Misconduct outcomes for Police Constable Lee Beddington

1. Former PC Beddington faced the following allegations:

Regulation 30 allegations.

Allegation 1

Between 2nd October 2023 and 6th October 2023 PC Lee Beddington failed to discharge his duties and responsibilities diligently, in that he:

(a) Failed to conduct adequate enquiries on the information provided in the email of 2nd October 2023 at 1pm in respect of a vulnerable person, Ms A;

(b) Failed to complete Form 750 and make an adult safeguarding referral in respect of Ms A on or after 2nd October 2023

(c) Failed to contact Ms A on or after 2nd October 2023

(d) Failed to submit any intelligence in respect of the email of the 2nd October 2023;

(e) Failed to put in place safeguarding measures for Ms A on or after 2nd October 2023

The matters set out above amount to gross misconduct and are so serious as to justify dismissal.

Relevant Professional Standard: Duties and Responsibilities.

2. Former PC Beddington did not attend the Misconduct Hearing. The Panel were satisfied that he knew about the hearing and he had decided not to attend. This was confirmed by his Counsel who confirmed that both Counsel and Former PC Beddington were happy for the matter to proceed in his absence.

3. Counsel for Former PC Beddington confirmed to the Panel that the Regulation 31 response accepted the breaches set out at (a) to (e) above. The breaches of the relevant professional standard were therefore deemed admitted by Former PC Beddington and there was an acceptance that the relevant professional standard had been breached. For the record, the Panel are satisfied that the facts of the breaches are proved by his admissions in interview and the Regulation 31 response served by Former PC BEDDINGTON. The admissions made by Former PC BEDDINGTON were, however, only admitted to the level of Misconduct. It would be the duty of the Panel to decide whether the factual admissions and the admitted breach of the relevant Professional Standard amounted to Misconduct only or whether it was capable of amounting to Gross Misconduct. Misconduct is defined as conduct requiring disciplinary action. Gross Misconduct is defined as conduct that is so serious as to justify dismissal.

Assessing the level of Misconduct.

4. The Panel have considered the seriousness of this matter using the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings [2023 Edition].

5. As set out in paragraph 4.3 of this Guidance, assessing the seriousness of the Misconduct is a four-stage process. In assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, the Panel have to consider the following 4 categories: Culpability, Harm, Aggravating Factors and Mitigating Factors. This follows the test set out in the case of Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin.).

6. The first category to consider is culpability. The Panel have concluded that the level of culpability for PC BEDDINGTON is high. The reasons for that are as follows:

