Sergeant demoted after undoing ‘junior’ colleague’s bra strap on work evening out
A Warwickshire Police sergeant has been demoted following a night out where he unhooked a ‘junior’ colleague’s bra strap.
Jacob Tyler, initially at risk of being sacked, will now continue his police career as a constable after owning up to his actions at a misconduct hearing held on September 9.
The officer was once praised by peers but lost his squad’s trust after the incident, which was downplayed as “misjudged tomfoolery” and not sexually motivated in the report. Despite the blunder shaking public confidence, higher-ups decided to give Tyler a chance to regain respect among his colleagues.
READ MORE: Moment girl is ‘slammed to the ground’ by cop as parent and child brawl erupts
See our latest police news
The boozy debacle unfolded while Tyler was on his way to Birmingham New Street Station following a team social event on August 12, 2022. He confessed to gross misconduct for behaviour unbecoming of an officer relating to ‘discreditable conduct’ and breaching standards of ‘authority, respect, and courtesy’.
An express report from the misconduct proceedings emphasised: “Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. The conduct breached the standards of professional behaviour and amounts to gross misconduct.”
“It is particularly important that the AA [Appropriate Authority] and the victim do not say the conduct was sexual. I find the conduct was misjudged ‘tomfoolery’ during a social event, off-duty. Nevertheless, it is serious, for the reasons the AA have submitted.”, reports Birmingham Live.
“The victim’s personal space was invaded and it is particularly unacceptable that this happened to a junior female officer. The officer’s regulation 54 response to the case also demonstrates mature reflection on why his conduct was completely unacceptable.”
The report went on: “Culpability is high because, as the officer recognises, he has no-one to blame bar himself. However, I do believe there was no pre-planning and I accept the conduct was an opportunistic act which was very ill-judged, rather than malicious or sinister conduct.”
“Again, the AA and victim agree, it was not sexual misconduct according to the victim: “I’m not saying he did it because he wanted to see my boobs or he did it because it was a sexual thing, he did it … if he did it ‘cos he was trying to be an idiot, like he was smashed and he just did it, but it threw me off.
“But it has also been accepted by the AA that there was a context of laughter on the evening in question around the conduct, and an apology and forgiveness the next day which lessened any harm. There was also a continued supportive relationship on shift between the parties after the incident for a long period before the matter was raised.”
“So, it is my view, that the level of harm in this particular case, which again did not involve any sexual intent or feeling by the victim of sexual intent, is mid-level only.”
The report from the hearing stated that “I do not think dismissal is warranted either. The main reason for this is, as I have emphasised above, the absence of any sexual or sinister intent, and the fact this was a one-off incident of gross misconduct in a social setting off-duty, which the officer apologised for quickly and then made unreserved admissions of wrongdoing.”
Instead, it has been decided that “Instead I find that reduction in rank is the appropriate and proportionate outcome in this case, from sergeant to constable. The officer has been well-regarded for his public service to date, and operationally he can be reintegrated into the force in the role of constable.”
Commenting on the situation, Det Supt Paul Thompson, who leads the professional standards department, said: “Even when not on duty officers are expected to uphold our standards of professional behaviour. The hearing found the officer breached standards of professional behaviour, specifically discreditable conduct.”
Thompson noted, “It was made clear during this hearing that colleagues had regarded the officer highly in the past. In behaving as he did, he demonstrated a failure of leadership. He has lost the trust of his colleagues and his actions negatively impact public confidence.”
Debbie Tedds, Chief Constable, who chaired the hearing, decided that demotion was a fitting punishment as the officer took full responsibility for his actions and she believed he deserved a chance to regain his colleagues’ trust.
She added: “As with any case of misconduct we will use this incident as an opportunity to remind other members of our workforce of the standards we expect and the consequences if they don’t live up to these standards.”
Warwickshire Police confirmed that the hearing’s outcome is ‘subject to an appeals process’. A representative for the force stated: “If you have any reason to believe a member of Warwickshire Police is guilty of misconduct in their position, there are multiple ways in which you can report this:”.
