Regulation 43 Police Misconduct Hearing Report

Former Officer: PC Miller

Report of the Misconduct Hearing Panel

Introduction and Preliminary Matters

The Misconduct Hearing took place on 3^rd September 2026. The former officer chose not to attend the hearing. The Panel was satisfied that the former officer had been made aware of the proceedings and of the hearing date. In those circumstances, the Panel determined that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in the former officer’s absence.

During and in advance of the hearing, the Panel received legal advice and had regard to that advice in reaching its decisions.

The legal framework for factual determinations

The burden of proving the facts pleaded rests with the appropriate authority.

The standard to which the Appropriate Authority must satisfy the panel is the simple balance of probabilities.  The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. Within this context, there is no room for a finding by the panel that something might have happened.  The panel may decide that it did or that it did not: Re B [2008] UKHL 35.

 

Findings of fact must be based on evidence and not on speculation. The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all of the available evidence.

 

In determining whether the Appropriate Authority has discharged the burden upon it, the panel looks at what has been described as ‘the broad canvas’ of the evidence before it.  The role of the panel is to consider the evidence in its totality and to make findings on the balance of probabilities accordingly.  Within this context, the panel must consider each piece of evidence in the context of all of the other evidence: Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838.

The panel must always bear in mind that a witness may tell lies in the course of an investigation.  The panel must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, or distress.  The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything: R v Lucas [1982] QB 720. 

 

The panel also need to consider their purpose within the misconduct regime which is:

1. to maintain public confidence and the reputation of the police service
2. to uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct
3. to protect the public.

Role of the Panel

The role of the panel has four steps, usually approached in two stages:

Stage 1

(a)          first, determining the facts, based upon what is admitted by the officer or proven on the balance of probabilities;

(b)          second, determining whether on the basis of those facts the officer has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged;

(c)          third, deciding whether the breaches found amount to gross misconduct or not;

 

Stage 2

(d)          deciding what the outcome should be.

 

The four steps should not be conflated.  Each requires discrete findings with sufficient reasons. 

 

The AA brings the allegations, and it is for the AA to prove them. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, that is to say whether they are more likely than not to be true. The balance of probabilities is a single unvarying standard.

Throughout the proceedings, the Panel remained mindful of the purpose of the police misconduct regime, namely:

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

The Case for the Appropriate Authority

Allegation 1

Facts

In respect of all 9 officers, PC Miller sent messages and / or made comments or phone calls as set out in the allegations.

PC Miller does not dispute the facts of the messages, calls, or comments or that he was responsible for them. He stated he was merely being friendly and wasn’t flirtatious. He wasn’t doing it in pursuit of sexual relationships.

PC Miller was a student officer trainer with over 20 years’ experience as a police officer.

Panel Findings

The panel find that there was a pattern of behaviour undertaken by PC Miller towards student officers.

This involved seeking contact on private social media, commencing conversations, and graduating towards flirtatious messaging which offered a clear message to the student officers that PC Miller would welcome a relationship.

When one officer reciprocated (PC J), that did lead to a sexual relationship.

On the balance of probabilities, the panel find PC Miller deliberately and repeatedly sent messages to female student officers with the intention of pursuing sexual relationships.

In the role of student officer trainer, he was a key role model as an experienced police officer and one of the first contacts student officers had as police officers. He had a responsibility as a student officer trainer to set the standards of professional behaviour and compliance with the code of ethics.

Specifically, he had a responsibility for the welfare of his students and the training of officers, including training on the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Professional Behaviour. PC Miller in his interview fully accepts that delivery of training on Professional Standards is part of his role as a trainer.

The panel find that PC Miller knew that he should not be pursuing relationships with student officers. Specifically, he told PC I that he wasn’t allowed to talk to students, and he told PC G that he would get sacked if anyone knew he was chatting to her on [a dating site].

In his interview, PC Miller accepts that a relationship with a student could lead to a perception of favouritism.

PC Miller went through a number of Integrity Health Checks with supervision during the period relevant to the allegations. He did not disclose any relationships that breached professional boundaries and answered that he knew what was expected of him in terms of maintaining professional boundaries.

He also received reflective practice as part of his PDR in December 2021. The record of PDR suggests he fully understood the importance of being a role model and holding himself to the highest standards of professional behaviour as students would look to him for an example.

The panel find that there was a power imbalance between PC Miller and the student officers. He held a position of responsibility as a trainer. There would clearly be a perception amongst students that he could influence the outcomes of the course and how they were treated.

