Misconduct hearing outcome for DC Rachel Fletcher
Determination and Outcome of Misconduct Hearing
Reasons for determination:
This is the decision of the panel in respect of allegations against Detective Constable Rachel Fletcher.
Standard and Burden of Proof
The Panel was required to apply the civil Standard of Proof namely, on the balance of probabilities.
The alleged conduct is proven if the Panel was satisfied that it is more likely than not that the conduct occurred.
The Burden of Proof falls upon the AA throughout to prove the allegations to the requisite standard.
The Panel’s approach to Stage 1 Fact Finding
The Panel applied the following structured approach in determining the relevant issues in these proceedings:
Did the AA approach these matters in good faith?
Ascertain the facts whether admitted or found proven.
Determine whether based on the proven facts the officer breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour as alleged by the AA. If yes, decide whether such breach constituted Misconduct, Gross Misconduct or neither.
The Allegations
The allegations were as set out in the Regulation 30 notice and were those that were put to DC Fletcher by Ms Checa-Dover on behalf of the AA at the commencement of the hearing.
DC Fletcher denied the allegations and any breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Standards of Professional Behaviour
It was alleged that DC Fletcher had breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour of:
Authority, Respect and Courtesy,
Equality and Diversity, and
Discreditable Conduct.
Decisions on Facts
The panel conducted a careful assessment of all of the evidence provided by the witnesses called to give live evidence and the material contained within the bundle, together with the documents introduced by the officer.
PC Thompson
The Panel considered PC Thompson to be a credible, truthful, and reliable witness. PC Thompson demonstrated, during Examination in Chief and during Cross examination, a level of fairness and balance in giving his evidence and it was apparent that he liked and respected DC Fletcher.
The Panel felt that PC Thompson dealt with the issue of omission in respect of intimidation, in a way that demonstrated honesty and an element of understandable human nature. This evidence was found at pages 32 into 33 - email (29/01/2024) - & page 37 duty report (18/02/2025). The Panel were not persuaded that the difference in his accounts (i.e. feeling intimidated) was in anyway nefarious and that the explanation given by PC Thompson was believable and did not taint in any way the overall reliability of his evidence.
Under Cross examination PC Thompson remained calm, resolute, and cogent.
The Panel were persuaded by PC Thompson’s explanation of his attempting to diffuse situations where inappropriate language was being used and felt that this added to his credibility as a witness of truth.
The Panel felt that PC Thompson would glean no advantage from misrepresenting evidence and we were not persuaded that his evidence was provided to assist his re-entry into policing from a career break.
The Panel considered the proposition put forward by those that represented the officer, that PC Thompson was in some way influenced by the Investigating Officer or worse was part of a wider conspiracy directed by others to collude against the officer and provide inaccurate or factually incorrect evidence. The Panel found this suggestion to be wholly without any evidential basis.
The Panel considered the duty of PC Thompson to challenge and report breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour and whether this affected the weight of his evidence. The Panel came to the view that whilst PC Thompson did not directly challenge DC Fletcher on the specific allegations this did not in of itself render his evidence as unreliable.
DS Hall
The Panel found DS Hall to be a credible, truthful, and reliable witness. The Panel considered that DS Hall was succinct, honest, and reflective throughout his evidence. The Panel found that DS Hall’s admission that he should have challenged and reported DC Fletcher, supported his credibility as a balanced witness of truth.
In cross examination DS Hall refuted the suggestion that he didn’t report the comments made because he thought they were not serious. He maintained that in his view the comments were inappropriate and that he should have challenged, reported or taken positive action.
The Panel did take into account that DS Hall described the officer as having a sharp wit and that he also had experience of the officer saying things in what he believed to be a tongue in cheek manner. The Panel considered that did not detract from DS Hall’s evidence that he felt that the comments alleged were quite offensive to him as a male.
The panel considered that DS Hall’s evidence was to some extent both corroborated by and corroborative of DC Browns evidence.
DC Callaghan
The Panel found the witness to be credible, truthful, and reliable. The witness described having a warm and friendly relationship with DC Fletcher and described how they got on really well. It was clear to the Panel that the witness found the giving of evidence troubling given her positive relationship with the officer.
The Panel considered that the witness was balanced and was able to clearly state what she had and had not heard. The Panel carefully considered the proposition put to this witness that leading questions had led into her changing her evidence in respect of the date of the 'cocks in frocks' comment.
The Panel were not persuaded that DC Callaghan had been unduly influenced by DC Halliday and were satisfied that DC Callaghan had not been placed under pressure by DC Halliday, either directly or through the email reminders sent to the witness. The witness gave a coherent account of the issue around the date of the 'cocks in frocks' comment and the Panel accepted as truthful her evidence that the comment was made in or around the date of the release of the stop & search policy.
When challenged in cross examination, the witness denied that her evidence had been in some way altered by pressure applied by DC Halliday and said this was not correct and that she knew what she had heard.
The witness describes how the comment was said by DC Fletcher, her own objection to the comment and the way in which DC Fletcher immediately retracted the comment and apologised.
The Panel thought that the witness dealt fairly and robustly when it was put to her that she hadn't challenged or reported comments by being clear on what comments she hadn't heard and being clear that she had challenged but not reported DC Fletcher in respect of the 'cocks in frocks' comment.
DC Halliday
The Panel found DC Halliday to be an impressive, professional, and considered witness and investigator. The Panel found DC Halliday's approach to the investigation to be measured, thoughtful, impartial, and conducted within the terms of reference without fear or favour.
At various points it was put to DC Halliday that he had been influenced by senior officers and had allowed that influence to corrupt his investigation and inter-alia himself. The Panel found no evidential basis to support this forceful assertion which was put to him on behalf of the officer.
The Panel considered that the witness worked in line with the terms of reference and the instructions given by the AA. The witness was careful to ensure that matters which fell under the protection of legitimately held views were excluded from the investigation.
The Panel did consider that DC Halliday had found and revealed exculpatory material in a manner that demonstrated thoroughness, fairness, impartiality, and a clear sense of establishing the facts to support a future assessment.
The Panel considered the assertion put to DC Halliday that his mode of questioning had been inappropriate, in the sense that leading questions were on occasion used and that this led to the alteration or adaption of witnesses’ evidence. The Panel found no weight in this point and as part of a fact finding exercise the Panel considered it entirely plausible that it might be necessary to ask specific questions to avoid ambiguity or doubt.
The Panel were not persuaded that the asking of direct and closed questions, gave rise to a real risk of experienced police officers then adapting, altering, or making up recollections of events.
This issue was tested under cross examination and re-examination of witnesses none of whom thought that DC Halliday had influenced them in any way whatsoever.
When witnesses told DC Halliday they had not witnessed particular comments alleged to have been made by DC Fletcher, he documented and accepted their evidence at face value. The witnesses’ statements and their live evidence reflected that position completely.
DC Brown
The Panel found this witness to be credible, truthful, and reliable. This witness had a close relationship with DC Fletcher. The Panel accepted as believable this witnesses’ evidence that she was initially shocked to receive the call from PSD, and that it came out of the blue.
This witness understood the views of DC Fletcher, and she was able to separate the protected views the officer holds from the 'curfew' and 'all men are rapists' comments. The witness articulated how the conversation about the 'rapey car park' had triggered her memory of the comments subject of these proceedings. The Panel thought this to be a truthful recollection and one that withstood scrutiny in cross examination. The Panel were equally persuaded that this witness was not pressured or influenced by DC Halliday.
The Panel found this witness to give full and honest answers. The Panel found this witness to be clear, measured, and reasonable in respect of her challenge to the officer that neither her husband or the officer’s son were rapists.
The Panel also found that the witness was clear that the comment she heard was 'all men are rapists' and not 'all rapists are men'. The Panel considered that this witness had no malign motivation to be untruthful or to embellish evidence beyond that which she was clear she heard. The witness was clear on what she had not heard in terms of comments.
The Panel found the level of detail and context that this witness was able to recall to be a persuasive indicator of truthfulness.
Mr Keenan
Mr Keenan was the Appropriate Authority and was a late addition to the required witnesses as a result of matters arising from the cross examination of DC Halliday. As such the Panel were not provided with any written testimony from Mr Keenan.
The Panel found Mr Keenan to be an impressive witness who assisted the Panel in respect of both the regulatory requirements and the practical process that is undertaken when receiving, scoping, and assessing whether information received by PSD warrants further investigation.
The Panel found Mr Keenan to be credible, authoritative, and balanced in his evidence. Mr Keenan explained with clarity the role of the Appropriate Authority and was absolute in his articulation that the role was one which, by necessity, was independent. The Panel found that Mr Keenans' explanation of the broad way in which matters could be reported into the Professional Standards Department and his further explanation of why it was important to triage matters in a reasonable and proportionate way to be of probative value.
It was put to Mr Keenan that the forwarding of the initial information and timeline by D/Supt McGuigan was unusual and should have raised Mr Keenan's concern as to the intent and veracity of the report by D/Supt McGuigan.
Mr Keenan was clear in his evidence that the circumstances surrounding the initial submission by D/Supt McGuigan were neither unusual or extraordinary. In addition, Mr Keenan, rejected the proposition that he had been in any way influenced by D/Supt Mcguigan, either directly or by association to D/Supt's rank and position, maintaining with some authority that he had acted with independence as was his clear understanding of his role and the requirements this imposed upon him. He was clear that his role was not to satisfy D/Supt McGuigan.
The Panel found that Mr Keenan had acted independently in his assessment and the fact that he sought at the earliest stage to identify matters that were obviously not suitable for scoping and assessment, and instead to focus in on the matters which might amount to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour and may amount to misconduct, gross misconduct or requiring a lower level intervention, was entirely appropriate and a strong indication that he had undertaken his duties as AA with care and diligence.
It was put to Mr Keenan that his use of the phrase 'the key to progressing conduct' was evidence of a malign intent, on his part, to do whatever was necessary to bring this officer to a misconduct hearing.
Mr Keenan accepted that this might have been a clumsy use of language but Mr Keenan was clear that his intent was merely to make clear that, in his considered view, only the 'undated general inappropriate comments', alleged to have been made by the officer, were at that time worthy of further fact finding.
The Panel were not persuaded that Mr Keenan had acted with any malign intent rather the Panel were satisfied that Mr Keenan understood his role and executed that role fairly, proportionately, and reasonably.
Rachel Fletcher
The officer’s evidence in chief was short and largely dealt with the truthfulness of her statement and the contents of the Regulation 31 notice. There was a short explanation of the document submitted as evidence relating to the journal article.
In cross examination the officer was taken immediately to whether the witnesses Thompson, Brown, Callaghan, and Hall were witnesses of truth.
The officer maintained that the evidence provided by these witnesses was wrong.
It was put to the officer that, on her behalf her counsel had accused DC Halliday of being corrupt and similarly that Mr Keenan was acting as the agent of D/Supt McGuigan and was therefore also acting corruptly or improperly.
The officer provided evidence that this was not a defence she was now advancing. The Panel found this somewhat problematic, as this was the clear position that those representing the officer, had put on her behalf during the various cross examinations of witnesses. This position was put clearly and unequivocally to the witnesses Halliday and Keenan.
The officer took issue with the evidence of Kevin Thompson in so far as she asserted that his motivations for providing untruthful evidence were based on their disagreements around gender ideology, his view that the officer would and should be punished for her views and latterly by a motivation to be able to return to policing from a career break.
The Panel found these assertions to be without evidential basis or merit. On the point of collusion between the witness Thompson and the Investigating Officer Halliday - the officer conceded after being taken to various documents in the bundle that DC Halliday could not possibly have planted the evidence in Thompson's mind or testimony.
Throughout her evidence the officer maintained that she did not hate men but that she hates male violence. The latter is entirely uncontroversial.
However, the Panel found that on balance it was more likely that the witnesses in this case were truthful and that the officers’ denials of saying the words alleged and subsequent position that all the witnesses have independently determined to give false evidence was wholly implausible.
DC Fletcher’s evidence was that the comment around curfew was made as a joke and that it isn't a position she actually supports. The officer in evidence developed this to state it was a flippant comment made in a more serious conversation.
The officer advanced that the comment was not a joke made to a member of the public, that it was made in an office within Northumbria Police and that this was an issue that existed across society, government, and policing.
The Panel accept that this comment was not made directly in the presence of any members of the public. It was however made in the presence of others, and some of those witnesses were offended by the comment. The officer gave evidence to the effect she wouldn't make the comment again on the basis that having done so has meant she has 'ended up in a gross misconduct hearing'.
In respect of the witness Callaghan the officer advanced a position that she did not believe Callaghan to have lied but she had misheard of misunderstood what DC Fletcher had said.
In respect of the witness Brown, the officer’s evidence was that Brown must be mis-remembering conversations that the officer and Brown have had. The officer maintained that she did not and would not have said that all men are rapists as that is not something she believes.
The Panel did not find the officer a reliable witness of truth in giving her evidence.
DC Fletcher accepted that if the things that were alleged in the Regulation 30 notice, and subject of the proceedings were true, then they were serious.
The Panel considered a number of points raised in evidence, by those representing the officer, that there was a degree of unfairness to the officer on 3 points, namely;
That there were unreasonable delays in the investigation and proceedings.
Secondly, that there was a lack of particularisation and specificity in respect of the dates of allegations put to the officer.
Finally, that there were procedural failings in respect of the bringing of the proceedings, and the manner in which the investigation was conducted.
On the second point, the Panel sought clarity from counsel for the officer as to whether an application for a stay on the basis of unfairness, engaging the first limb of Maxwell, and it being impossible for the officer to have a fair hearing was being advanced, on this point. It was Counsel’s position that the officer was not advancing an application to stay the proceedings but that the Panel should take into account and consider the weight given to evidence in respect of the broad range of dates set out in the Regulation 30 notice.
The Panel noted that no application has been made in respect of delay.
The Panel also noted that during the preliminary hearing the officer and her legal team were given time to determine whether or not they wished to advance an application for stay on the basis of an abuse of process in respect of procedural failings and the manner in which the investigation was launched.
In addition to this the Panel also considered that there have been a number of further opportunities for the officer to seek to advance such applications, including, at the opening of the hearing in front of the whole Panel, at the closure of the AAs case and/or at the closure of the officer’s case.
Notwithstanding the absence of applications to stay, the Panel have considered the merit and potential to weigh these issues against the probative value of the evidence given.
The Panel do not find that there was any unreasonable delay that gave rise to real harm to the officer’s case in respect of fairness or an ability to meet the case as put by the AA.
The Panel do not find that there was any real harm to the officer’s position in respect of the suggested lack of particularisation or specificity in respect of dates and that this also did not give rise to real harm to the officer in respect of fairness or an ability and full opportunity to meet the case as put by the AA.
Finally, the Panel do not find any evidence to support the position that there were procedural irregularities in the bringing of the case or that the investigation was conducted in a manner which gave rise to any element of unfairness towards the officer that would affect the officer’s ability to meet the case as put by the AA.
This case was about whether the AA had proven the allegations as set out in the Regulation 30 notice. Those allegations centred on things that witnesses reported the officer as having said. Those allegations have now been proven.
The panel did not find evidence that the case had been brought by the AA because of an intent to do whatever was necessary to remove DC Fletcher from the organisation. Neither did the panel find that there was any evidence to support DC Fletchers position that this case had only been brought to silence her views on policy or because of her protected views.
The bundle and defence bundle
In deliberations, the Panel took into account the uncontested evidence provided in both the main bundle and the document provided by the officer.
Finding of fact
On the balance of probabilities, the Panel find the following facts;
That DC Fletcher had made the comments as outlined and alleged in the Regulation 30 notice in respect of all limbs of allegation1 and allegation 2.
Engagement and assessment of any breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour
The Panel did find that the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to
- Authority, Respect and Courtesy,
- Equality and diversity and,
- Discreditable conduct,
were all standards that were engaged and all were breached in respect of both allegations.
Severity
The Panel went onto consider the severity of the breaches and whether or not the breaches constituted misconduct, gross misconduct, or neither.
The Panel concluded that the proven misconduct was so serious as to constitute Gross Misconduct - being misconduct so serious as to justify dismissal as a potential outcome.
The Panel considered that each of the proven allegations in their own right amount to Gross Misconduct and therefore also cumulatively amounted to Gross Misconduct.
Reasons for outcome
This is the decision of the Panel on outcome in respect of the proven allegations against Detective Constable Fletcher.
The Panel have followed the College of Policing guidelines on outcomes, applying the guidance and the Panel reminded themselves of the purpose of the misconduct regime.
Culpability
The Panel determined that DC Fletcher had a high level of culpability for her actions in respect of both allegations.
The officer is fully blameworthy and responsible for her actions that led to the findings.
The Panel considered that the proven conduct in respect of Allegations 1 and 2 was intentional and deliberate.
The Panel found that the conduct proven had elements of discrimination against protected characteristics of other, meaning that the proven conduct was to be considered as serious in accordance with the COP Guidance (Paragraph 4.54).
The gross misconduct proven involved language and behaviour directed towards sections of the public and colleagues. The Panel found that this was conscious discrimination and as per the guidelines at 4.57 it is particularly serious as sections of the public cannot have confidence that the officer will discharge her duties in accordance with the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Harm
The Panel considered that the proven gross misconduct involved significant harm and the harm was directed at both individuals named in this case and to sections of the public affected by the language and behaviours demonstrated.
The Panel concluded that such proven gross misconduct had significant potential to undermine public confidence in the service and therefore have a significant adverse impact on the standing and reputation of the police service as a whole.
Aggravating factors
On the evidence that the Panel heard the Panel were satisfied that there were aggravating factors that the Panel had to take into account.
These included:
- attempting to blame others,
- regular and repeated behaviour over a period of time,
- continuing the behaviour after the officer knew that it was improper which is illuminated by the previous reflective practice and being challenged by witnesses.
This case also involved multiple proven allegations and multiple breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour, and such gross misconduct was committed over a period of time and demonstrated a failure on behalf of the officer to demonstrate any insight and to modify or change her behaviour.
Mitigating Factors
The Panel have taken into account the record of service of DC Fletcher and have taken into account the very important work the officer has undertaken during her service.
Personal mitigating circumstances
The Panel have read and took into account the voluminous personal character references provided and have taken their contents into account when coming to a decision on outcome.
Many of the character witnesses describe the officer as being kind, hardworking, diligent and a promoter of women’s rights. Witnesses describe her important work in advancing the forces approach to tackling Violence Against Women and Girls. The Panel also draw from these references the fact that the officer is both capable and dedicated.
Outcome
The Panel have reminded themselves again of the case of Raschid v GMC [2007] 1WLR 1460 (at page 18) and the comments of Lord Justice Laws, in that misconduct proceedings are not designed to punish officers but are centrally concerned with the reputation and standing of the profession.
Taking this into account the Panels starting point for consideration in accordance with Chaudry and the GMC [2002] UKPC 41 was to consider the least severe outcome which in the present case was limited to Final Written Warning.
In respect of allegation 1, the Panel determined that a Final Written Warning would not fulfil the purposes of the misconduct regime, given the nature and seriousness of the misconduct and influenced by the Panel’s determination that discrimination was present.
Accordingly, the only appropriate outcome to satisfy the threefold purposes of the regime was to dismiss the officer without notice in respect of this allegation.
In respect of allegation 2, the Panel determined that a Final Written Warning would not fulfil the purposes of the misconduct regime, given the nature and seriousness of the misconduct and influenced by the Panels determination that discrimination was also present.
Accordingly, the Panel concluded that only appropriate outcome which would satisfy the threefold purposes of the regime is to dismiss DC Fletcher without notice in respect of this allegation.
That is the Panel’s decision on outcome. DC Rachel Fletcher will be placed on the barred list.