stay. This particular case looks suspiciously like someone has done a favour for their old buddy.
You cannot apply for 10 years, after that you can apply, but it's likely another candidate will get the job ahead of you because they don't have the ? hanging over them... If someone's been in the job for years and has proven themself it's a different situation.Just did a search of Shaun Sawyer and this came up...
http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/14480725.Alle...
..."It is imperative that the public and my workforce have confidence in this force in respect of transparency, integrity and impartiality in this matter..."
The drink drive case hardly seems transparent, does it?
http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/14480725.Alle...
..."It is imperative that the public and my workforce have confidence in this force in respect of transparency, integrity and impartiality in this matter..."
The drink drive case hardly seems transparent, does it?
Actually, there are several examples out there of such things..
"AN OLDHAM detective who was forced to resign after driving down the M62 while three times over the drink-drive limit has got her job back.
DC Natalie Brennan, who is based at Oldham CID, was reinstated by Chief Constable Peter Fahy after he reviewed the case.
It is understood that the decision was made because of the "exceptional personal circumstances" that caused her to get behind the wheel drunk. It is also thought that she was regarded as an "exceptional officer".
"A disgraced detective who was jailed after a second drink-driving offence has secured an astonishing payoff which will cost taxpayers at least £500,000"
(resigned rather than being sacked allowing a £50,000 lump sum and an index-linked pension of £20,000 a year)
"AN OLDHAM detective who was forced to resign after driving down the M62 while three times over the drink-drive limit has got her job back.
DC Natalie Brennan, who is based at Oldham CID, was reinstated by Chief Constable Peter Fahy after he reviewed the case.
It is understood that the decision was made because of the "exceptional personal circumstances" that caused her to get behind the wheel drunk. It is also thought that she was regarded as an "exceptional officer".
"A disgraced detective who was jailed after a second drink-driving offence has secured an astonishing payoff which will cost taxpayers at least £500,000"
(resigned rather than being sacked allowing a £50,000 lump sum and an index-linked pension of £20,000 a year)
Yipper said:
Black_S3 said:
Yipper said:
In ~99% of applications, a drink-driving conviction means you cannot join a UK police force. They will reject you. If you cannot join, there is a good argument you cannot stay. This particular case looks suspiciously like someone has done a favour for their old buddy.
You cannot apply for 10 years, after that you can apply, but it's likely another candidate will get the job ahead of you because they don't have the ? hanging over them... If someone's been in the job for years and has proven themself it's a different situation.Digby said:
(resigned rather than being sacked allowing a £50,000 lump sum and an index-linked pension of £20,000 a year)
A pension that he/she would have contributed to for their entire working career, while we're talking about double standard which other careers loose pensions they've paid into if they get sacked? I might sound biased but I'm not plod.Edited by Black_S3 on Tuesday 13th June 20:50
Digby said:
Actually, there are several examples out there of such things..
"AN OLDHAM detective who was forced to resign after driving down the M62 while three times over the drink-drive limit has got her job back.
DC Natalie Brennan, who is based at Oldham CID, was reinstated by Chief Constable Peter Fahy after he reviewed the case.
It is understood that the decision was made because of the "exceptional personal circumstances" that caused her to get behind the wheel drunk. It is also thought that she was regarded as an "exceptional officer".
"A disgraced detective who was jailed after a second drink-driving offence has secured an astonishing payoff which will cost taxpayers at least £500,000"
(resigned rather than being sacked allowing a £50,000 lump sum and an index-linked pension of £20,000 a year)
If it helps, she will have been contributing to that pension for a very long time - losing contributions is usually only associated with a prison term of some length."AN OLDHAM detective who was forced to resign after driving down the M62 while three times over the drink-drive limit has got her job back.
DC Natalie Brennan, who is based at Oldham CID, was reinstated by Chief Constable Peter Fahy after he reviewed the case.
It is understood that the decision was made because of the "exceptional personal circumstances" that caused her to get behind the wheel drunk. It is also thought that she was regarded as an "exceptional officer".
"A disgraced detective who was jailed after a second drink-driving offence has secured an astonishing payoff which will cost taxpayers at least £500,000"
(resigned rather than being sacked allowing a £50,000 lump sum and an index-linked pension of £20,000 a year)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff