Drink-Drive cop back in job
Discussion
An extract from BBC news
Drink-drive detective back in job
South Wales Police said Russell Gardner's case was exceptional
A detective who lost his job with South Wales Police after admitting drink driving is to be reinstated with the force. Russell Gardner, 40, was banned from the road for 16 months and fined £150 for being more than twice the limit. The detective constable has been reinstated after a review of the case by Chief Constable Barbara Wilding.
The details have emerged on the day South Wales Police launched their Christmas anti-drink drive campaign.
The force said his case has been studied by the Professional Standards Department (PSD). Chief Superintendent Dave Jenkins, of the PSD, said: "Having reviewed the findings, the Chief Constable considers that there are exceptional circumstances and has decided to re-instate Dc Gardener to duties." Deputy Chief Constable Paul Wood added: "We actively target drink driving and our officers will and have arrested colleagues who are over the limit." Cases are taken to court and are dealt with in the same way as everyone else. "Officers found guilty of any crime will be subject to the official disciplinary process which may include appearances before a tribunal."
Drink-drive detective back in job
South Wales Police said Russell Gardner's case was exceptional
A detective who lost his job with South Wales Police after admitting drink driving is to be reinstated with the force. Russell Gardner, 40, was banned from the road for 16 months and fined £150 for being more than twice the limit. The detective constable has been reinstated after a review of the case by Chief Constable Barbara Wilding.
The details have emerged on the day South Wales Police launched their Christmas anti-drink drive campaign.
The force said his case has been studied by the Professional Standards Department (PSD). Chief Superintendent Dave Jenkins, of the PSD, said: "Having reviewed the findings, the Chief Constable considers that there are exceptional circumstances and has decided to re-instate Dc Gardener to duties." Deputy Chief Constable Paul Wood added: "We actively target drink driving and our officers will and have arrested colleagues who are over the limit." Cases are taken to court and are dealt with in the same way as everyone else. "Officers found guilty of any crime will be subject to the official disciplinary process which may include appearances before a tribunal."
Chief Superintendent Dave Jenkins, of the PSD, said: "Having reviewed the findings, the Chief Constable considers that there are exceptional circumstances and has decided to re-instate Dc Gardener to duties."
He may be right. But to make that judgement, these reasons need to be made public. And owning a blue wooly suit doesn't cut it.
He may be right. But to make that judgement, these reasons need to be made public. And owning a blue wooly suit doesn't cut it.
The exceptional circumstance may have been that he was in the police force.
Don’t know the details, but twice over the limit, isn’t that a bit irresponsible?
Though to be fair, if it was me I would want the second chance, would definitely take it, and definitely make full use of any friends I had up the chain.
Don’t know the details, but twice over the limit, isn’t that a bit irresponsible?
Though to be fair, if it was me I would want the second chance, would definitely take it, and definitely make full use of any friends I had up the chain.
The Police Force (I refuse to call it a service) is currently being very poorly served by those entrusted with it's management. Time and again, we see the issue of public trust (or lack of it) being raised and this latest example is potentially more fuel to the fire. Please note that my original post said that the CC may be right in his judgement, but without the CC actually coming out publicly and putting his case forward for why this officer should be treated in a substantially different way than is usual, then he is just handing more ammunition to the "them & us" brigade and that is the last thing that the police on the street need. To have senior management helping to undermine the public perception of the police because of a lack of basic PR skills is just plain silly. I don't know much about the role of the police federation and it's representation of the average officer, but it strikes me that this might be a useful mechanism for sending feedback up the chain and to try to influence management when required.
As for "owning a blue wooly suit doesn't cut it" - the fundamental problem here is this - precedents are very tricky things. Let's say this guy is an excellent cop and he is given a second chance because of his service record. Would this apply if he was a drugs specialist - seizing record quantities of herion, but being caught dealing stolen drugs?. Or a vice officer - fantastic at keeping a lid on the illegal sex trade but then caught pimping his own hookers?. Extreme examples granted, but you get my point i'm sure.
