Police Snooper gets £270 fine and Community Service

[carinaman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5650549/Fe...

As that looks like a clear cut abuse of position and breach of trust I am struggling to see why she shouldn't be tried in a Court of Law for Misconduct in a Public Office?

So she's been given Community Service and a £270 fine. Why wasn't she in Court for Misconduct in a Public Office?

I thought most prosecutions started from the most serious offence and then drop down to lesser ofences if there's insufficient intent or the offence isn't 'made out'?

She was using taxpayer funded systems and data for her own little 'homer' project. I don't think an Internal Misconduct hearing is good enough really. I think professional standards policies make it fairly clear you can't use information on police computer systems for your own benefit or purpose.


I think the punishment is out of kilter with that meted out for driving offences. I am supposed to take driving offences seriously when serious crimes like that, from someone in a position of trust, gets slapped wrists? It's illogical and inconsistent.

Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 24th April 10:36

[carinaman]

Greendubber said:

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Unless you're wearing a special outfit.

[carinaman]

The Rookie said:

Well they had to pick one charge and chose the one they did, you can't be tried for multiple offences on the same facts. Only the CPS will know and frequently will have a lot more facts at hand than will be revealed in a newspaper report. While the Misconduct offence can carry a life sentence that wouldn't have happened anyway. depends really on whether the sentence is appropriate rather than the charge really?

Not really. I thought the punishment should fit the crime, not the other way around.

If you apply that logic where would you be with murder and manslaughter, where the difference is intent?

You don't decide which offence to indict so it fits the wanted sentence.

This police officer couldn't resist temptation. She could so she did.

[carinaman]

dacouch said:

I am not an expert but assume they went with the charge they knew she was likely to be found guilty of at court, higher charges come with the risk of a jury finding her not guilty

Fair point.

But not using police systems for private purposes would've been made clear in their IT usage policy.

It seems her intent was used in her defence, but as a breach of IT usage policy and misusing police IT systems while holding public office.

Part of my problem with it could be such misuse of police systems is a well known no no, and it's stated it's wrong in a formal policy.

It could seem a public office holding police officer thought the rules didn't apply to them.

Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 24th April 12:17

[carinaman]

TooMany2cvs said:

carinaman said:

So she's been given Community Service and a £270 fine.

And is also going to lose her career and 20yrs-worth of police pension entitlement.

'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime......


How often do Judges use the law to send a 'clear message'? I'm not sure what message this case sends.