Accelerated hearing outcome for former PC Joshua Davison

IN THE MATTER OF AN ACCELERATED MISCONDUCT HEARING

UNDER THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020

 

RE: FORMER POLICE CONSTABLE 3124 JOSHUA DAVISON 

DECISION

Introduction

This Accelerated Misconduct Hearing (‘AMH’) in respect of Former Police Constable 3124 Joshua Davison (‘the Former Officer’) is being held on 8^th October 2026. The Former Officer resigned from Northumbria Police on Friday 17^th October 2025.

1. The purpose of this AMH is for me to consider the evidence and decide:
   1. Whether the matters alleged are proved on the balance of probabilities and, if proved;
   2. Whether the conduct amounts a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour and, if so;
   3. Whether the breaches constitute Gross Misconduct, Misconduct or neither, and;
   4. If necessary, to determine the appropriate disciplinary outcome.

3. The Former Officer has not attended the AMH, but is represented by his Police Federation representative, PS Gary Sharpe. PS Sharpe has confirmed that the Former Officer has voluntarily decided not to attend the Hearing and is content for the Hearing to proceed in his absence. No application was made to adjourn the hearing.

4. As the Former Officer was aware of the proceedings and has voluntarily chosen not to attend the Hearing and being satisfied that it was fair to proceed and conduct the Hearing in the Former Officer’s absence and given the public interest in Accelerated Misconduct Proceedings being determined expeditiously, I am entirely satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed with today’s AMH in the Former Officer’s absence.

Reporting Restriction

5. Prior to the Hearing I imposed reporting restrictions under Regulations 53 and 59 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations’) to prohibit the reporting of the name, or other information which may lead to the identification of, the Former Officer’s former partner, who I will refer to as ‘Person A’.

6. Notwithstanding the important principle of open justice, particularly in the context of police misconduct proceedings, I concluded that it was necessary to protect the welfare of Person A to impose a restriction prohibiting the reporting of her identity. Such a restriction is the least restrictive measure which can achieve that aim, and it still allows for the reporting of the nature and outcome of the proceedings faced by the Former Officer.

The Allegations

7. The Regulation 51 Notice served in respect of these proceedings alleges that the Former Officer:

• On 5 August 2022 you accessed electronic custody records within Northumbria Police systems without a policing purpose and contrary to force policy.
• On 9 October 2022 you accessed electronic custody records within Northumbria Police systems without a policing purpose and contrary to force policy.
• On 27 December 2022 you sent WhatsApp messages that were discriminatory in nature.
• On 18 January 2023 you sent a WhatsApp message that was discriminatory in nature.
• On 26 January 2023, you sent a WhatsApp message that was discriminatory in nature.
• On 7 April 2023 you sent a WhatsApp message that was discriminatory in nature.
• On 22 August 2023 whilst on duty you recorded and sent a video of a sexual nature.
• On 20 November 2025 in the Crown Court at Teesside, you pleaded guilty to, and were convicted of, ‘Controlling Or Coercive Behaviour In An Intimate Or Family Relationship’, for which you were sentenced on 16 January 2026 to a period of 16 months imprisonment

8. The Former Officer’s conduct is alleged breached the following Standard of Professional Behaviour:

• Confidentiality, in that by your actions in paragraphs 1 and 2 you did not treat information with respect and did not access it only in the proper course of your police duties.
• Orders & Instructions, in that by your actions in paragraphs 1 and 2 you did not abide by force policies and accessed custody records for a non-policing purpose.
• Authority, Respect & Courtesy, in that by your language in paragraphs 3 to 6 you did not treat members of the public and/or colleagues with respect or courtesy.
• Equality & Diversity, in that by your actions particularised at paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 you used inappropriate language in relation to sections of the community that you served and did not pay due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality and good relations between persons of different groups.
• Discreditable Conduct, in that:
  1. Engaging in sexual activity on duty and in police premises as particularised in paragraph 7;
  2. Your conviction for a criminal offence in paragraph 8,

could discredit the police service, bring the police service into disrepute and/or damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the police and the public.

The Evidence

9. The Former Officer joined Northumbria Police on 3^rd June 2019 and worked on the response policing team at Whickham police station, Gateshead. The Former Officer began a relationship with a police employee, Person A, in November 2021, although they continued to live separately. That relationship ended in September 2023, when Person A discovered that the Former Officer had been contacting another woman.

Person A’s Account

10. In February 2024, Person A reported that the Former Officer had engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour towards her during their relationship for a period of approximately 18 months. Person A provided a video recorded interview in which she described how within a month of their relationship starting, the Former Officer had mood swings and was jealous of Person A speaking to other men.

11. The Former Officer would also send Person A a large number of text messages and if she did not respond the Former Officer would react badly; he would be irrational, abusive and paranoid. The Former Officer expected Person A to update him with her whereabouts through the course of the day and send videos to prove her whereabouts and would be questioned by the Former Officer if she were delayed on the journey home from work.

12. The Former Officer’s behaviour caused Person A anxiety particularly if she could not get a mobile phone signal, or if her work meant that she could not respond to the Former Officer’s messages before he got angry. There was also an occasion when the Former Officer logged into Person A’s Instagram account without her permission and when she challenged him, the Former Officer said that had intended to upload a picture of them together to show that she was in a relationship.

13. This controlling behaviour continued throughout their relationship, with the Former Officer insisting that she video the interior of her house to show she was alone and send a video of her in bed in the morning to prove that there was nobody in the bedroom with her. On one occasion, after Person A sent the Former Officer a picture of herself one afternoon, the Former Officer messaged her and told her to fasten the buttons on her blouse higher. The Former Officer also told Person A how to wear her hair.

14. Person A described the impact the Former Officer’s behaviour had on her wellbeing and her work, with the Former Officer becoming upset if she were late home from work for any reason. The Former Officer would question why she had not responded to his numerous text messages and told her that she could never lie about what she was doing at work because he could always check.

15. Person A also described how, in around February 2022 she and the Former Officer stayed in a hotel after a night out. They had an argument and she was sat on the floor, crying and the Former Officer ripped a bracelet off her wrist. Person A described how this was the first time he had been physically abusive.

16. Person A described how, in June 2022, on a short break together, during an argument, the Former Officer ‘flipped’. The Former Officer had seen a message on Person A’s phone from a male colleague and became angry. The Former Officer pushed Person A in the face and grabbed her by the arm. This was seen by the City Council CCTV camera operators who informed the police. The police attended and spoke to Person A and the Former Officer individually; both stated it had been a verbal only argument and no further action was taken.

17. On 22^nd August 2022, Person A was due to go on a night out with her shift and Person A then booked a meal for the two of them at a restaurant and insisted Person A leave the night out early to eat with him instead. Together they re-joined the night out after eating together at the restaurant, however, the Former Officer’s mood changed at around 10pm and as Person A interacted with her colleagues the Former Officer texted her abusive messages saying they needed to leave. That night they stayed at a hotel in Newcastle and during an argument the Former Officer grabbed Person A by the neck and pinned her to the bed. Person A stated that the Former Officer was not strangling her as such but kept her pinned by her neck and upper arms while he shouted at her.

18. In September 2022, Person A and the Former Officer were staying away and they were in a bar having a good night until they both went to the toilets, which were unisex. Whilst in the corridor the Former Officer went ‘wild’ and put his hands around Person A’s neck and smacked her head against the wall and pinned her on the ground. Both Person A and the Former Officer were intoxicated, but there was no justification for what the Former Officer did.

19. In May 2023, the Former Officer and Person A were again staying away and during an evening out the Former Officer’s behaviour changed. They were staying the night at a friend’s house and went to the bedroom whilst the other guests remained in the garden where music was playing. An argument started and the Former Officer grabbed Person A by the upper arms and her neck, and he then hit her head against the bedroom wall and was gripping her neck to the extent that her breathing was constricted and she was struggling to breathe. The Former Officer pinned her to the bed and gouged at her eye, causing a scratch. The following day Person A covered the scratch with make-up and wore her sunglasses.

20. Person A described how she ended her relationship with the Former Officer in September 2023 after she discovered that the Former Officer had been texting other women.

Further Enquiries

21. From a review of messages between the Former Officer and Person A, it was discovered that on 5^th August 2022 the Former Officer messaged Person A asking why she had not replied to him as her last custody check had been 10 minutes earlier.

22. Police systems show that on 5^th August 2022 Person A was working in a police custody suite when the Former Officer accessed two Electronic Custody Records (ECRs) between the times of 21:41:05 and 21:42:19 and Person A had earlier been updating those records.

23. Similarly, on 9^th October 2022 the Former Officer accessed 12 ECRs between the times of 05:35:27 and 05:39:17 when Person A was working in a custody suite. Of the 12 ECRs which the Former Officer accessed, Person A had appended updates to 11 of the associated Custody Logs during the early hours of 9^th October 2022.

Interviews

24. The Former Officer was first interviewed on 21^st February 2024 and denied any wrongdoing in a prepared statement.

25. He was re-interviewed on 18^th March 2025, and said, “I do accept that my role in a lot of the messaging was not great”, “I appreciate that you know there was times where I was quite forceful via text”, “but this was a two-way thing it wasn’t just me”. The Former Officer accepted the way he went on wasn’t acceptable and stated the way he communicated was blunt and emotionless.

26. The Former Officer was asked to explain a text conversation on 9 September 2022 where there were 1,187 messages sent between Person A and the Former Officer between 10:39 hours and 17:52 hours, of which Person A sent 455 and the Former Officer 742. When the Officer was asked whether there were rules set out in their relationship the Former Officer said that they had an agreement to keep in touch with each other whilst at work and Person A would send a ‘dot’ if she was unable to respond more fully. He also said that it wasn’t a rule, but he and Person A had agreed that they wouldn’t work with someone of the same sex which he said was a result of his insecurities.

27. The Former Officer was reminded that Person A has messaged the Former Officer “your stupid rules need to change” but the Former Officer insisted that the rules had been agreed between both he and Person A. The Former Officer accepted the level of contact was ridiculous, and he probably caused a lot of the arguments, but he would always try and apologise.

28. The Former Officer said that he could not recall asking Person A to send videos of herself at home to prove she was alone but if there were videos he may have asked because he wanted reassurance. The Former Officer admitted asking her about where she was if she hadn’t arrived when he expected her to but said this was not to challenge her but because he was worried about her. The Former Officer said that he would become anxious if he could not contact Person A, and he would be annoyed if she was late home and would take it out on Person A. The Former Officer denied telling Person A what she could wear but was referred to a text conversation from January 2022 where he said that he was unhappy about Person A’s blouse and tells her to do up the buttons.

29. The Former Officer accepted that he may have felt that Person A was ignoring him if he did not receive an update from her and described one of his ‘pet peeves’ was on WhatsApp when she would leave him on ‘read.’

30. A text conversation from 15 December 2022, when Person A was at court was read out which showed that the Former Officer had repeatedly phoned and texted Person A saying, “are you for real answer” and “answer now I swear to god”. The Former Officer accepted this was an overreaction by him but accepted that he did not think Person A would have been able to function at work with the amount of messaging and updates he wanted.

31. The Former Officer was referred to message from 2 February 2023 when the Former Officer asked Person A to send him her location and then “show me the house” to prove there are no men in her house. The Former Officer admitted sending the messages and added “I mean not, not that concerned or anything like that, but enough to ask for a picture”.

32. A text conversation was read out from 8 August 2022 where the Former Officer and Person A argued about Person A going out on the 22 August 2022. The Former Officer was unhappy about Person A going out and she tells him that nothing will happen and to trust her. The Former Officer is asked to account for sending Person A 19 WhatsApp messages and calling her 8 times in 22 minutes whilst she was on work, accusing her of ignoring him.

33. The Former Officer admitted that would check police computer systems to see what Person A was doing and admitted accessing records outside of his area of responsibility and that he had no policing purpose when he accessed police systems on 5 August 2022 and 9 October 2022 when he was checking to see what Person A was doing.

34. The Former Officer said that he regrets the level of contact he expected from Person A when she was at work, but it was not to the extent of coercive control, though he denied assaulting her.

Criminal Proceedings

35. On 5^th September 2025, the Former Officer was charged (by postal requisition) with offences of controlling and coercive behaviour, namely that between 1^st December 2021 and 31^st July 2023, he repeatedly or continuously engaged in behaviour which was controlling or coercive, namely, commented upon, and told her to button up, her clothing, questioned and abusively commented upon contact she had with other males, changed work commitments to attend on courses with her, relentlessly contacted her insisting that her was updated about her whereabouts and actions at work and in her personal life, deliberately and repeatedly woke her up from sleep after nightshifts, attended, unannounced, at a girls weekend, on numerous occasions grabbed her by the arms and shook her, used a silver bracelet as a punishment or reward, checked her social media account without her permission, and used violence towards Person A, to whom, at the time of the behaviour, you were personally connected, that behaviour having a serious effect on her and you knew or ought to have known that the behaviour would have a serious effect on her.

36. The Former Officer was also charged with the non-fatal strangulation of Person A.

37. On 12^th November 2025, the Former Office submitted a basis of plea (dated 24^th October 2025) in respect of the controlling and coercive behaviour offence which read:

1. The defendant accepts that he repeatedly or continuously engaged in behaviour which was controlling or coercive, including, commented upon, and telling Person A to button up her clothing.
2. The defendant accepts he questioned Person A about, and abusively commented upon, contact she had with other males, and changed work commitments to attend on courses with her.
3. The defendant accepts he repeatedly contacted Person A and insisted that he was updated about her whereabouts and actions, at work and in her personal life.
4. The defendant accepts there were occasions when he deliberately woke Person A up from sleep after nightshifts, and arguments did occur the lead to physical violence between them, and on numerous occasions grabbed Person A by the arms and shook her
5. The defendant accepts he attended at a girl’s weekend early in their relationship, but disputes he was uninvited, but accepts his subsequent behaviour during the relationship was such that Person A was likely to feel obliged to invite him to other social events involving her friends.
6. The defendant has no recollection of using a silver bracelet as a punishment or reward but accepts the likelihood that this has occurred.
7. The defendant accepts he checked Person A’s social media account but disputes that was without her permission though accepts they both viewed each other’s social media and that Person A would have failed [sic. felt] obliged to agree to this.
8. The defendant accepts that he did use violence towards Person A, but denies the allegation identified as ripping Person A’s knickers. The defendant will accept there were regular argumentative outbursts throughout the relationship, made worse by alcohol consumption, for which he invariably instigated. The defendant accepts the behaviour outlined is inexcusable but reflects his emotional immaturity, and deep-rooted insecurities, for which he is actively seeking treatment for.”

38. On 20^th November 2025, the Former Officer subsequently pleaded guilty to engaging in coercive and coercive behaviour towards Person A on that basis, which was accepted by the prosecution. On 16^th January 2026, the Former Officer was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.

Telephone Examination

39. Finally, during the course of the investigation, and during an examination of Person A’s mobile telephone, it was also discovered that, whilst on duty:
    1. On 27 December 2022 the Former Officer sent WhatsApp messages that used discriminatory language.
    2. On 18 January 2023 the Former Officer sent WhatsApp messages that used discriminatory language.
    3. On 26 January 2023, the Former Officer sent WhatsApp messages that used discriminatory language.
    4. On 7 April 2023 the Former Officer sent WhatsApp messages that used discriminatory language
    5. On 22 August 2023, whilst on duty, the Former Officer recorded and sent a video of a sexual nature to Person A. 

