Misconduct (13181/19)

Request

I note from your website that “Since 1 May 2015 police misconduct and special case hearings have been held in public in accordance with new national legislation. The change was introduced to increase transparency, accountability and public confidence”.

Unfortunately your reports regarding the hearings often lack details, thereby undermining the whole process and preventing the public from knowing the nature of the alleged breaching of standards, and therefore I would appreciate disclosure regarding the 3 completed cases currently displayed on your website(30th July 2019).

Former Officer PC 23138 James Wilson, case heard 25th July 2019, Breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour accused, Discreditable Conduct; Fitness for Work, case summary Following a mandatory blood test, the presence of Cocaine was detected in PC Wilson’s blood,Finding Gross Misconduct,Outcome,would have been dismissed.

PC 7369 Singh,case heard 3rd July 2019,Alleged breaches,Discreditable Conduct; Authority, Respect and Courtesy, case summary,Officer engaged in inappropriate relationships with vulnerable members of the public who he met during the course of his police duties. Officer pleaded guilty to offences of Corrupt/Improper exercise of police powers and privileges by a Constable,Finding Gross Misconduct,Outcome,Dismissed without notice.

Former PC 6233 Estridge,case heard 2nd July 2019,Alleged breaches,Discreditable Conduct; Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Confidentiality; Orders and Instructions,case summary,Officer engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable member of the public who he met during the course of his police duties. He also misused West Midlands Police systems to conduct checks for a non-policing purpose,Finding Gross Misconduct,Outcome,officer would have been dismissed.

FOI Q1.Regarding PC 23138 James Wilson, and his mandatory drug test for cocaine, is he the same James Wilson who was jailed for drug driving in October 2018? https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/sandwell/great-barr/2018/10/21/drug-driver-jailed-for-causing-death-of-great-barr-teenager/

FOI Q2.Regarding PC 7369 Singh,and his inappropriate relationships, is this the officer Palvinder Singh who sent sexual messages to vulnerable victims and contacted prostitutes while at work and was jailed for 14 months in July 2019 and,if so,why was the officer`s first name not revealed on the case hearing report, which means the report was rendered opaque?

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2019/07/10/disgraced-west-midlands-police-officer-sent-hundreds-of-sexual-messages-to-vulnerable-victims/

FOI Q3,Regarding Former PC 6233 Estridge, what was the officer`s first name and why was it omitted from the report thereby preventing case details to be researched in the media?

End of FOI requests.

The public lose faith in the integrity of the police when they only selectively disclose information, so providing answers to these questions will be helpful to restore confidence.

Response

Please see attached for information relating to question 3, in addition West Midlands Police will neither confirm nor deny that we hold any of the requested information as the following exemptions apply.

S40 (5) – Personal Data

This exemption and explanatory notes are shown here:

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/information-management/freedom-of-information/#freedom-of-information-exemptions

When citing Section 40(5), there is a requirement to consider whether disclosure would be fair.  In this case release would not be fair and therefore Section 40(5) is classed as absolute and there is no requirement to consider the public interest.

No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.

Attachments

13181_ATTACHMENT_01

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed