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: Officer A
Dates of hearing: 9 September 2026
The matter concerned allegations that, whilst serving as a police officer, Officer A received sexual services on more than one occasion as part of, or in addition to, paid massage treatments, thereby engaging the services of a sex worker. It was alleged that such conduct fell below the standards expected of a police officer and was incompatible with the responsibilities and obligations of the officer.
It was further alleged that, on at least one occasion, Officer A acted contrary to the NPCC Sex Worker National Police Guidance published in June 2023.
It was alleged that this conduct amounted to breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Discreditable Conduct, and Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only).
The Chair, T/Commander Brigid Beehag-Fisher, determined that Allegation 1 was proven at the level of Gross Misconduct and that the Standards of Professional Behaviour had been breached, namely in respect of Discreditable Conduct. The Chair found that Allegation 2 was not proven.
In relation to the alleged breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour concerning Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only), the Chair determined that the Appropriate Authority had not discharged the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the breach of Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only) was not proven.