40. During his interview the Former Officer did not dispute that the relevant telephone number was his and the tone and content of the messages indicate that he was responsible for sending of those messages, particularly when assessed against the police work which the Former Officer was engaged in at the material times. 

41. Similarly, in respect of his sending the video, records indicate that the Former Officer was on duty at the material time, the tone and content of the messages indicate that he was engaged in sexualised conversation with Person A immediately prior to sending the video, and the video background matches the interior of the police staff toilets. 

42. The Former Officer has declined to provide a response in relation to these further allegations.

Findings

43. In reaching my findings, I recognise that it is for the Appropriate Authority to prove the allegations on the balance of probabilities, that I must consider each allegation separately and reach a separate finding in respect of each allegation. I have also reminded myself of the definition of Gross Misconduct, which is defined in the Regulations as “a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal.” 

44. Having considered all of the papers in this matter, including the Former Officer’s basis of plea and certificate of conviction, the admissions the Former Officer made in his police interview regarding accessing police systems without a proper purpose, and relevant extracts from the examination of Person A’s mobile telephone, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that all of the allegations set out in the Regulation 51 Notice are proved.

45. I am further satisfied that the Former Officer’s conduct amounts to breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour as alleged, and that those breaches are so serious that they amount, individually and cumulatively, to Gross Misconduct.

Outcome

46. In reaching my decision regarding the disciplinary outcome of this case, I have had regard to all of the evidence and information put before me and the written and oral submissions which I have received, and I have also considered the Former Officer’s police record.

47. I have also had regard to the College of Policing ‘Guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings’ (the ‘Outcomes Guidance’) and the Home Office Guidance.

48. I recognise that the purpose of the police misconduct regime is threefold:

• to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service;
• to uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct; and
• to protect the public

49. Misconduct proceedings are not designed to punish police officers but are centrally concerned with the reputation or standing of the profession. The most important purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions is to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the policing profession as a whole and that dual objective must take precedence over the specific impact that the sanction has on the individual whose misconduct is being sanctioned.

50. I have considered less serious disciplinary sanctions before more serious ones and have identified the least severe outcome which deals adequately with the issues identified, while protecting the public interest.

51. I have followed a three-stage process to determining the appropriate sanction in this case, namely:

• assessed the seriousness of the misconduct;
• kept in mind the purpose of imposing sanctions;
• chosen the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.

52. In determining seriousness, I have had regard to the four factors detailed in the College of Policing Guidance: culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, before having regard to any personal mitigation.

53. For completeness I also indicate that, in respect of the Former Officer’s conviction for controlling and coercive behaviour towards Person A I have assessed the seriousness of the Former Officer’s conduct solely on the basis of the conduct which he admitted in his basis of plea, as set out above.

Culpability

54. The Former Officer engaged in intentional, deliberate, persistent and targeted misconduct towards Person A. It was also criminal misconduct, as admitted in his basis of plea and guilty plea, aggravated by the domestic circumstances in which it was committed.

55. The Guidance makes clear (at §4.17) that: “It is unacceptable for police officers, who are responsible for enforcing the law, to break the law themselves” and the Guidance also confirms (at §4.14) that such misconduct should be considered especially serious.

56. The Guidance also makes clear (at §4.47) that: "violence against women and girls perpetrated by a police officer, whether on-duty or off-duty, will always harm public confidence in policing, since this is inimical to the values of modem policing and the Standards of Professional Behaviour."

57. I also have regard to paragraph 4.62 of the Guidance which provides that:

“Violence against women and girls perpetrated by a police officer, whether on-duty or off-duty, will always have a high degree of culpability, with the likely outcome being severe.”

58. In respect of the Officer’s misuse of police computer systems and the sending of offensive and discriminatory messages, those too are intentional, deliberate and repeated acts of misconduct.

59. As the Guidance makes clear (at §4.34) “The misuse of police computer systems or confidential police information more generally is a particular concern for the police service. Police computer and manual systems hold a significant amount of information about members of the public. Most of this is sensitive, and it is both a public expectation and a legal requirement that information obtained during the course of policing duties should be treated in strictest confidence, properly protected and used only for legitimate policing purposes.”

