A North Yorkshire Police officer has been sacked after accessing and sharing confidential video footage.
The officer, who has not been named to protect witnesses, was dismissed after a misconduct hearing at the force’s Northallerton HQ.
He worked in the Investigation Hub.
A report said he was in a relationship with a woman, named as AB.
On 1 January 2024 AB reported she had been assaulted by her ex-husband, CD. AB and CD have a child together.
The day after, the officer had an “inappropriate conversation” with PS Flowers about this incident including asking about plans to arrest CD.
The report said: “When spoken to by police as part of a separate investigation, AB’s daughter had a note of viewing body worn video with the officer, was able to recall the content of some of that body worn video and also had a photograph of the officer showing her body worn video.”
The allegations against the officer were:
- On both 1 and 2 January 2024, when on a planned rest day, the officer accessed the NYEYE Detained Log without a policing purpose
- On 16 January 2024 at around 6pm-6.40pm, the officer showed AB’s daughter nine items of body worn video footage without any policing purpose in circumstances where she was able to take a photograph and send it to another person.
At the hearing, chaired by Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Jackson, both the officer and his partner gave evidence.
The hearing heard that DC Jackson spoke to AB’s daughter on the 21st March 2024 as part of a separate investigation.
DC Jackson described how AB’s daughter showed her a note on her mobile phone, detailing that the officer showed her, along with her mother and the officer’s son, some body worn footage on his laptop.
She witnessed footage which showed, among other things:
- An incident where a dog was removed from a property
- An incident in a Tesco car park where “a few officers … had to tackle a member of the public”
- An incident where the officer “sprayed or tasered” a woman on a dark street.
AB’s daughter had also taken a photo of the officer’s laptop and later sent the photo to another person.
The report said: “the officer accepted that he viewed the nine items of body worn footage on 16 January 2024 but denied showing the footage to any third party, and specifically to AB’s daughter.”
He said he was wearing headphones while reviewing the footage and “was not aware of AB’s daughter in his vicinity”.
The panel concluded that the daughter could not have provided her detailed recollection without being permitted sight and hearing of sensitive police data.
They found all three allegations proven, amounting to gross misconduct. The officer was dismissed without notice.