The cornerstone of our (certainly my) respect of the Police is based around their ability to apply the law impartially to one and all. Lord or streetsweeper, villian or policeman. The fact that a combination of the judiciary, badly framed law and politics constantly frustrates the best efforts of the front line officer isn't their fault. And also a topic best left for another thread
:
As for "owning a blue wooly suit doesn't cut it" - the fundamental problem here is this - precedents are very tricky things. Let's say this guy is an excellent cop and he is given a second chance because of his service record. Would this apply if he was a drugs specialist - seizing record quantities of herion, but being caught dealing stolen drugs?. Or a vice officer - fantastic at keeping a lid on the illegal sex trade but then caught pimping his own hookers?. Extreme examples granted, but you get my point i'm sure.
The cornerstone of our (certainly my) respect of the Police is based around their ability to apply the law impartially to one and all. Lord or streetsweeper, villian or policeman. The fact that a combination of the judiciary, badly framed law and politics constantly frustrates the best efforts of the front line officer isn't their fault. And also a topic best left for another thread
: See the following:
"Published: 5th February 2002
Misconduct Cases Arising out of Drink Driving Convictions
Policing and Crime Reduction Group
Police Leadership and Powers Unit
531A, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT
Fax 020 7273 3482
Direct Line 020 7273 4043
Date 31 August 2001
All Chief Officers of Police in England and Wales Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis and City of London, Clerks to Police Authorities and Chairpersons of Police Appeals Tribunals
Dear Chief Officers, Clerks and Chairs
As you know there are no central guidelines at present on how Chief Officers should deal with those in their force convicted of a drink driving offence. Under Paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct at Schedule 1 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 police officers must report any proceedings for a criminal offence taken against them and are warned that further action may be taken. Drink driving offences make up well over half the criminal offences with which police officers are charged.
Looking at the drink driving cases, over the last three years, where there was an appeal to the Home Secretary (under the 1985 Regulations) 16 out of a total of 18 were required to resign and the appeal was dismissed. However, we are concerned about the wide discrepancies in the cases which are resolved within forces under both the 1985 and 1999 Regulations.
It has therefore been decided by Ministers that Guidelines should be issued on misconduct cases involving drink driving. This idea has been reinforced partly by the fact that there was a successful Judicial Review, in February of this year, in a case arising from a discipline appeal by a former Metropolitan Police officer, who claimed that he was treated more harshly than others known to him because he was required to resign following conviction. The Home Secretary has been given leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and the hearing is listed for December. However, this case has highlighted the importance of consistency.
In the recent Thematic Report on Integrity by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, it is pointed out (at 9.7) that Magistrates have had a tariff system for punishments for many years, with the flexibility of seriousness and mitigation affecting the outcome. HM Inspector was of the view that a tariff for discipline offences in general would benefit at least individual forces and the service as a whole.
I enclose the Guidelines which I have made into Annex N to Section 3 of the Home Office Guidance on Police Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures. I also enclose amended pages 3.18 to 3.20 which should replace the existing pp 3.18 to 3.20 of the Guidance since there is now a reference to the Guidelines at para 3.77. The terms of the guidance have been agreed by ACPO.
The Guidelines are to remind officers that they should expect to lose their job if convicted of a drink driving offence. Obviously this would not apply where there were exceptional circumstances but I have not set out the whole range of what could be regarded as exceptional since the presiding officer or chairman is best placed to decide what they are in individual cases. They should be used immediately.
Yours faithfully
Mrs K.I.Elam
Conduct and Complaints Section
ANNEX N
POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 1999
HOME OFFICE/ACPO JOINT GUIDELINES
POLICE OFFICERS CONVICTED OF DRINK DRIVING OFFENCES
The Home Office and Police Service are committed to reducing incidents of drink driving, both generally and within the Service.
The damage done to the reputation of the Service by officers convicted of these offences cannot be overstated and detracts from the credibility of the Service in this crucial area of law enforcement.
An officer convicted by a Court of a drink driving offence can expect to face a formal disciplinary hearing. The usual sanction to be applied is either dismissal or a requirement to resign to reflect the serious view which is taken, both inside the Service and by society generally.
A Discipline panel will always treat each case on its merits but officers presiding at such hearings must apply their judgement to the facts of the case to consider whether an alternative sanction could be justified. Aggravating factors in considering the seriousness of an offence include where:
• the offence was committed on duty;
• there is an attempt to avoid arrest;
• there is an attempt to interfere with due process, particularly by leaving the scene or improperly using his position as a police officer;
• the alcohol reading is particularly high; or
• the offence derives from a traffic accident or other incident involving a member of the public.
Only in cases where none of these circumstances exist and there are exceptional circumstances should a lesser sanction be imposed. When this happens the reasons should be clearly set out and recorded."
I have been unable to trace a definition of exceptional. In other cases I have been able to trace, not involving drink driving, 'exceptional' refers to the quality of the officer, his length of service, which have been held in the balance against the public expectation, etec., in the officer's favour.
Personally, twice over the limit and he's out.
"Published: 5th February 2002
Misconduct Cases Arising out of Drink Driving Convictions
Policing and Crime Reduction Group
Police Leadership and Powers Unit
531A, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT
Fax 020 7273 3482
Direct Line 020 7273 4043
Date 31 August 2001
All Chief Officers of Police in England and Wales Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis and City of London, Clerks to Police Authorities and Chairpersons of Police Appeals Tribunals
Dear Chief Officers, Clerks and Chairs
As you know there are no central guidelines at present on how Chief Officers should deal with those in their force convicted of a drink driving offence. Under Paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct at Schedule 1 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 police officers must report any proceedings for a criminal offence taken against them and are warned that further action may be taken. Drink driving offences make up well over half the criminal offences with which police officers are charged.
Looking at the drink driving cases, over the last three years, where there was an appeal to the Home Secretary (under the 1985 Regulations) 16 out of a total of 18 were required to resign and the appeal was dismissed. However, we are concerned about the wide discrepancies in the cases which are resolved within forces under both the 1985 and 1999 Regulations.
It has therefore been decided by Ministers that Guidelines should be issued on misconduct cases involving drink driving. This idea has been reinforced partly by the fact that there was a successful Judicial Review, in February of this year, in a case arising from a discipline appeal by a former Metropolitan Police officer, who claimed that he was treated more harshly than others known to him because he was required to resign following conviction. The Home Secretary has been given leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and the hearing is listed for December. However, this case has highlighted the importance of consistency.
In the recent Thematic Report on Integrity by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, it is pointed out (at 9.7) that Magistrates have had a tariff system for punishments for many years, with the flexibility of seriousness and mitigation affecting the outcome. HM Inspector was of the view that a tariff for discipline offences in general would benefit at least individual forces and the service as a whole.
I enclose the Guidelines which I have made into Annex N to Section 3 of the Home Office Guidance on Police Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures. I also enclose amended pages 3.18 to 3.20 which should replace the existing pp 3.18 to 3.20 of the Guidance since there is now a reference to the Guidelines at para 3.77. The terms of the guidance have been agreed by ACPO.
The Guidelines are to remind officers that they should expect to lose their job if convicted of a drink driving offence. Obviously this would not apply where there were exceptional circumstances but I have not set out the whole range of what could be regarded as exceptional since the presiding officer or chairman is best placed to decide what they are in individual cases. They should be used immediately.
Yours faithfully
Mrs K.I.Elam
Conduct and Complaints Section
ANNEX N
POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 1999
HOME OFFICE/ACPO JOINT GUIDELINES
POLICE OFFICERS CONVICTED OF DRINK DRIVING OFFENCES
The Home Office and Police Service are committed to reducing incidents of drink driving, both generally and within the Service.
The damage done to the reputation of the Service by officers convicted of these offences cannot be overstated and detracts from the credibility of the Service in this crucial area of law enforcement.
An officer convicted by a Court of a drink driving offence can expect to face a formal disciplinary hearing. The usual sanction to be applied is either dismissal or a requirement to resign to reflect the serious view which is taken, both inside the Service and by society generally.
A Discipline panel will always treat each case on its merits but officers presiding at such hearings must apply their judgement to the facts of the case to consider whether an alternative sanction could be justified. Aggravating factors in considering the seriousness of an offence include where:
• the offence was committed on duty;
• there is an attempt to avoid arrest;
• there is an attempt to interfere with due process, particularly by leaving the scene or improperly using his position as a police officer;
• the alcohol reading is particularly high; or
• the offence derives from a traffic accident or other incident involving a member of the public.
Only in cases where none of these circumstances exist and there are exceptional circumstances should a lesser sanction be imposed. When this happens the reasons should be clearly set out and recorded."
I have been unable to trace a definition of exceptional. In other cases I have been able to trace, not involving drink driving, 'exceptional' refers to the quality of the officer, his length of service, which have been held in the balance against the public expectation, etec., in the officer's favour.
Personally, twice over the limit and he's out.
Sir,
If you worked for a private company, was prosecuted for drink driving and lost your licence, yet was still able to get into work on time, there would be no reason to sack you, and should be the same in this case.
As a detective, he won't be dealing with drink drivers as part of his duties, so no hypocrisy could be called.
If you worked for a private company, was prosecuted for drink driving and lost your licence, yet was still able to get into work on time, there would be no reason to sack you, and should be the same in this case.
As a detective, he won't be dealing with drink drivers as part of his duties, so no hypocrisy could be called.
No Discretion said:
Sir,
If you worked for a private company, was prosecuted for drink driving and lost your licence, yet was still able to get into work on time, there would be no reason to sack you, and should be the same in this case.
As a detective, he won't be dealing with drink drivers as part of his duties, so no hypocrisy could be called.
You don't half sound like speed/street
Welcome to the forum.........possibly again?
Phil
No Discretion said:
Sir,
If you worked for a private company, was prosecuted for drink driving and lost your licence, yet was still able to get into work on time, there would be no reason to sack you, and should be the same in this case.
As a detective, he won't be dealing with drink drivers as part of his duties, so no hypocrisy could be called.
However - there is an issue of public confidence at stake and hypocrisy perhaps where the Police are enforcing drink-drive related matters.
A more appropriate analogy would be in the Banking/FS sector ( where I have worked for several years ) - you will not be employed if you have a record of outstanding debts / CCJ's - even if the role does not involve handling customers money. Similarly any (external) conviction for fraud etc. etc. would (almost certainly )result in dismissal - even if not related directly to ones workplace or role - one has to be "whiter than white" in matters of personal finance - job related or not.
Just as with the Police - its a matter of public confidence - no Bank could ever stand up and justify to its customers that it employs anyone who has a dodgy financial record /was bankrupt / had a previous conviction related to theft / fraud or similar.
Same principles should apply to the Police force.
>> Edited by alfaman on Friday 3rd December 20:48
Going by the Police Circular from which I quoted (on the Internet), this guy should have been dismissed, so again, I say, what were the 'exceptional circumstances' why he was not? These should have been made clear, the circular says. Was that the case? If not, why not? If not, does anyone have any comment/speculation on
"what exceptional circumstances there might be in which a police officer convicted of being twice the legal limit for drink driving can be let off by his superiors?"
Now there's a very good subject for a thread on its own! See it in this Forum
"what exceptional circumstances there might be in which a police officer convicted of being twice the legal limit for drink driving can be let off by his superiors?"
Now there's a very good subject for a thread on its own! See it in this Forum
alfaman said:
Sir,
If you worked for a private company, was prosecuted for drink driving and lost your licence, yet was still able to get into work on time, there would be no reason to sack you, and should be the same in this case.
As a detective, he won't be dealing with drink drivers as part of his duties, so no hypocrisy could be called.
However - there is an issue of public confidence at stake and hypocrisy perhaps where the Police are enforcing drink-drive related matters.
A more appropriate analogy would be in the Banking/FS sector ( where I have worked for several years ) - you will not be employed if you have a record of outstanding debts / CCJ's - even if the role does not involve handling customers money. Similarly any (external) conviction for fraud etc. etc. would (almost certainly )result in dismissal - even if not related directly to ones workplace or role - one has to be "whiter than white" in matters of personal finance - job related or not.
Just as with the Police - its a matter of public confidence - no Bank could ever stand up and justify to its customers that it employs anyone who has a dodgy financial record /was bankrupt / had a previous conviction related to theft / fraud or similar.
Same principles should apply to the Police force.
>> Edited by alfaman on Friday 3rd December 20:48
Sir,
To be honest with you...I agree totally...Personally, in my heart of hearts, I don't think a drink driving police officer should keep his job....You make a concerted decision to drink alcohol, knowing that your car is outside etc.
The private company reference, is that I don't like the two bites of the cherry punishments with police officer, ambulance officer and fireman. In my time I've arrested some very nasty and thoroughly dishonest people who have kept their jobs of responsibility in the private and public world, when she should have been sacked. However, the bosses and directors of these companies believe what happens outside the company doors, is nothing to do with them, regardless of the 'publicity.'
Liebchen ... I posted a BiB- bash story a bit back (
- I like BiB bash stories in the press 
).
This involved senior Manchester cop who was in charge of the "Witness Prottection" scheme. He was estranged from his wife und had a stormy meeting mit ihr in a wine bar - where he had driunk one white wine spritzer too many. She told the cops he was drink driving... he was picked up by "Manchester's finest" less than mile away from wine bar - where he tested twice the legal limit...
He received the statutory ban und in disciplinary .. he was demoted two ranks to Sergeant und lieber gone told us at time that this was a very nasty und hard punishment for him. Paper reported at time that he was to appeal against the internal discipline ... but no report as to how this has progressed so far.
But ... it ist part of how we perceive our cops .... they enforce the law und so we expect those who enforce to be cleaner than clean in each aspect of behaviour. But unfair as you are as human as we are ... but Mad Doc and myself would get hammered by our bosses if we did something deemed "unprofessional" - und a cop to be found guilty of drink driving ist perceived by Joe Public as such ... even by slightly naughty drivers who drive bit faster than the lollipop sign if it ist safe for life und licence
- I like BiB bash stories in the press ). This involved senior Manchester cop who was in charge of the "Witness Prottection" scheme. He was estranged from his wife und had a stormy meeting mit ihr in a wine bar - where he had driunk one white wine spritzer too many. She told the cops he was drink driving... he was picked up by "Manchester's finest" less than mile away from wine bar - where he tested twice the legal limit...
He received the statutory ban und in disciplinary .. he was demoted two ranks to Sergeant und lieber gone told us at time that this was a very nasty und hard punishment for him. Paper reported at time that he was to appeal against the internal discipline ... but no report as to how this has progressed so far.
But ... it ist part of how we perceive our cops .... they enforce the law und so we expect those who enforce to be cleaner than clean in each aspect of behaviour. But unfair as you are as human as we are ... but Mad Doc and myself would get hammered by our bosses if we did something deemed "unprofessional" - und a cop to be found guilty of drink driving ist perceived by Joe Public as such ... even by slightly naughty drivers who drive bit faster than the lollipop sign if it ist safe for life und licence
Sir,
While I agree that our police officers should be the figures of good against evil. I'm left wondering what type of police force will be left behind, once I retire. The new 'breed' of modern 'lefty' police officers who are coming through Hendon and other training centres will 'NEVER' drink and drive, or be rude to prisoners, or do absolutely anything wrong. Lets hope their 'coppering' skills are up to their morals......
While I agree that our police officers should be the figures of good against evil. I'm left wondering what type of police force will be left behind, once I retire. The new 'breed' of modern 'lefty' police officers who are coming through Hendon and other training centres will 'NEVER' drink and drive, or be rude to prisoners, or do absolutely anything wrong. Lets hope their 'coppering' skills are up to their morals......
Chief Superintendent Dave Jenkins said:
...there are exceptional circumstances...
Well OK but there are exceptional circumstances that can get Joe Pubic into bother after consuming falling down water but remaining under the limit, such as
1. using a mouthwash to get rid of beery doggy breath
2. eating a meal with a hard hitting sauce
3. taking some medications
etc
Any or all of these could take somebody over the limit from below, without them necessarily knowing. Would the Courts hold back on a ban or reduce the fine or dismiss the case - as they should - due to such exceptional circumstances? I doubt it.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 4th December 12:21
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff