“I am sure you still looking amazingly hot”
“Coming on to victims is positively encouraged, it’s all part of the friendly and accessible face of the Met Police. It’s the rejection that is frowned upon”
“You have no shame! You could get fired for this!”
“You are probably right on both counts. I can assure [sic] that I am as determined in my pursuit of criminals as I am of beautiful women if that helps. You know where I am if you ever change your mind or need a friendly Police Officer” and told her that she had: “taken top spot as my favourite Camden victim of crime”
“Honesty and Integrity Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position. Authority, Respect and Courtesy Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals. Equality and Diversity Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly. Discreditable Conduct Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.”
“The second purpose is the most fundamental of all: to maintain reputation of the solicitors’ profession as one in which every member, of whatever standing, may be trusted to the ends of the earth. To maintain its reputation and sustain public confidence in the integrity of the profession it is often necessary that those guilty of serious lapses are not only expelled but denied re-admission. … A profession’s most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires.”
“In my opinion, despite the fact that the incident was historic and DCI Mason has made an admission and offered an apology, this matter is a serious breach of trust and could seriously undermine confidence and trust in the police. As such I do not think that DCI Mason can continue to serve as a police officer.”
“He clearly found her attractive and took a number of steps during the interview and the next day in email messages to establish a relationship with her. His description of her as looking amazingly hot and his admission in the email messages of being determined in his pursuit of beautiful women makes it clear that he was attempting to pursue a sexual relationship with her. This was such a fundamentally inappropriate way for him to have acted that the Panel are in no doubt that his behaviour constituted Gross Misconduct.”
“Finding on outcome including any aggravating or mitigating factors affecting the seriousness of the failures in standards AGGRAVATING FACTORS 1. There was a sexual motive for the actions of DCI Mason. 2. He was guilty of a breach of trust in the way that he dealt with Maria. 3. He continued his behaviour after Maria had suggested that he was acting inappropriately. 4. He knew that his actions were inappropriate at the time but continued in his attempt to create a personal relationship with Maria. 5. His behaviour had an adverse impact on Maria in that it caused her to have much less trust in the police and not seek their assistance subsequently. 6. Maria was the recent victim of a robbery and as a result was vulnerable. 7. There is a very significant level of public concern at the present time about the way in which police officers behave towards female members of the public. 8. DCI Mason has been found to have breached 3 separate Standards of Professional Behaviour. MITIGATING FACTORS 1. The misconduct was confined to a limited period of time over 2 successive days. 2. DCI Mason made admissions to most of the factual allegations he faced and admitted that his behaviour amounted to Misconduct. 3. DCI Mason had a further opportunity to attempt to create a personal relationship with Maria when she contacted him a few months later to report a burglary but he passed the investigation on to other officers. 4. DCI Mason has shown significant remorse for his inappropriate behaviour.” 5. The AA has provided evidence of the excellent service record of DCI Mason since 2011. 6. There are no reports of any inappropriate behaviour or misconduct by DCI Mason since the events which are the subject of this case. 7. DCI Mason has provided 7 character references, all of which speak very highly of his abilities as a police officer. 8. DCI Mason has achieved a number of promotions since 2011, rising from Detective Sergeant to Detective Inspector in 2015 and to Temporary Detective Chief Inspector in 2017. He is now a Detective Chief Inspector on the Flying Squad and was recently successful in a Superintendent promotion assessment centre. 9. In 2013, 2015 and 2018 he received commendations for his service in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The award in 2018 was from the Assistant Commissioner for extraordinary leadership, professionalism, resilience and dedication while providing counter-terrorism support to the investigation in response to the Westminster Bridge terrorist attack. 10. The events with which the Panel is concerned today occurred almost 10 years ago when public concern about the type of behaviour exhibited by DCI Mason was less pronounced. 11. The Code of Ethics which assists police officers in understanding their duties and obligations was formalised and published in 2014. Prior to this the guidance to police officers was less comprehensive. OUTCOME In considering outcome the Panel bore in mind that the purpose of the police misconduct regime is threefold: 1. To maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service 2. To uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct 3. To protect the public The Panel considered the 3 possible outcomes in ascending order of seriousness. The Panel had in mind that it should choose the least severe outcome which deals adequately with the issues identified. The Panel first considered a final written warning. This would remain in place for at least 2 years and not more than 5 years. The Panel has determined that the appropriate and proportionate outcome is that DCI Mason is given a final written warning. In considering the appropriate length of time that the final written warning should remain on the officer’s record the Panel took into account: (a) The seriousness of the conduct (b) The circumstances that gave rise to the misconduct (c) The public interest (d) The mitigation offered by the officer including previous record of conduct. The seriousness of the conduct appears from the list of aggravating factors mentioned above. The Panel do not minimise the seriousness of DCI Mason’s behaviour. However, this was misconduct over 2 days in an otherwise blameless career which has spanned 22 years and includes several promotions and 3 commendations. The lapse of time since the events occurred is significant. It is now 10 years since DCI Mason attempted to pursue a relationship with Maria. The delay in this matter coming before this Panel is mainly due to the delay in Maria making a complaint to the MPS. The issues arising in this case are currently very topical but were much less so in 2011. The matters referred to in the list of mitigating factors above provide strong reasons to support the imposition of a Final Written Warning of less than the maximum duration. However, the public interest in discouraging this type of behaviour is high. This type of behaviour and more serious examples of police officers abusing their position of trust when dealing with female members of the public have been prominent in the media in recent months. The Panel are mindful of this. In the final analysis the Panel must impose an outcome that is proportionate to the harm caused by the actions of DCI Mason. The outcome must deter misconduct in the future by members of the MPS. The outcome must aim to maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service. The Panel has concluded that a Final Written Warning for 3 years is the appropriate outcome. The more serious outcomes of Reduction in Rank or Dismissal without Notice would be disproportionately harsh in the Panel’s judgment in all the circumstances.”
“it would be wrong to conclude it is some form of route map for Misconduct Panels that either removes or significantly reduces the opportunity for a panel to assess matters for itself.”
“16. In my judgment this panel fell into error in the way it approached the sanction. The only way a court or anyone else reading the decision can be satisfied that the correct structured approach had been adopted is if either the panel identifies the structured approach that it is required to adopt expressly in the body of its decision and then explains how it has arrived at the relevant decision applying that approach. If that ideal approach is not adopted but it is apparent from the language used by the tribunal that in substance such an approach in fact has been adopted, then the court will not intervene. Obviously however the court will not guess or assume that a correct approach has been adopted if that is not apparent on the face of the decision. … 18. Although the panel states in the second and third line of its sanction decision that it has applied the principles in the guidance that falls far short of what is required in my judgment. It does not set out expressly or even refer expressly to the correct structured approach identified in Fugler summarised in the guidance even though the parties formerly cited Fugler to the panel. Even if the language used by the panel could be regarded as sufficient in the circumstances that of itself is not enough unless the reasoning that follows shows that effect has been given to the structured approach by reference to the purpose of sanctions identified in the guidance. The panel has identified certain aggravating factors and certain mitigating factors before then concluding that a final written warning was appropriate. By adopting that approach the panel fell into error because it did not attempt to assess how serious it concluded the misconduct to be. Seriousness is not a binary question. The focus of Chapter 4 of the guidance is on assessing how serious the misconduct is, not whether or not it was serious. Hence the reference for example in paragraph 4.15 to conduct that should be considered ‘especially serious’. The panel should have but has failed to assess the level of seriousness by reference to culpability, harm, aggravating factors and mitigating factors in the structured manner required by the guidance. Having reached a conclusion as to the level of seriousness displayed in circumstances of this case exhibited by the misconduct found to have occurred, the panel ought then to have considered sanction specifically by reference to the need to maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service, to uphold high standards, to deter misconduct and to protect the public. There is not a hint within the language used by the panel that this has been its approach.”
“HHJ Pelling was correct to make it clear that compliance with the obligation to have regard to Outcomes Guidance is a matter of substance, not form. However, it would be wrong to consider this or any other part of his judgment as applying some form of gloss either to the Outcomes Guidance such that it should be read as requiring a panel’s reasoning to follow one specific course in all cases, or to the well-known content of statutory “have regard” obligations as they apply to statutory guidance.”
“As the Outcome Guidance states, it is a general framework for assessing seriousness of misconduct. It does not require decisions to be expressed or laid out in any prescribed form. In this sense it is unhelpful to speak in terms of a “structured approach”
“40. It may fairly be said that the way the Panel set out this part of its reasons does not follow the list at paragraph 4.4 of the Outcomes Guidance, as a template. However, looking at the substance of the reasons there was no failure to have regard to the Guidance. The Panel’s list of aggravating factors includes the matters going to culpability (items 1, 3 and 4) and considers the harm caused (items 5 and 6). Later, under the heading “Outcome” the Panel referred to its list of aggravating factors as explaining the seriousness of the conduct. This was consistent with the Guidance. The Claimant submitted otherwise, relying in particular on the observation made by Judge Pelling in the Greater Manchester case that “seriousness is not a binary question” (see the passages quoted above, at paragraph 35). That phrase means no more than that a panel should explain its conclusion on seriousness by reference to facts of the case in hand. In the present case the Panel did this; the extent of the seriousness of the misconduct was explained by reference to the list of aggravating factors. 41. I am also satisfied that when the Panel made its decision on the penalty to impose, it did consider the need to maintain public confidence in the police. The Panel said as much under the heading “Outcome”
“although the Panel was required to adopt the three-stage approach laid down in the Guidance, the further provisions relating to seriousness were advisory rather than prescriptive – detailing how this element in the structure should be approached, not dictating a further structural requirement.”
“In cases where the misconduct occurred several years prior to the hearing the Panel should consider the outcome by reference to the standards of the time rather than current attitudes and standards.”
“Give due account to the officer’s conduct in the intervening years, for example, whether they performed their duties to a high standard.”
““disciplinary action for gross misconduct” means a finding that the officer concerned would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be a member of a police force…”
“Give due account to the officer’s conduct in the intervening years, for example, whether they performed their duties to a high standard.”
‘The second purpose is the most fundamental of all: to maintainthe reputation of the solicitors’ profession as one in which everymember, of whatever standing, may be trusted to the ends of theearth. To maintain this reputation and sustain public confidence in the integrity of the profession it is often necessary that those guilty of serious lapses are not only expelled but denied re-admission. If a member of the public sells his house, very often his largest asset, and entrusts the proceeds to his solicitor, pending re-investment in another house, he is ordinarily entitled to expect that the solicitor will be a person whose trustworthiness is not, and never has been, seriously in question. Otherwise, the whole profession, and the public as a whole, is injured. A profession’s most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires.’ …. 2.10 Misconduct proceedings are not designed to punish police officers. As stated by Lord Justice Laws in Raschid v General Medical Council: ‘The panel then is centrally concerned with the reputation or standing of the profession rather than the punishment of the doctor.’ 2.11 The outcome imposed can have a punitive effect, however, and therefore should be no more than is necessary to satisfy the purpose of the proceedings. Consider less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes. Always choose the least severe outcome which deals adequately with the issues identified, while protecting the public interest. … 3 Available outcomes 3.1 Misconduct is generally defined as unacceptable or improper behaviour and for police officers will involve a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour set out in Schedule 2 to the Conduct Regulations. 3.2 Regulation 33(13) of the Conduct Regulations provides that the person(s) conducting the misconduct proceedings shall: ‘...review the facts of the case and decide whether the conduct of the officer concerned amounts— in the case of a misconduct meeting, to misconduct or not; or in the case of a misconduct hearing, to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.’ …. 3.4 Under Regulation 3(1): ■ misconduct means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour■ gross misconduct means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour which is so serious that dismissal would be justified. … 4. Assessing seriousness 4.1 Assessing the seriousness of the conduct lies at the heart of the decision on outcome under Parts 4 and 5 of the Conduct Regulations. Whether conduct would, if proved, amount to misconduct or gross misconduct for the purposes of Regulation 12 of the Conduct Regulations is also a question of degree, ie, seriousness.4.2 As Mr Justice Popplewell explained, there are three stages to determining the appropriate sanction: ■ assess the seriousness of the misconduct ■ keep in mind the purpose of imposing sanctions ■ choose the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question. …. Culpability 4.10 Culpability denotes the officer’s blameworthiness or responsibility for their actions. The more culpable or blameworthy the behaviour in question, the more serious the misconduct and the more severe the likely outcome. 4.11 Conduct which is intentional, deliberate, targeted or planned will generally be more culpable than conduct which has unintended consequences, although the consequences of an officer’s actions will be relevant to the harm caused. ….. 4.13 Culpability will also be increased if the officer was holding a position of trust or responsibility at the relevant time. All police officers are in a position of trust, but an officer’s level of responsibility may be affected by specific circumstantial factors such as rank, their particular role and their relationship with any persons affected by the misconduct. 4.14 It is not possible to categorise all types of case where dismissal will be appropriate because the circumstances of the individual case must be considered. Many acts have the potential to damage public confidence in the police service. 4.15 The following types of misconduct, however, should be considered especially serious. …. Violence, intimidation or sexual impropriety 4.39 Misconduct involving violence, intimidation or sexual impropriety undermines public trust in the profession and is therefore serious. 4.40 This includes cases involving bullying or harassment, either in the police service or towards members of the public. Give attention to the degree of persistence, the vulnerability of the other party, the number of people subjected to the behaviour and whether the officer was in a specific position of authority or trust. More serious action is likely to be appropriate where the officer has demonstrated predatory behaviour motivated by a desire to establish a sexual or inappropriate emotional relationship with a colleague or member of the public. 4.41 The presence of any of these factors is likely to increase the seriousness of the misconduct, although the treatment of a single individual can be sufficiently serious to amount to gross misconduct. Breach of position of trust or authority 4.42 The nature of the Office of Constable means that all police officers are in a position of trust and authority in relation to members of the public. An officer’s misconduct will be more culpable where it involves an abuse of this position. Where an officer has used their position to pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with a member of the public, this should be regarded as an abuse of authority for sexual gain. Such conduct can cause substantial damage to public trust and confidence in the police and is particularly serious where the subject of the officer’s behaviour is a vulnerable person. …. 4.45 The misconduct may involve members of the public, victims of crime, offenders or witnesses during the course of an officer’s duties or as part of an investigation. Misconduct involving a vulnerable person 4.46 Many people come into contact with the police when they are at a particularly difficult or distressing point in their lives, and they are entitled to be treated professionally. 4.47 Officers must not, under any circumstances, use their professional position to initiate or pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with a vulnerable person. … 4.49 Factors which may give rise to vulnerability include: ■ age, and any other protected characteristic …. ■ experience of crime, including harassment or domestic abuse …… Harm 4.57 The harm caused by an officer’s actions can be considered in various ways including: Type of harm The types of harm caused or risked by different types of police misconduct are diverse. Victims may suffer: … ■ psychological distress …. Persons affected Misconduct may affect particular individuals, in which case the harm caused may depend on the victim’s personal characteristics and circumstances. Misconduct can also harm the wider community. Such harm may involve economic loss, harm to public health or interference with the administration of justice. Effect on the police service and/or public confidence Harm will likely undermine public confidence in policing. Harm does not need to be suffered by a defined individual or group to undermine public confidence. Where an officer commits an act which would harm public confidence if the circumstances were known to the public, take this into account. Always takeseriously misconduct which undermines discipline and good order within the police service, even if it does not result in harm to individual victims. 4.58 Assess the impact of the officer’s conduct, having regard to these factors and the victim’s particular characteristics. …. 4.65 Where gross misconduct has been found, however, and the behaviour caused or could have caused, serious harm to individuals, the community and/or public confidence in the police service, dismissal is likely to follow. A factor of the greatest importance is the impact of the misconduct on the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole. Aggravating factors 4.66 Aggravating factors are those tending to worsen the circumstances of the case, either in relation to the officer’s culpability or the harm caused. 4.67 Factors which indicate a higher level of culpability or harm include: ■ premeditation, planning, targeting or taking deliberate or predatory steps … ■ abuse of trust, position, powers or authority … ■ continuing the behaviour after the officer realised or should have realised that it was improper ….■ vulnerability of the victim …. ■ multiple proven allegations and/or breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour. 4.69 On occasions, two or more of the factors listed will describe the same feature of the misconduct – take care to avoid ‘double counting’