In private messages to the students, he indicated to PC J that he could arrange her to be paired with her preferred colleague as part of personal safety training, making it clear he was doing a favour that should be reciprocated and indicated to PC G that he would ‘know who to blame’ if anyone found out he had been chatting to her on a dating site.

PC A reported being compelled to respond to his messages to avoid awkwardness or embarrassment in class.

A number of the statements from officers suggest that the student officers could see who PC Miller was paying greater attention to.

There was undoubtedly a conflict of interest between PC Miller’s position as a student trainer and his behaviour in pursuing sexual relationships with student officers.

The panel find that PC Miller sent inappropriate messages and this was an abuse of his position given that he was in a position of authority as one of the student officer’s trainers.

Allegation 2

Facts

PC Miller was a student officer trainer for PC J after she commenced initial training on 21^st September 2020

PC Miller had a sexual relationship with PC J. This included meeting her on 30^th November 2020 during which they kissed. He also met her at his house on 13^th and 20^th December 2020. They had consensual sexual intercourse on both occasions.

PC Miller does not dispute the facts. His position is that there was no conflict of interest as the relationship was nothing to do with work.

Panel Findings

As part of a regular pattern of behaviour, PC Miller pursued a sexual relationship with PC J by messaging her privately and then flirting with her. When she reciprocated this led to a consensual sexual relationship.

This relationship developed at work. Their relationship as student officer and student trainer was integral to the development of their personal relationship.

PC Miller used his position as a student trainer to offer PC J favourable treatment at work. There was an obvious conflict of interest, likely to be perceived as favouritism towards PC J.

This was an abuse of power. The panel find that there was a power imbalance between PC Miller and PC J. He held a position of responsibility as a trainer and used his influence to give her favours, for which he indicated he was looking for some reciprocation. This was said in a humorous way, but the panel find this is part of a process of developing a sexual relationship. The panel accept the evidence of PC J that she was vulnerable to his advances as a new student.

The panel find that PC Miller had a responsibility to report this relationship in line with College of Policing / NPCC guidance: ‘Appropriate personal relationships and behaviours in the workplace.’ PC Miller did not report the relationship to a supervisor or mention it during his Integrity Health Checks.

PC Miller was aware that the relationship should not have taken place. PC J describes his concern when he thought that a colleague had been asking about their relationship.

Allegation 3

Undisputed Facts

PC Miller met with PC J at his home address on 13^th and 20^th December.

HPA Coronavirus Regulations were in place, effective from 2^nd December 2020. These regulations created clear legal requirements.

These facts are undisputed by PC Miller.

Disputed Facts

PC Miller states he was a ‘bubble’ with PC J, and this provided a legitimate exemption under the Regulations.

Panel Findings

The AA has provided no definitive evidence to disprove PC Miller’s account. The panel were invited to consider evidence of the interview of contact with others (son / family) and evidence from PC Miller’s interview that the relationship with PC J fizzled out as they couldn’t see each other in lockdown. However, whilst this is suggestive of the fact there was no such ‘bubble’ with PC J, the evidence on this point is vague. The panel are not satisfied that the AA has met the standard of proof on this allegation.

Determination on the Standards of Professional Behaviour

The panel find that PC Miller breached the standards of professional behaviour for authority, respect and courtesy.

1. He pursued inappropriate sexual relationships with a number of student officers, failing to treat them with respect and abusing his position of power and responsibility over them as their student officer trainer.
2. He conducted an inappropriate sexual relationship with PC J, failing to treat her with respect and abusing his position of power and responsibility over her as a student officer trainer.
3. He created an actual and perceived conflict of interest by pursuing sexual relationships with student officers.
4. He failed to act with self-control by pursuing inappropriate relationships with junior colleagues.
5. He harassed another officer, PC I, by sending repeated messages to her and calling her multiple times, seeking to find out her location on a night out, despite the lack of reply.

The panel find that PC Miller breached the standards of professional behaviour for discreditable conduct.

1. His conduct is likely to undermine public confidence and the reputation of the police, specifically those thinking about joining the police service.

Assessment of Seriousness

In assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, we have considered:

The officer’s culpability.

The panel find the following factors relevant to culpability:

1. The officer’s conduct was intentional, deliberate, targeted towards student female officers and part of a pattern of repeated conduct. He was entirely responsible for his actions.
2. PC Miller was holding a position of trust and responsibility as a student officer trainer. He pursued relationships with students utilising his position.
3. PC Miller’s conduct involves sexual impropriety.
4. This conduct was predatory behaviour motivated by a desire to establish improper sexual relationships with junior colleagues.
5. PC Miller exploited an imbalance of power between him and the student officers. The evidence of PC A shows the barriers to reporting or challenging his behaviour as a new student officer.

