IN THE MATTER OF A POLICE MISCONDUCT HEARING

PURSUANT TO THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020

  

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE.

Appropriate Authority

v. 

FORMER DC 175 JASON COWELL 

   

NOTICE UNDER REGULATION 43 OUTCOME OF MISCONDUCT HEARING

Hearing Details

28^th September 2026 to 1^st October 2026 held in person at Houghton le Spring Police Station, Dairy Lane, Tyne & Wear DH4 5BH.

Panel

ACO Joscelin Lawson – (Chair)
Mr. Stuart Crozier (Independent Panel Member)
Mrs. L. Tupling (Independent Panel Member)
Mr. Adeolu Odusote (Legally Qualified Person)

Representatives

 Counsel for the Appropriate Authority – Mr. Simon Mallett

Counsel for the former officer – Mr. Christopher Hopkins

Terminology

 

“AA” - Appropriate Authority

“LQP” - Legally Qualified Person (the legal advisor to the Panel)

“The former officer” – Former DC Jason Cowell

“The Guidance” - College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes on Police Misconduct Proceedings.

Introduction

 

1. This is the record of a Police Misconduct Panel held under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (as amended) into the conduct of the former officer.

 

 

2. The hearing was conducted in person at Houghton le Spring Police Station, Dairy Lane, Tyne & Wear DH4 5BH. Members of the public were permitted to attend; one member of the public was in attendance on the second and third day of the hearing. The officer was present throughout the hearing.

 

3. During this hearing, live oral evidence was heard from a number of

 

4. The Regulation 30 Notice was served on the officer which specified a number of To assist the reader of this Regulation 43 notice, the allegations contained within the Regulation 30 notice have been copied into this notice as per below.

 

On 26^th January 2021

 

• You altered a Judicial commendation made by HHJ Gittins. You added your own name to the document as well as the name of another officer. You had not been instructed by anyone involved in the case to make alterations to the document and you did not inform anyone that you were altering the document. You had not sought or obtained the authorisation of anyone in the case to make alterations to the document. You had not sought or obtained the authorisation of the Judge to make the alteration to the document.

 

• You submitted the Judicial Commendation to the court without informing anyone in the case that you were submitting a document to the court which you had altered. You did not inform the court that you were providing a document which you had altered. You did not seek the authorisation of HHJ Gittins to make the alteration.

 

Between 27^th January 2021 and 16^th February 2021, there was an investigation into the alteration of the Judicial Commendation:

 

• You did not inform anyone at any time in the course of the investigation that you had personally altered the document.
• You provided misleading information in the course of the investigation to Prosecuting Counsel, and/or the CPS, about the alteration of the document. You deliberately provided information which led them to conclude that a senior officer was responsible for the alteration of the document, rather than yourself. You knew that they had reached this conclusion, and you did not at any time attempt to correct it.
• You were not open and frank with Prosecuting Counsel, and/or the CPS in the course of the investigation by failing to make it clear to them that you had altered the document or how you had obtained the document. Instead, you were evasive and your response to their queries.

5. In respect of all these matters, your actions and omissions were deliberate and dishonest.
6. Taken individually and cumulatively, the above breaches are alleged to amount to Gross Misconduct.

 

Purpose of misconduct proceedings

 

7. In R (On the application of Redgrave) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

[2003] EWCA Civ 4 at [33], Simon Brown LJ made it clear that the character and purpose of misconduct proceedings was

 

“to protect the public... and to maintain the high standards and good reputation”

of the policing profession.”

 

 

8. In R (Green) v Police Complaints Authority [2004] UKHL 6 Lord Carswell stated [para 78]:

 

“Public confidence in the police is a factor of great importance in the maintenance of law and order in the manner which we regard as appropriate in our polity. If citizens feel that improper behaviour on the part of police officers is left unchecked and they are not held accountable for it in a suitable manner, that confidence will be eroded.”

 

The Panel’s Approach

  

9. During this hearing, the Panel took the following approach:

 

First, to consider the facts of the case and to make findings in relation to each of the facts alleged by the AA.

