PC Adam Scott was found to have accessed sensitive information in a “serious breach” of data protection “seemingly to satisfy his curiosity”.
The officer, whose role has not been disclosed, told a disciplinary hearing he had watched the video to identify the victim whose name he recognised.
But a misconduct panel ruled he should be dismissed without notice because his snooping had breached professional standards amounting to gross misconduct.
“You accessed and viewed a video recording of a serious offence, which was at the time under criminal investigation,” they said.
“You had no involvement in that criminal investigation and your accessing and viewing of the video was without any lawful policing purpose.”
READ MORE: Norfolk and Suffolk police leak data involving 1,200 people
Publication of the panel’s findings comes days after Norfolk police also revealed a data breach had seen details of 1,230 people, including crime victims, disclosed accidentally in responses to freedom of information requests.
It also comes amid growing public concern and increased scrutiny of police misconduct following a number of high profile scandals including the hit-and-run crash case involving an officer said to have amnesia.
WHAT HAPPENED IN LATEST CASE?
The misconduct case heard PC Scott had previously dealt with the person reportedly assaulted as both a victim and suspect in an unrelated case including interviewing them a few weeks before.
In his evidence PC Scott had said he wanted to ensure he had “not missed any safeguarding actions” regarding the person’s welfare given that they were now the victim of an assault allegation.
But the independent disciplinary panel said there were “alternative and quicker” methods of identification available.
Records showed that PC Scott had opened the suspect’s file for 18 minutes which was “plenty of time” to familiarise himself with the contents and realise he should not view the video, they added.
The panel also dismissed his claim that he had thought that the video was simply a ‘first account’ from the victim.
“We heard there was a more direct route to access a photograph of the victim, namely by accessing their records,” they said.
“We found it difficult to accept that he could not recall interviewing the victim only a few weeks before, and thus being able to directly access their records.”
READ MORE: Hit-and-run police officer WILL face misconduct charges
READ MORE: 10 things we know about Norfolk police hit-and-run scandal
Analysis of police record checks showed PC Scott had opened the assault suspect’s file for 18 minutes which was “plenty of time” to familiarise himself with the contents and realise he should not view the video, the panel said.
They rejected his claim that he had thought that the video was simply a ‘first account’ from the victim.
Despite his stated reason for looking at the file, once he had viewed the video he had taken no further action as records showed he logged off the police data system, the panel added.
The officer had told them he became “sidetracked” in trying to confirm the victim’s identity.
RISE IN POLICE MISCONDUCT CASES
The case is among an increasing number of Norfolk police officers facing misconduct investigations, which rose by almost 50pc last year.
Chief constable Paul Sanford has said he expects more officers to face disciplinary action in the coming months amid greater scrutiny and concerns over falling public confidence in policing.
READ MORE: Norfolk police sees steep rise in officer misconduct cases
READ MORE: ‘We take misconduct seriously’ – five police officers sacked in three years
Earlier this year it was revealed that 10 investigations were being undertaken into alleged cases of sexual abuse and three incidents of domestic violence involving Norfolk police officers and staff.
That comes on top of five officers having been sacked and 12 have been given warnings in the previous three years.
Making it ruling that PC Scott should be sacked, the disciplinary panel said: “Given the current national and local concerns regarding police behaviour, the actions of the officer simply adds to those concerns and to the current mood of distrust, justified or not.”
Read the full article here