In this matter, the allegations that we have found proven all concerned the direct conduct of the officer. The officer had a responsibility as a police officer to act in line with the relevant standards, policies and guidance and training available to them.

The Culpability therefore falls at the high level of seriousness.

The harm caused (and the risk of harm)

1. Emotional harm to PC J. She reports feeling manipulated, upset and used. She felt she had been the weak one picked by PC Miller.
2. Emotional harm to PC A. She reports feeling uncomfortable, freaked out and almost degraded.
3. There is a risk of reputational harm as the public would see this behaviour as unprofessional and unacceptable and it could undermine public confidence in the police service.
4. Local, national concern about the behaviour. There is national concern about the behaviour of police officers towards women and girls.
5. There is a risk of harm to the police service as this conduct is likely to dissuade prospective female recruits from joining the police service.

 

The panel assess that the harm in this matter therefore falls at the level of medium to high seriousness.

The aggravating factors

The panel find the following aggravating factors to be present:

1. PC Miller acted with malign intent for sexual gratification
2. PC Millers conduct was regular, repeated and sustained
3. PC Miller continued to breach the standards of professional behaviour in pursuing relationships after he realised it was improper
4. Deviation from instructions – Acting contrary to College of Policing / NPCC guidance: ‘Appropriate personal relationships and behaviours in the workplace’ and the Northumbria Police ‘Integrity Health Check’ procedure.
5. Multiple proven allegations and breaches

The mitigating factors

The panel find the following mitigating factors to be present:

1. PC Miller’s appraisals suggest he was well regarded by his supervisors as a training officer.
2. PC Miller has made early admissions around the facts of the case including the consensual sexual relationship with PC J.

Taking into account culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, the seriousness overall is at the high level of seriousness.

The panel find that his conduct could result in dismissal and therefore constitutes gross misconduct.

Outcome

The Panel considered all submissions, the evidence before it, and PC Miller’s record of service. The Panel noted that the former officer had not submitted any good character references. The Panel also had regard to the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes.

We have also considered again our purpose within the misconduct regime which is:

1. to maintain public confidence and the reputation of the police service
2. to uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct
3. to protect the public.

In assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, we have already considered:

culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating matters as set out above and do not repeat those findings here.

We turned our minds to this aspect once more having heard submissions.

The panel accept the submissions of the AA that the evidence of a number of affected officers demonstrates that there remains a level of acceptance amongst female officers that they may be subject to inappropriate behaviour from male officers. The panel observe that the police service should be a safe environment for all colleagues. We would like this judgment to reinforce the high standards expected of all officers and change any perception that such behaviour is to be expected. The panel consider that the assessment of medium-high harm is appropriate.

We did not consider that any further aggravating or mitigating matters needed to be added or removed from our previous assessment. The panel accepts that the mitigation about his general performance as a student officer trainer is personal mitigation and holds limited weight.

Our seriousness assessment therefore remains the same. This involves a high level of seriousness.

The panel also considered further personal mitigation, including the record of service.

The appropriate authority says that a finding that the officer would have been dismissed is the only appropriate finding.

Having considered all the above matters and the available outcomes, the panel firstly considered whether recording a finding of gross misconduct and taking no further action was appropriate.

Having regard to the purpose and all of the matters set out above, we consider that taking no further action is not sufficient when considering the nature of the proven allegations, the purpose of the disciplinary regime and the protection of the public.

This matter concerns multiple breaches of the standards and clearly could have an impact on public confidence in policing and the reputation of the police service.

The police are in a privileged position of trust, and the public expect them to conduct themselves in the correct manner.

We therefore have concluded that the most appropriate outcome is a finding that the officer would have been dismissed had they still been a member of the police force and that this sanction does fulfil the purpose of the misconduct regime.

The Panel noted that there were no previous misconduct findings against the former officer and acknowledged his service prior to these matters. However, having regard to the seriousness of the proven conduct, that previous record did not justify a lesser outcome.

Barred List Information

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. This is because there is no reason to depart from the general principle in this case.

Right of Appeal

In accordance with Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 the former officer has a right to appeal to a Police Appeals Tribunal against the findings and outcome of a misconduct hearing.

 

ACC A Simpson

Chair

8 September 2026