Second, to determine whether those facts found proved constituted one or more breach(es) of the relevant standards.

Third, to determine whether any conduct found proven against the officer amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct.

Fourth, and if appropriate, to decide what the outcome should be.

 

10. The Panel reminded itself that the burden of proof was upon the AA throughout the hearing and that the standard of proof to be applied to this case was upon the balance of probabilities, namely what was more likely than not to have
11. The Panel also reminded itself of the Home Office Guidance (Conduct, Efficiency and Effectiveness: Statutory Guidance on Professional Standards, Performance, and Integrity in Policing, 2020) and, in particular, paragraph 9.10 which states:
12. “In deciding matters of fact, the persons conducting the misconduct meeting or hearing must apply the standard of proof required in civil cases, that is, the balance of probabilities.”
13. In approaching its task, the Panel had borne in mind that:
14. They did not have to decide every matter of dispute, only those which assisted them to whether those allegations were proved.
15. That they could draw inferences from the evidence submitted to them, meaning they could reach common sense conclusions from the evidence, but that they should guard against falling into speculation when reaching those conclusions.

    

Documents and Evidence

  

16. The Panel were provided with the following documents and evidence in advance of the hearing:

 

A main bundle of 322 pages that had been agreed by both parties.

 

The AA provided the Panel with a helpful opening note.

Findings of Fact

  

17. On 26^th January 2021:

 

Allegation 1

18. You altered a Judicial commendation made by HHJ Gittins. You added your own name to the document as well as the name of another officer. You had not been instructed by anyone involved in the case to make the alterations to the document and you did not inform anyone that you were altering the document. You had not sought or obtained the authorisation of anyone in the case to make alterations to the document. You had not sought or obtained the authorisation of the Judge to make the alteration to the document.
19. In respect of allegation (i) that you altered the Judicial Commendation by adding your own name and that of another officer without instruction, notification or authority, the Panel finds this proven.
20. The former officer admitted he personally made both alterations. There was no evidence put forward that he had been instructed or authorised to amend the document.
21. The Panel is therefore satisfied that each element of allegation (i) is proven.

 

Allegation 2

22. You submitted the Judicial Commendation to the court without informing anyone in the case that you were submitting a document to the court which you had altered. You did not inform the court that you were providing a document which you had altered. You did not seek the authorisation of HHJ Gittins to make the alteration.
23. In respect of allegation (ii) that you submitted the altered Judicial Commendation to the court without disclosing the alteration or obtaining HHJ Gittins’ authority, the Panel finds this proven.
24. The former officer admitted he personally added the two names and then submitted the amended document to the court on 26 January 2021. Whether or not he appreciated it was a document approved by HHJ Gittins, he knew he had altered the document and did not inform anyone involved in the case, or the court, of the changes before submitting it. He also did not seek or obtain HHJ Gittins’ authority to make those alterations. The Panel is therefore satisfied that each element of allegation (ii) is proven.
25. Between 27^th January 2021 and 16^th February 2021, there was an investigation into the alteration of the Judicial Commendation:

 

Allegation 3

26. You did not inform anyone at any time in the course of the investigation that you had personally altered the document.
27. In respect of allegation (iii) that you did not inform anyone at any time during the investigation that you had personally altered the Judicial Commendation, the Panel finds this proven.
28. The former officer accepted he had made the alterations, but he did not disclose that fact at any stage of the investigation between 27 January and 16 February 2021, despite having repeated opportunities to do so at 29 January 2021 in an email to Prosecuting Counsel, in the phone call with the CPS on the 5 Feb 21 a follow up email on the 8 Feb 2021 and a final email to the CPS on 16 Feb 2021. This was information uniquely within his knowledge and directly relevant to the central issue under investigation about who had altered the document. When asked at the hearing why he had not disclosed his involvement, he was unable to provide a credible or satisfactory explanation and ultimately said that he did not know. The Panel is therefore satisfied the omission was not inadvertent and that each element of allegation (iii) is proven.

 

Allegation 4

29. You provided misleading information in the course of the investigation to Mr Prosecuting Counsel, and/or the CPS, about the alteration of the document. You deliberately provided information which led them to conclude that a senior officer was responsible for the alteration of the document, rather than yourself. You knew that they had reached this conclusion, and you did not at any time attempt to correct it.
30. In respect of allegation (iv) that you provided misleading information which led Prosecuting Counsel, and/or the CPS to conclude that a senior officer was responsible for the alteration, and did not correct that conclusion, the Panel finds this allegation proven in part.
31. The Panel accepted the evidence of Prosecuting Counsel, and/or the CPS that the information provided by the former officer left the CPS to conclude that a senior officer, rather than the former officer, had amended the document. However, the Panel was not satisfied that the former officer deliberately provided information for the purposes of creating that misunderstanding. To that extent, the allegation is not proven.
32. The Panel was satisfied the former officer knew he had made the alteration himself and that the CPS subsequent email on 5 February 2021 placed him on clear notice that she had reached a contrary conclusion. Despite then having a clear opportunity to correct the misunderstanding, he neither did so nor disclosed his own involvement. The Panel is therefore satisfied that, once aware of the misunderstanding, his failure to correct it was deliberate.
33. Accordingly, the allegation is proven insofar as it relates to the misleading impression created, the former officer’s knowledge of that misunderstanding, and his deliberate failure to correct it once aware of it.

 

Allegation 5

34. You were not open and frank with Prosecuting Counsel, and/or the CPS in the course of the investigation by failing to make clear that you had altered the document or to explain how you had obtained it. Instead, you were evasive in your responses to their queries.
35. In respect of allegation (v) that you were not open and frank with Prosecuting Counsel, and/or the CPS about having altered the document or how you had obtained it, and were evasive in responding to their queries, the Panel finds this proven.
36. The former officer knew that he had personally altered the Judicial Commendation and knew how it had come into his possession because it had been emailed to him on the 26 January from a colleague. Those facts were directly relevant to the investigation and uniquely within his knowledge.
37. Despite being given repeated opportunities to provide a clear and complete account, he did not disclose either his responsibility for the alterations or that the document had been sent to him by email.
38. His responses avoided the central issues, were incomplete and did not provide the candour reasonably required of him. Viewed in the context of his continuing failure to disclose his involvement, the Panel is satisfied that his responses were evasive rather than the result of misunderstanding or oversight, and that each element of allegation (v) is proven.

Determination of Breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour

 

39. Having conducted the fact-finding assessment against each of the disputed facts in this hearing, the Panel then determined which of the alleged breaches of the Standards of Professional behaviour (SPB) had been proven by the AA against the former officer.
40. The Panel reminded itself once again that the burden of proof had been upon the AA throughout the hearing and that the standard of proof required was upon the balance of probabilities, namely what is more likely than not to have occurred.
41. Having made its findings of fact, the panel considered the alleged breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour and concluded as follows:

 

Honesty and Integrity

42. The Panel found the former officer’s conduct in allegations (i)(ii)(iii) and (v) was dishonest. In respect of allegation (iv), the Panel did not find that he deliberately created the misunderstanding but found that he deliberately failed to correct it once aware. Accordingly, this standard was breached.

 

Discreditable Conduct

43. The Panel found that the former officer’s conduct would discredit the police service and undermine public confidence. Accordingly, this standard was breached in respect of allegations (i) to (v).

Misconduct or Gross Misconduct

 

44. The panel next considered its determination of the seriousness of the allegations found In making this determination, the panel have given regard to the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes on Police Misconduct Proceedings to assist them in their assessment
45. They noted that this guidance identifies certain categories of misconduct as being especially serious.
46. The Panel reminded itself that Regulation 2(1) of the 2020 Regulations defines misconduct as being ‘a breach of the standards of professional behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action’ whilst gross misconduct is defined as ‘a breach of the standards of professional behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal’.
47. The Panel further reminded itself that the purpose of the police misconduct regime is to: maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service; uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct; and protect the
48. The panel noted paragraph 4.1 of the Guidance on Outcomes which states that ‘whether conduct would if proven, amount to misconduct or gross misconduct for the purposes of Regulation 14 of the Conduct Regulations is also a question of degree (i.e., seriousness)’.
49. The panel were also mindful of Paragraph 3 of the guidance which advises that an assessment of seriousness of the proven misconduct is by reference to:

 

the officer’s culpability for the misconduct

the harm caused by the misconduct

the existence of any aggravating factors

the existence of any mitigating factors

 

50. The panel were also assisted by Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin), paragraph 29: ‘In assessing seriousness the most important factors will be (1) the culpability for the misconduct in question and
51. (2) the harm caused by the Such harm is not measured wholly, or even primarily, by financial loss caused to any individual or entity. A factor of the greatest importance is the impact of the misconduct upon the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole. Moreover, the seriousness of the misconduct may lie in the risk of harm to which the misconduct gives rise, whether or not as things turn out the risk eventuates. The assessment of seriousness will also be informed by (3) aggravating factors (e.g., previous disciplinary matters) and (4) mitigating factors (e.g., admissions at an early stage or making good any loss).

 

Culpability

 

52. The panel first turned to an assessment of culpability and were assisted by paragraphs 4.9 - 4.16 of the guidance.
53. Para 4.10 of the guidance states that Conduct that is intentional, deliberate, targeted, or planned will generally be more culpable than conduct that has unintended consequences, although the consequences of an officer’s actions will be relevant to the harm The Panel found the former officer’s conduct in respect of allegations (i)(ii)(iii) and (v) to be deliberate. Para. 4.10 of the guidance is engaged in the panel’s assessment of the officer’s culpability.
54. Paragraph 4.12 states that culpability will be increased when an officer holds a position of trust or responsibility at the relevant time. As an experienced Detective Constable, he held a position of responsibility and trust. 4.12 of the guidance is engaged in the panel’s assessment of the officer’s culpability.
55. Paragraph 4.13 states that many acts have the potential to damage public confidence in the police service. His actions risked damaging confidence in the police, including that of HHJ Gittins. 4.13 of the guidance is engaged in the panel’s assessment of the officer’s culpability. The panel finds the former officer’s culpability as High.

 

Harm

 

56. The panel next turned to their assessment of the harm caused by the officers in this incident. They were assisted by paragraphs 4.63 - 4.64 of the guidance. Para 4.64 of the guidance states that the types of harm caused or risked by different types of police misconduct are diverse. This includes reputational harm. The conduct of the former officer caused reputational harm to the police. Para 4.64 is therefore engaged in the panel’s assessment of harm. The panel finds the Harm as High

Aggravating Factors

 

 

57. The panel were assisted by paragraphs 75-4.78 of the guidance in their assessment of aggravating factors in this case. Para 4.76 of the guidance states that when certain factors are engaged, the level of culpability or harm may increase.
58. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors from the proven conduct:
59. The former officer’s behaviour was of a sustained nature
60. The former officer failed to raise concerns or seek advice from a colleague or senior officer.
61. The Panel found that Para. 4.76 of the Guidance is engaged.

 

Mitigating Factors

 

62. The panel were assisted by paragraphs 4.79 - 4.82 of the guidance in their assessment of mitigating factors in this case. The guidance states that mitigating factors are those tending to reduce the seriousness of the misconduct. The guidance states that some factors may indicate that an officer’s culpability is lower, of that the harm caused by the misconduct is less serious than it might otherwise have been.
63. Based on the character references submitted on behalf of the former officer, the panel notes that he has a history of long service as a good officer.
64. The Panel took account of some remorse, insight, and acceptance that he could have acted differently.

Decision on Level of Breach

 

65. Having carefully considered the contents of the Guidance on Outcomes, the Police Code of Ethics, the panel found that the proven actions by the former officer were at the upper end of seriousness.
66. The panel found that the breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour by the former officer were so serious that they could justify dismissal as a potential
67. The panel therefore found that the proven breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour by the former amounted to Gross Misconduct in respect of allegations (i) to (v).

 

Determination of Outcome

 

68. The Panel have presented their assessment of seriousness against the four elements described in the Guidance.
69. This assessment was carried out in accordance with paragraphs 4.1- 4.82 of that Guidance to assist the Panel in determining whether the proven conduct amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct (the level of breach).
70. Following its decision on the level of breach, the Panel was provided with submissions from parties against those same factors for the purpose of assisting them in determining the outcome in this hearing. Having heard those representations, the Panel then considered the appropriate outcome.
71. In determining the appropriate disciplinary action in this case, the Panel has once again had regard to the Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings.
72. The Panel was also mindful of the principles set out in R (Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police) v Police Misconduct Panel & Roscoe (HHJ Pelling QC sitting as a High Court Judge, November 2018) in which the Administrative Court emphasises the importance of following the structured 3 stage approach as set out in the Guidance. The Panel adopted this approach.
73. The panel has already provided the hearing with their assessment of seriousness in relation to the proven conduct of the former officer
74. Following submissions made by the Appropriate Authority and Counsel for the officer, the panel have again considered the Outcomes Guidance to inform our determination of the outcome for the former officer.

Personal mitigation

 

75. Following those submissions, the panel found their starting point of seriousness was unchanged. Having considered submissions from both parties on outcome, the panel then went on to consider the personal mitigation submitted on behalf of the former officer in the form of (unblemished) service record for the former officer and a number of character references. Given the purpose of police misconduct proceedings, the panel kept in mind the fact that personal mitigation will carry limited weight and less than it might do in a different context [as explained by Holroyde J as he then was in The Queen (on the application of Williams) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2016] EWHC 2708 (QB)]. The panel also considered paragraph 5 of the guidance that states that less weight can be attached to personal mitigation where serious misconduct has been proven.

 

Character Evidence

 

76. The panel noted the evidence before it of the former officer’s good character and noted that such evidence was potentially relevant to his credibility as a witness and to his propensity to behave in the way alleged, per Collins J in Wisson v Health Professions Council [2013] EWHC 1036 (Admin) at [44]: “As it seems to me, good character must always be likely to be relevant for the panel where there is a substantial issue of fact to be decided and where credibility of the registrant in the evidence that he gives, is an issue and it can also go to whether it is likely that he did what is alleged against Both aspects were prima facie material in relation to the findings that the panel had to make and the circumstances of this case.”
77. The panel reminded itself of the purposes of police misconduct proceedings as defined at paragraph 2.3 of the Outcomes Guidance which are:

To maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service

To uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct

To protect the public

The panel reminded itself of paragraph 3.30 of the guidance which states that the only available outcomes for a former officer are:

Disciplinary action

No disciplinary action

Where a former officer’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct and disciplinary action is imposed the only outcome can be that he would have been dismissed if still serving.

78. The panel were mindful of paragraph 7.4 of the guidance which states that less severe outcomes should be considered before severe outcomes. We also reminded ourselves that the more serious the conduct found proven against an officer, the more likely it would be that that dismissal would be justified.

79. Having considered the seriousness of the proven conduct and breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour, the panel determined that disciplinary action is required in this case.

80. The panel noted paragraph 3.24 of the guidance which states that we must have regard to the officer’s record of police service when considering the outcome for the officer.  The panel were provided with the former officer’s service record which was carefully considered in our deliberations.

81. The panel considered whether a final written warning was would have been an appropriate and proportionate outcome had the former officer remained in service. In doing so, the panel considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, former officer’s service record, and the need to maintain public confidence in policing.
82. Having considered those matters, the panel has determined that a final written warning would not have been sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and uphold the required professional standards.
83. The panel have determined that the former officer would have been dismissed without notice if still serving.

 

Barred list

 

84. The Chair has considered the relevant provision under the Police Barred List and Advisory List Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”) and is satisfied that a report containing details of this case (in accordance with Regulation 3 of the 2017 Regulations) should be sent to the College of Policing within 5 working days.

 

Right of Appeal

 

85. The former officer will be notified that he has a right of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal.
86. The A/A will provide a notice to the former officer as to the procedure to be followed should he wish to submit an appeal.

 

ACO J Lawson - Chair

9 October 2026