A cop who appeared on Channel 5 show Police Interceptors star has been barred from policing for life after a misconduct hearing found he slept with a junior colleague while on duty
A police officer who appeared on Channel 5’s Police Interceptors has been barred from policing for life. This comes after he was found to have had sex with a junior colleague while on duty – and even took his police dog along to an illicit late-night meet-up.
Former Cleveland Police temporary sergeant Ben Sutcliffe, an acting sergeant who served in Teesside for 21 years, was found guilty of gross misconduct at a disciplinary hearing on Wednesday (October 21).
The hearing, chaired by Chief Constable Victoria Fuller, concluded that if Sutcliffe had not already resigned from the force in February, he would have been dismissed without notice.
The hearing was told that during a night shift in July 2024, Sutcliffe texted a probationary constable, referred to as PC A, at 1:41am asking where he could park at her house. He further reportedly said he would leave the boot of his police vehicle open.
Because he was a dog handler, the boot had to be left open to ventilate the police dog while he went inside to have sex with the officer after being “stood down” from active duties at the end of his shift, Manchester Evening News reported. Investigators also uncovered an extraordinary volume of messaging between the pair.
A forensic examination of PC A’s phone found 57,568 WhatsApp messages and 6,631 texts exchanged since summer 2024. Moreover, a vast number said to be highly explicit were sent while Sutcliffe was actively on duty, distracting him from his work, Teesside Live reported.
Detective Inspector Holly Hunter of the force’s professional standards department told the hearing: “There were a large number of photographs and videos which were sexual in nature and were exchanged while the former officer was on duty. The messages also showed that sexual activity had taken place in public places, albeit whilst the officers were off duty.”
DI Hunter added: “On August 3, 2024 the former officer messaged PC A indicating his wish to have sex outside and refers to sexual activity in a car park in broad daylight, which he later described as risky. In October of 2024 they discuss their sexual activity in public places and the risk of getting caught.
“It is evident the sexual activity has taken place, with the former officer referring to it.” Concerns were first flagged to professional standards in November 2024 after separate allegations from another officer.
When Sutcliffe was initially interviewed, he denied any wrongdoing, insisting: “We are friends who go for dog walks and have coffee together.” But at the same time, messages showed him warning PC A: “Stick to the story and we won’t get caught,” which the force said amounted to “controlling and coercive behaviour” towards a junior officer.
The panel also found Sutcliffe guilty of breaching confidentiality by leaking sensitive, restricted police information. In July 2025 he passed confidential details to PC A about the arrest of another officer at his home, something the hearing said served absolutely no legitimate policing purpose.
In November 2025, PC A admitted the relationship to investigators and Sutcliffe was suspended. Sutcliffe did not attend the disciplinary hearing in Stockton, but submitted a written statement admitting his behaviour amounted to misconduct while arguing it was not gross misconduct.
Chief Constable Fuller rejected that, saying: “The former officer’s conduct was planned, intentional and deliberate, to enter a relationship in secret and to lie about it. He was in a position of authority at the time.
“The appropriate authority does not contend abuse of position but he would have known not to engage in a relationship with a junior officer.” Cleveland Police chose not to take disciplinary action against PC A, though Fuller said: “The matters require further consideration by the appropriate authority.”
In a statement released by the Police Federation, Sutcliffe said: “I wish to emphasise that at no stage did I intend to deceive, manipulate or misuse my position.
“My primary motivation in withholding details was to maintain privacy due to past negative experiences within the organisation.” He added: “I apologise for the areas where I fell short and I have reflected on them.”
For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.