Accelerated hearing outcome for PC Jonathan Pattison

1. This is my determination in the accelerated misconduct proceedings relating to PC 8969 Pattison.
2. The Appropriate Authority was represented by Ms Hebb. The officer, not in attendance, was represented by his Federation Representative, PC Harden.
3. I note that the Officer has absented himself from this hearing due to his anxiety. There is no discourtesy intended in his decision to not attend, and his interests are protected by his representation.

Anonymity

4. I set out from the start that I make an order pursuant to Regulation 59(2)(c) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020:

“The publication of any information that could lead to the identification of members of the public that are referred to in the misconduct allegations and associated case papers is prohibited.”

5. I directed that all subsequent reporting in respect of this hearing, including this document shall redact their identity. For clarity, that is the names of driver of vehicle and PC Pattison’s wife. Save to the extent that PC Pattison’s wife may be referred to as PC Pattison’s wife due to it being important explanatory information in the context of this case.

Allegations

6. The allegations are set out in the Regulation 51 notice found separately to the hearing bundle. In summary,
   1. The AA alleges that PC Pattison attended a road traffic collision that his wife had been involved in. Following the collision, it is alleged that PC Pattison assaulted the driver of the other vehicle.
   2. Secondly, it is alleged that whilst attempting to reach the driver to assault him, PC Pattison’s wife, attempted to put herself between the two men. It is alleged that PC Pattison pushed her out of the way.
7. My task is to:
   1. first, determining the facts, based upon what is admitted by the officer or proven on the balance of probabilities;
   2. second, determining whether on the basis of those facts the officer has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged;
   3. third, deciding whether the breaches found amount to gross misconduct or not.
   4. The fourth (dependent on the findings under (b) and (c) above), deciding what the outcome should be), is considered at stage 2.
8. These allegations came to the attention of the AA in June 2025. I note, and it is agreed that, per the interpretation at regulation 67 of The Police (Conduct, Performance and Complaints and Misconduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, the amended Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 apply.

Burden and standard of proof

9. The burden of proof is on the Appropriate Authority to prove that the Officer behaved in the manner alleged and that in doing so, he breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The Appropriate Authority must further satisfy me that the manner of the breach is of such a nature or degree that it amounts to gross misconduct.
10. Having said that, this case gave rise to a criminal conviction, and it is not open to me to go behind that conviction as per Nottingham City Council V Mohammed Farooq [1998] EWHC Admin 991.

Officer’s Response

11. The Officer has provided a Regulation 54 response in which he accepts the facts of the first allegation made by the Appropriate Authority and accepts that it amounts to Gross Misconduct.

In respect of the second allegation, the Officer accepts that there was contact between himself and PC Pattison’s wife. He states that “it was incidental as PC Pattison attempted to move past her.” The notice describes “a fast moving and chaotic incident”, and states that PC Pattison’s wife was of the view that the Officer did not intend to strike her.

12. The notice goes on to say

“PC Pattison’s wife was actively intervening between PC Pattison and the driver . Any contact that occurred with PC Pattison’s wife arose during her attempts to intervene and should properly be viewed within the context of the ongoing confrontation rather than as a separate and deliberate assault upon her.”

13. It is not admitted that this is a breach of the standards or that it amounts to gross misconduct.
14. The Notice helpfully set out both his personal and professional background at the start of his response, which I take into consideration at the appropriate stage.

Stage 1

15. I have taken into account the Investigating Officer’s Report, read all the relevant documents and statements and have confirmed that all parties had access to the same information. I have also viewed 4 pieces of video footage that were provided in addition to the documents. I have heard submissions from counsel for the AA and on behalf of PC Pattison.