60. Here the Former Officer deliberately accessed police systems without a proper purpose, but to allow him to check on Person A, as part of his controlling behaviour towards her.

61. In relation to the discriminatory messages, as the Guidance makes clear (at §4.54): “Discrimination towards persons on the basis of any protected characteristic is never acceptable and always serious” and here there are repeated, highly offensive messages which the Former Officer sent.

62. Finally, the Former Officer, whilst on duty, masturbated on police premises and video recorded himself and then sent that video to Person A. Such behaviour was plainly intentional.

63. I therefore conclude that the Former Officer’s culpability is Very High. 

Harm

64. It is apparent that the Former Officer’s conduct towards Person A had a significant effect on her, causing her physical injuries as a result of the violence he used towards her, as well as significant psychological distress and upset. Person A described being left with injuries as a result of the Former Officer’s violence and being left anxious and “so unhappy inside” because of his behaviour toward her.

65. The Former Officer’s coercive and controlling behaviour and his criminal conviction for that offence would also plainly have significant adverse impact on public confidence in the police service, particularly amongst women and girls, were they to become aware of the Former Officer’s conduct.

66. Public confidence in the police service would also be significantly damaged if the public were to become aware of the Former Officer’s misuse of police computer systems, use of discriminatory language and expression of discriminatory attitudes, and the fact that he engaged in masturbation whilst on duty and on police premises.

67. I therefore assess the harm cause, or likely to be caused, by the Former Officer’s conduct as Very High.

Aggravating factors

68. Being careful not to double count any aggravating factor which I have already taken into account, in my view, the Former Officer’s conduct is aggravated by:

• The Former Officer’s malign intent when misusing police systems and engaging in a sexual act on video
• This was regular, repeated or sustained behaviour over a period of time;
• The Former Officer continued his behaviour after the officer realised, or should have realised, that it was improper;
• The scale or depth of local or national concern about a particular issue, given the nationwide and deep public concern there is about police officers’ conduct and attitudes towards women;
• Significant deviation from instructions, whether an order, force policy or national guidance, since, in addition to his behaviour being obviously unacceptable, the Former Officer had undergone specific training on diversity, equality and inclusion.

Mitigating factors

69. No mitigation has been advanced on behalf of the Former Officer. Nevertheless, I have had regard to the admissions which the Former Officer made in his second interview, and his early guilty plea at Court. I also have regard to the Former Officer’s record of police service.

70. In my judgment, given the serious and persistent misconduct which the Former Officer engaged in, the mitigating factors do not materially reduce the seriousness of the Former Officer’s misconduct.

Personal Mitigation

71. No personal mitigation has been advanced on behalf of the Former Officer, and I note that, in any case, the Guidance makes clear (at §6.4), that due to the nature and purpose of disciplinary proceedings, the weight of personal mitigation will necessarily be limited, particularly where - as here - serious misconduct has been proven.

Outcome

72. The Guidance makes clear (at §4.74) that: “Where gross misconduct has been found and the behaviour has 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.”

73. In my judgment, given the seriousness of the Former Officer’s misconduct and the serious harm caused to Person A and public confidence in the police service, the only appropriate disciplinary outcome in respect of the Former Officer’s conduct would have been dismissal without notice if he were still a serving police officer.

74. The Former Officer’s conduct was wholly inconsistent with the standards of behaviour which members of the public expect police officers to observe and maintain.

75. In order to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service, to uphold high standards in policing, deter misconduct and protect the public no lesser disciplinary outcome than dismissal without notice could be justified.

76. As a consequence of my decision, the Former Officer’s details will be included within the Police Barred List (Regulation 3(2) of the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017).

77. The Former Officer has a right of appeal against this decision in accordance with the Police Appeals Tribunal Rules 2020. The Former Officer should provide notice of his intention to appeal to the Appropriate Authority within 10 working days of receipt of this written determination.

 

Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine

8 October 2026