Constable prosecuted after giving boy leftover police property

Pc Damon Meredith, 56, was acquitted of theft of an offensive weapon
Pc Damon Meredith, 56, was acquitted of theft of an offensive weapon - Ricky Champagne/Cavendish Press (Manchester)

A policeman was prosecuted for giving a boy who “dreamed” of joining the force leftover items of police property.

Pc Damon Meredith, 56, took a police helmet, hi-vis jacket, baton, notebooks, pens and evidence bags that were due to be incinerated after the child’s mother, a cleaner at the police station, said her boy “dreamed” of becoming an officer.

But the constable was ordered to face court after a colleague attended the cleaner’s home following an unrelated 999 call and her young son proudly put on the police helmet and hi-vis jacket to “show off to a real cop” while pretending to make notes.

When asked about the equipment, Mr Meredith said all items taken had been dumped in a refuse bin to be destroyed and added: “I was just making a little boy happy, basically, in my eyes.

“How far do you go to get permission for that? To the sergeant, chief inspector, chief constable?”

At South Sefton magistrates’ court in Merseyside, Mr Meredith, who worked for Greater Manchester Police for 20 years after leaving the Army, was acquitted of theft of an offensive weapon after a judge accepted his explanation, saying he was more “naive” than “dishonest”.

The court heard the police baton was hidden away by the cleaner in her bedroom, and then her car, and was never given to the boy.

The officer took early retirement after he was charged.

The investigation began after Mr Meredith, a crime evaluator at Cheadle Heath Police Station in Stockport, who was known as “Mez”, befriended Karolina Ostrowska, who worked at the facility.

She told him about her young son’s ambitions to become a policeman and during conversations asked Mr Meredith if he could get any police memorabilia for him as his grandfather was a police officer in Poland.

Ms Ostrowska said she only intended for discarded police stationery and a pen to be donated so the boy could pretend he was writing up police reports, but Mr Meredith handed her a Sports Direct bag instead containing various pieces of police uniform.

The truth emerged in May 2021 when police were called to Miss Ostrowska’s home following a “domestic incident” involving a male friend at the property.

‘You are not supposed to have it’

She told the court: “When police arrived at my property they saw my son holding or wearing the equipment. They asked me where I got it and I said from Mez.

“They said: ‘You are not supposed to have it’ and that was taken.”

She said that she was suspended from work and investigated, adding: “I just left after that. I did not want anyone looking at me like I would steal something from the police station.”

Pc Stephen Williams, who responded to the 999 call, said that after the woman has explained why her son was wearing the uniform, he then called the station to ask Mr Meredith about the gifts, who explained what had happened.

‘Gesture of goodwill’

Mr Meredith who lives near Ashton-under-Lyne said the items had been destined for the incinerator and he gave them to the cleaner’s son as a “gesture of goodwill”.

He added that he had been reluctant to hand over the baton but Ms Ostrowska said she would not give it to her son and instead would keep it for herself for “safety issues” as she lived on a “rough estate”.

‘Hard lesson from making poor choices’

In clearing Mr Meredith, District Judge James Clarke told him he had “learned a hard lesson from making poor choices” and added: “Dishonesty is a crucial element of theft but naivety does not equate to dishonesty and given the lack of relevant convictions for this form of behaviour, I think it is relevant.

“Also, taking account your 20 years of service with the force, your explanation as to how you came into possession of the items and the nuances of conversation with [Ms] Ostrowska, I am of the view that I cannot be satisfied that the prosecution has established that you are guilty of theft. Naive, yes, ill-advised, yes, but I’m not satisfied that you were dishonest in your dealings.”