Factual Findings

16. On 3 June 2025, PC Pattison was a serving police officer. In January 2025, PC Pattison attended hospital with a suspected heart attack. Following that he was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. In June 2025, the Officer was signed off work as a result of his depression and anxiety. I note that it is in the context of that diagnosis that these incidents took place.
17. Shortly before 17:25 hrs on 3 June 2025 PC Pattison’s wife, PC Pattison’s wife was involved in a damage only road traffic collision (RTC) at the junction of Durham Road and Egton Terrace in Birtley, Gateshead. another vehicle hit the back of the car that PC Pattison’s wife had been driving. It should be noted that the driver had his 8-year-old grandson with him at the time, and that child remained at the scene throughout what followed.
18. PC Pattison attended the scene shortly afterwards. The driver says that the officer said, “You can’t have anything nice these days, look at the state of my car”. PC Pattison’s wife tried to speak with the Officer, but he told her to “fuck off” before pushing her out of the way and attempting to assault the driver.
19. There is video footage of the assault. This was filmed by a member of the public. It does not capture the beginning of the altercation; however, it shows the Officer throw punches at the driver and use force to push his wife out of his way when she is trying to deescalate the situation. The drivers grandson is seen on the footage in very close proximity to the three adults. Screaming can be heard on the footage, although no words can be made out.
20. Both allegations made by the AA are seen clearly and fully on that footage.
21. The first allegation relates to the assault on the driver and is accepted by the officer.
22. The officer was the aggressor in this incident. He was heard by other members of the public to be shouting and swearing at the driver, including calling him a “cunt”, and saying “come on then”, as though he wanted a reaction from the driver. The driver in comparison did not react and was trying to deescalate the situation. The driver did this by saying words to the effect of “pack it in, the grandbairn is there”, to which the Officer said, “I’m not fucking bothered about the grandbairn, look at the state of my fucking car”. It is clear that the Officer must have been aware of the child’s presence.
23. The second allegation relates to PC Pattisons’s wife, and is not fully accepted by the officer, and therefore, I will give more detail of my findings in respect of the second allegation for that reason.
24. I place considerable weight on the video footage as the most direct evidence of the altercation. The first second of that footage shows the Officer push PC Pattison’s wife to the face with an open palm. PC Pattison’s wife is seen to recoil as a result. At the end of the footage, we again see a deliberate push aimed at PC Pattison’s wife and moving her out of the way.
25. Whilst obviously the two assaults on the two different people arise from the same incident, they are two separate assaults. This was a “fast moving and chaotic incident” solely as a result of the Officer’s behaviour. It was in his control to slow the situation down. I do not accept that as an explanation for the force used on PC Pattison’s wife.
26. Whilst PC Pattison’s wife may well have believed that PC Pattison did not intend to strike her, that is not consistent with the footage, which shows force being used against her in a deliberate manner. These were not blows aimed at the driver that missed and hit PC Pattison’s wife . This is force deliberately used against PC Pattison’s wife to move her out of the Officers way.
27. Finally, the Regulation 54 Response describes PC Pattison’s wife as “actively intervening”. I make clear at this point that I do not find PC Pattison’s wife shares any responsibility for the assault upon her. She acted to try to protect the driver, but also to try to protect the Officer from his own actions. The fact she placed herself at risk in doing so makes the assault upon her more, not less, serious
28. 3 members of the public were travelling past this incident and stopped on account of the fight, and the presence of the distressed child. They persuaded the child to step away from the incident and called the police who attended shortly afterwards.
29. I have considered the injury photos that are in the bundle. I can see that there is slight reddening to the nose, near the drivers left eye. However, I don’t find that the injuries were anything more than minor.
30. The Officer was arrested and taken to custody. The risk assessment carried out in custody shows that the Officer admitted he had drank a bottle of wine at 5pm, although that appears to not be entirely consistent with the custody log which states that the Officer later stated he had 2 glasses of wine at 4pm. Either way, I am satisfied however, that the Officer was intoxicated at the time of the incident.
31. The Officer was convicted of assaulting the driver on 12 March 2026 at York Magistrates Court. He was sentenced to pay a fine of £1,200 and compensation of £500.

Breach of standards

32. Those facts being proven, I move to assess whether those facts constitute a breach of the professional standards.
33. I find that the Officer’s actions breached the standards as alleged by the Appropriate Authority:
    1. Authority, Respect and Courtesy: Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals. By assaulting the driver, the Officer failed to act with self-control and tolerance in response to him accidentally damaging his car. The Officer showed no respect or courtesy to the driver when he verbally abused him, or when he went on to assault him. Similarly, the Officer did not demonstrate self-control, tolerance, respect or courtesy towards PC Pattison’s wife when she was trying to deescalate the situation. He used force against her to push her aside so that he could continue your assault on Mr Pattison.
    2. Discreditable Conduct: Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty. Members of the public would not expect an officer to resort to violence in response to some accidental damage to a car. Further they would not expect an officer to use such abusive language, never mind the violence, in the presence of an 8-year-old child. Police Officers using unlawful violence undermines public confidence in the police. The privileged position of a police officer is one held in high regard by many, and consequently, one of which there are extremely high expectations of the best possible behaviour at all times. Such conduct is highly likely to discredit the service.

Seriousness

34. I remind myself of the relevant sections of the College of Policing Document ‘Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings’. I remind myself also of the definition of gross misconduct: “a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal”

Culpability

35. I take into account paragraphs 4.17-4.25 of the Guidance on Outcomes in relation to “Conviction or caution for a criminal offence”. In particular I note that “violent crime [is] particularly serious and likely to terminate an officer’s career.”
36. I further take into account paragraphs 4.40-4.43 in relation to “Violence, intimidation or sexual impropriety”
37. I have given careful thought to paragraphs 4.60-4.62 in relation to “violence against women and girls”. I note from the Governments 2021 paper on Tackling violence against women and girls, that “The term ‘violence against women and girls’ refers to acts of violence or abuse that we know disproportionately affect women and girls. Crimes and behaviour covered by this term include rape and other sexual offences, domestic abuse, stalking, ‘honour’-based abuse (including female genital mutilation forced marriage, and ‘honour’ killings), as well as many others, including offences committed online.” Whilst PC Pattison has assaulted his wife on the present facts, I find that he would likely have assaulted whoever tried to stop him from getting to the driver, and that could have just as easily been a brother, a friend or a member of the public. Consequently, I find that this is not a case that falls within the definition of “violence against women and girls”, and the Officer’s culpability is not raised as a result.
38. Notwithstanding that, I find this is a deliberate and intentional, although not premeditated breach. The Officer has responded poorly to accidental damage to his car. I note that the Officer was intoxicated at the time, and that is not to be regarded as reducing the Officer’s culpability. Whilst this is not the most serious criminal offence, in the context of disciplinary proceedings violent offences are particularly serious.
39. The culpability is further raised by this incident taking place in the presence of a child. The presence of the child was highlighted to PC Pattison, and he stated that he did not care that there was a child presence. On the video footage, the child is visibly and audibly distressed.
40. The assault on PC Pattison’s wife is also further aggravated by this being an assault on an individual placing herself in harm’s way to attempt to prevent PC Pattison assaulting the driver. That makes the assault upon her more serious.
41. The purpose of mitigation at this stage is to reduce culpability. I remind myself that personal mitigation is not to be considered at this stage. I have been made aware that the Officer suffers from anxiety and depression. It is also raised on the Officer’s behalf that depression and anxiety can be classed as a disability if they amount to a mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. I have not heard evidence as to the impact of PC Pattison’s depression and anxiety on his day-to-day tasks, and I do not make any findings as to whether the officer’s diagnosis did amount to a disability.
42. I bear in mind the case of R(Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2022] EWHC 1950 (Admin). In this case, I have seen a medical note from a GP evidencing PC Pattison’s depression and anxiety, and I note that he was off work as a result at the time of this incident.
43. While I accept the facts of that illness and his personal circumstances at the time of this incident without hesitation, I am mindful of the Guidance on Outcomes in relation to mitigation which states: “mental ill health, disability, medical condition or stress that may have affected the officer’s ability to cope with the circumstances in question”.
44. There has been no evidence provided to this hearing which demonstrates a causative link between the Officer’s mental disorder and his actions. I cannot accept that the mental health issues described could have made it more difficult to cope in the circumstances of this incident. This, in my finding, is better left to consider as “personal mitigation”, which is not considered at this stage.

Harm

45. This is a high harm case. Members of the public would not expect an officer to assault members of the public following a minor accident. This cuts at the root of the standards of professionalism that are expected of the police and would naturally be of high concern to the public if known. Misconduct of a police officer resorting readily to violence and using force is one of the most damaging to the reputation of policing and the facts of this case would significantly undermine the trust and confidence the public has in the police.
46. I of course also find that there was some harm to both the driver and his grandson. I have read his retraction statement which highlights that he couldn’t support the prosecution as it was a stress that he didn’t need in his life at a time when he was also undergoing treatment for liver cancer. It is clear from the distress that the child is seen in on the video footage that this incident will also have impacted him. The impact on an 8-year-old of watching their grandfather be assaulted must not be underestimated.
47. I find that the Officer’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct:
    1. At this point, while I don’t intend to repeat them verbatim, I would reiterate and reinforce my rationale for each of the findings regarding the two separate breaches of professional standards of behaviour, given previously.
    2. It is important to mention again, the highest possible regard and expectations that the public has of its public servants, the trust which is placed in those servants, and the clear requirement to tackle and eliminate wrongdoing, and unprofessional behaviour within the service. An officer assaulting members of the public is one of the most stark breaches of those expectations.
    3. Conduct that goes against these crucial needs, standards and expectations is – in my view – so serious, and has such adverse implications for the service, that it would always be justifiable, proportionate, necessary and ethical to consider dismissal as an appropriate sanction. That conduct has been found proven on the balance of probabilities.
    4. Taken individually, each breach is of the utmost serious nature, where dismissal could and should be considered as an appropriate sanction. Taken together, the severity is amplified. It can therefore only be regarded as Gross Misconduct.
48. I make a formal finding for the record that the conduct has amounted to Gross Misconduct.

Stage 2

Outcome

49. Having now heard submissions on outcome, have considered the officer’s mitigation, antecedents and references, I am ready to deliver my findings on outcome.
50. The AA submit that the appropriate outcome in this case is dismissal without notice. The Officer invites me to consider a final written warning.
51. I remind myself again of the purpose of these proceedings set out at paragraph 2.3 of the Guidance on Outcome.
52. I note that per the interpretation at regulation 67 of The Police (Conduct, Performance and Complaints and Misconduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, the amended Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 apply. As such, the appropriate outcome is one of dismissal without notice unless there are exceptional circumstances that apply. I am advised that, in the absence of caselaw or guidance as to the meaning of this phrase in this context, I may give it its ordinary meaning. However, my approach to deciding outcome will still take the form of considering the least severe sanction first, before moving up to more severe.

Seriousness

53. I must have regard to,
    1. The officer’s culpability for the misconduct
    2. The harm caused by the misconduct
    3. The existence of any aggravating factors
    4. The existence of any mitigating factors’
54. I need not repeat my findings as to the Officer’s culpability and harm as set out above. There was a high level of culpability and harm.

Aggravating factors

55. I have already accounted for the presence of a young child, and the fact that PC Pattison’s wife was assaulted whilst trying to protect a member of the public from the Officer in my assessment of culpability. I do not consider them to be aggravating features again at this stage as that would be double counting.

Mitigating factors

56. I accept that this was an isolated incident, and not in keeping with his previous 24 years of service.

Personal mitigation

57. It has been submitted that this case is similar to the case of R(Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2022] EWHC 1950 (Admin). In that case there was a report from a doctor which stated, “the Appellant's psychiatric disorder caused mood changes and anger over which the patient had little control'. He noted…'her disassociation i.e. a trance-like state and amnesia'. This has to be seen in contrast to this case. I fully accept that the Officer suffered from anxiety and depression. However, there is no evidence to explain why his depression and anxiety makes him less culpable for a sustained assault on a member of the public.
58. Furthermore, the Officer has stated that he doesn’t seek to excuse his behaviour by way of his mental disorder.
59. I have considered the officer’s personal mitigation carefully. The Officer was suffering with anxiety and depression at the time of this incident. I have read his character reference from PC Pattison’s wife. I note that PC Pattison has 24 years of service. I have read about the important role that he plays in his son’s life who, at 20 years of age, is nonverbal. On what I have read and heard, I accept that this violent outburst was out of character for PC Pattison.
60. I remind myself of the decision in R (on the application of Williams) v Police Appeals Tribunal and another [2016] EWHC 2708 (Admin) as to the weight to be given to personal mitigation in these proceedings: “the importance of maintaining public confidence in and respect for the police service is constant, regardless of the nature of the gross misconduct under consideration. What may vary will be the extent to which the particular gross misconduct threatens the preservation of such confidence and respect. The more it does so, the less weight can be given to personal mitigation.”
61. I also consider Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512: “Because orders made by the Tribunal are not primarily punitive, it follows that considerations which would ordinarily weigh in mitigation of punishment have less effect on the exercise of this jurisdiction than on the ordinary run of sentences imposed in criminal cases… The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member.”
62. As such, although I consider and apply his personal mitigation to this case, it does not have a substantial bearing on my decision on outcome, given my other findings on seriousness.
63. I have considered whether this case can properly be disposed of by way of a final written warning. In my view any suggestion that this case could result in a final written warning would be misplaced. This is very serious conduct. Police officers are charged to conduct themselves with integrity, respect, and not to undermine confidence by acting discreditably.
64. Although not specifically framed as such, it is understood that the Officer submits that his depression, anxiety and personal mitigation amount to exceptional circumstances that justify not dismissing the officer without notice.
65. Although the officer has taken some worthy steps to addressing his mental health issues, neither those steps, nor the fact of his mental health, in my estimation amount to exceptional circumstances.
66. The only appropriate sanction in this case is dismissal without notice. No other sanction would be adequate to uphold public confidence in policing and maintain the high standards that I expect of officers. To be clear, I would have made that finding even if the “presumption” of dismissal without notice did not apply.
67. As a consequence, I indicate that the Officer’s details should be included within the Police Barred List, per Regulation 3(2) of the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017.
68. I am aware of the Officer’s right to appeal in accordance with the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2020. The Officer should provide any intention to appeal to the appropriate authority within 10 working days of the receipt of this determination.
69. The Officer will receive the written notice of the outcome before the end of five working days.