Yahoo News Leicestershire cop who accessed confidential files acted from 'poor judgement and immaturity', panel rules
A Leicestershire police officer acted out of “poor judgement and immaturity” when he accessed confidential police files, a gross misconduct hearing concluded. Pc Oliver Platts has been handed a final written warning for his behaviour.
He was found to have viewed 221 different reports on the police Storm system which is used by police forces to create and manage incidents reported by members of the public and to manage the deployment of operational resources, over 10 separate days in June 2023 while based at Loughborough station. Leicestershire Police said he had done so “without policing purpose or lawful authority” and most off the breaches had occurred while he was off-duty.
Pc Platts admitted to the breaches and accepted he had no “policing purpose” for accessing the files. He told the panel overseeing the hearing he had done so “solely due to [his] passion for the job that [he] worked so hard to get to”. He added it was “a case of misplaced enthusiasm on [his] behalf”.
The panel agreed there was no “nefarious motive” behind his behaviour. However, members of the panel also ruled the actions amounted to gross misconduct and they breached expected standards around confidentiality, orders and instructions and creditable conduct.
The panel deemed the reputational harm to Leicestershire Police arising from these incidents was “low” and public confidence in the force would not be “shaken to any great or lasting degree by the facts of this case”. That the actions were “regular and repeated” and “continued after he knew or should have realised his behaviour was improper” increased their seriousness. Overall, they judged the seriousness of his actions as “medium”.
The panel concluded the public “would recognise that Pc Platts had no malign intent and acted out of poor judgement and immaturity”. Because of this, they felt a final written warning was more appropriate than dismissal.
It settled on a four-year period for the warning to remain in place. The panel said four years would be “long enough for the purposes of rehabilitation” whereas the maximum period of five would be “an excessive inhibitor on upward or lateral career progression within the force, from which the public might benefit in due course”.
Detective Superintendent Alison Tompkins, head of the force’s Professional Standards Department said: “Any access to information held within force should only be made with a legitimate policing purpose. All officers and staff are provided with initial training in relation to the correct use of information and we continue to share messages in force about the importance of this.
“When information has been obtained without a policing purpose, we will investigate and we will take the appropriate action required.”
