PC Tyler Sullivan outcome summary

Misconduct hearing outcome 

Officer concerned: PC Tyler Sullivan

Dates of hearing: 15 to 18 June 2026

Summary

PC Tyler Sullivan answered to 4 allegations. The summary of those allegations being that PC Sullivan searched his mother's address on CRIMINT without a policing purpose, he was later dishonest when he received an Audit email about this.

The panel was chaired by Former Commander Katie Lilburn and together they found the allegations proven at a level of gross misconduct, and that it breached the standard of Professional Behaviour, namely in relation to:
a. Honesty & Integrity,
b. Discreditable Conduct,
c. Duties and Responsibilities,
d. Confidentiality.

PC Sullivan was dismissed without notice.

Decision

The panel was satisfied that PC Sullivan's conduct found proved was akin to operational dishonesty. This is because PS Trundle (in a policing context) instructed PC Sullivan to update and close nominal reports on Crimint. This task had an operational backdrop and context. It was inherently linked to policing intelligence which would be relied upon by other officers for their policing duties. PC Sullivan wrote a dishonest response back to PS Trundle saying that he could not complete this task because "Crimint was playing up". Whilst the panel acknowledge that he did not enter false information on to Crimint, the act of deceit was in lying to a supervisor with the intent for him to believe that his failure to close the nominal reports was a system fault rather than an issue created by his own conduct. PC Sullivan was trying to mislead his supervisor about the functionality of a police intelligence database.

Whilst the panel acknowledge that the acts of operational dishonesty committed by PC Sullivan are on the lower end of a spectrum and are not as serious as other types considered in the case of Salter, it nonetheless found that it does amount to operational dishonesty and therefore that dismissal should be expected in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

The panel noted that there were significant features in this case which were identified as being particularly serious in the College of Policing's guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings.

The panel were satisfied that PC Sullivan's Crimint search was undertaken at least in part for personal reasons, linked to the potential risk of his high-performance vehicle and that of his stepfather being stolen from outside their home address. Police officers are continually reminded through training and warnings on police systems that they should not use policing systems for personal benefit. The same message is repeated in the College of Policing guidance (4.35). PC Sullivan's actions were in blatant disregard to this fundamental requirement. The misuse of police data is another matter which is considered as particularly serious.

The panel considered that PC Sullivan attempted to deflect blame for his own actions. He sought to claim that he did not have a good relationship with PS Trundle when the panel found this was not the case. He claimed that PC Villiers had not spoken to him about his lack of access to Crimint and what he should do to resolve the matter and then conceded in oral testimony that she had (but he forgot about the conversations). He additionally attempted to claim that there was a problem with Crimint when this was not the case. The panel find that PC Sullivan's actions consistently demonstrate a failing to take responsibility for his own actions and that he lacked true insight. By not having this insight, the panel felt there would be the possibility of repetition.

The panel acknowledge PC Sullivan's personal mitigation. It noted that PC Sullivan is an officer of some 11 years standing. He has undertaken police work of a high standard both prior to the incidents and subsequently. This conduct was out of character. His diagnosed PTSD was caused by incidents occurring during the course of his police duties.

Notwithstanding the mitigation in this case, the panel found that the allegations found proved are defined as particular serious categories In the College of Policing's Guidance on Outcomes (namely operational dishonesty and data protection and misuse). The panel first considered the sanction of a final written warning but determined that such a warning of even the maximum duration would not be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the conduct and protect public confidence in and the reputation of policing. The panel found that there are no compelling exceptional circumstances in this case.

In these circumstances, the panel found that the only and proportionate outcome was that of dismissal without notice.