Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Officer concerned: Former PC Sam Callway
Dates of hearing: 9 March 2026
On Saturday 3 August 2024 A/PS Hampton found multiple false statements made by PC Callway with regards to victim contact and closing reports. This was at a time that PC Callway should not have been public facing due to restrictions regarding a separate ongoing gross misconduct Investigation.
It is alleged that on 8 August 2023, PC Callway asked to leave work early for a hospital appointment that did not exist and that he subsequently fraudulently edited a hospital letter to change the appointment date.
It is also alleged on 17 September 2024 that PC Callway dishonestly stated that [REDACTED] had passed away in order to obtain compassionate leave for days which annual leave had recently been refused.
The Panel considered whether or not to proceed in the absence of the Former Officer. The Panel was satisfied that the Former Officer was aware of the hearing, had voluntarily absented himself, and therefore they were content to proceed in his absence in accordance with Regulation 37(3)(b).
As the Former Officer has already resigned, there are only two potential outcomes, namely disciplinary and no disciplinary action. Therefore, the Panel reminded itself that:
(i) If it were to decide that the conduct did not justify the sanction of dismissal, no disciplinary action would be taken; and
(ii) Disciplinary action can only be the outcome if the Former Officer would have been dismissed if he had not ceased to be a member of the police force.
The Panel did not consider that no disciplinary action would be sufficient to uphold public confidence in and respect for the police service and would be insufficient to reflect the importance of upholding high standards in policing and deterring misconduct.
Given its findings that the Former Officer's culpability was high, and a high level of harm had been caused, the Panel determined that the Former Officer would have been dismissed if he had not ceased to be a member of the Police Service.