• Former PC BEDDINGTON accepts that he agreed that he would carry out the necessary actions to ensure the safeguarding of Ms A. Having agreed that he would do this, the Panel have assessed that it does not matter whether it was his role or not. He had agreed to do it and failed to do so in circumstances where others had relied on his assurance that he would do so. In these circumstances, the precise role of officers in the IOM is, in the Panel’s estimation irrelevant. The Panel do not, however, accept the submissions made on behalf of Former PC Beddington that the role of officers in the IOM is as narrow as suggested. A serving police officer could not ignore an obvious and serious risk to an individual other than an offender if he /she became aware of that risk.  Safeguarding is a fundamental responsibility for all police officers and the need to protect members of the public is understood by all competent police officers. He accepted the responsibility for Ms A’s safeguarding but failed to carry out the necessary steps as set out at (a) to (e) of the allegation. 
• The Panel do not accept that pressure of work resulted in Former PC BEDDINGTON being unable to carry out what was required. Accepting that he was involved in an arrest on the 2 October 2023, the evidence makes clear that it involved little work for Former PC BEDDINGTON and he had finished with his prisoner by late morning. Once he had taken his prisoner to court, it is unclear what further work he had to do regarding this arrest. Former PC BEDDINGTON has failed to provide any details of any other work that prevented him from carrying out the tasks necessary to safeguard Ms A and has not attended before the Panel to provide any sort of explanation.
• Following on from the above, it is clear that Former PC BEDDINGTON left work on the 2 October 2023 an hour before his duties were scheduled to end. An audit of his computer activity for the 4 October 2023 showed no computer activity for a period of three and a half hours and on 6 October 2023, no activity for over three hours. Despite being asked about these times in his interview, Former PC BEDDINGTON has given no details as to what he was doing during these periods. The Panel are disappointed that Former PC BEDDINGTON has chosen not to attend this misconduct hearing and provide an account of what he was doing at these times and exactly what he believed his responsibilities were in respect of her. His non-attendance has also denied the AA the opportunity to cross examine him about these matters. In his regulation 31 response, The Panel noted that Former PC BEDDINGTON did not seek to use other work as an excuse for not carrying out the safeguarding actions in respect of Ms. A. In these circumstances, the panel have concluded that he had sufficient time to attend to the safeguarding matters for Ms A. 
• The Panel note that Former PC BEDDINGTON had been a serving police officer from 2008 until he recently resigned. The Panel are satisfied that the original email received from the prison about the risk in this matter (sent on the 30 September) and eventually sent to Former PC BEDDINGTON on 2 October 2023 contained enough information within it to make an officer of Former PC BEDDINGTON’s experience realise that there was a significant threat to Ms A. The original email stated that Ms A had already been robbed twice and Mr C was concerned that she would continue to be at risk because of the drug debt and she could be forced to sell drugs or prostitute herself to pay off the debt. She was clearly vulnerable and clearly at risk and the Panel is satisfied that Former PC BEDDINGTON either understood this or, at the very least should have done. The Panel have noted paragraph 4.11 of the College of Policing Guidance which states that where harm is unintentional, culpability will be greater if the officer could reasonably have foreseen the risk of harm. The Panel are satisfied that Former PC BEDDINGTON could reasonably have foreseen the risk of significant harm to Ms A, and the precise nature of such harm is, in the Panel’s view, irrelevant.
• The Panel are satisfied that Ms A can properly be considered a vulnerable person. The Panel note the contents of paragraph 4.49 of the College of Policing Guidance and note that Ms A would have been at a particularly difficult or distressing period of her life when she was assaulted. She was entitled to be treated professionally by Former PC BEDDINGTON and was not so treated. The Panel also note that it is said that she was suffering from substance abuse and was said to be at risk of Modern Slavery offences (e.g. trafficking for crime or sexual exploitation). These are particular areas of vulnerability and Former PC BEDDINGTON failed to give them priority. 
• The offences committed against Ms. A can be characterised as Violence against Women and Girls. This is an area of acute national concern particularly when it involves police officer failing to protect/safeguard vulnerable females. As the Guidance makes clear, misconduct of this nature is wholly unacceptable setting a clear expectation as to the seriousness to which these matters are treated.

7. In dealing with the harm caused by the conduct of Former PC BEDDINGTON, the Panel has concluded that the level of harm was High. The reasons for that are as follows:

• The Panel note the examples set out in paragraph 4.64 of the College of Policing Guidance. In this particular case, Ms. A has suffered physical injury, potential sexual abuse, damage to health, psychological distress and loss of liberty because she was effectively kidnapped for a number of hours whilst she was being variously assaulted. Ms. A has lost confidence in the police to protect her.
• The Panel has concluded that, objectively, the Misconduct will likely undermine public confidence in policing. The Panel have noted the contents of paragraph 4.66 of the Guidance and note that Former PC BEDDINGTON’s failure to carry out the acts set out in (a) to (e) of the Regulation 30 would harm public confidence if the circumstances were known to the public.
• The Panel have noted the contents of paragraph 4.74 of the Guidance. The Panel are particularly concerned about the impact of the Misconduct on the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole. A vulnerable female has been assaulted and put in considerable danger by the failure of Former PC BEDDINGTON to safeguard Ms. A. This failure could have a particular impact on the reputation of the police force as a whole and affect the reputation of all police officers in their daily duties.
• The Panel do not accept the submissions from those representing Former PC BEDDINGTON that no one can know whether, if Former PC BEDDINGTON had done everything that was expected of him, Ms. A would still have been assaulted as she was. With due respect to these submissions, this is speculation and indeed irrelevant. The Panel accept that there can never be any guarantees but what is clear is that absolutely no steps were taken by Former PC BEDDINGTON to mitigate the obvious risk in any way.

8. The Panel identified the following aggravating factor:

• The Panel have noted that Former PC BEDDINGTON having initially accepted that he had “fucked up” has over time attempted to shift responsibility on to others for their failure to act. This ignores the fact that earlier officers had handled the case briefly and in quick succession to find the most appropriate officer to deal with the matter, ultimately stopping at Former Officer BEDDINGTON who accepted that responsibility.

9. The Panel have been unable to identify any mitigating factors at this stage for Former PC BEDDINGTON. It is accepted that he did originally accept responsibility by accepting that he “fucked up” but that mitigation is lessened by his subsequent attempt to blame others for their inaction. The Panel were therefore able to give very little weight to his original acceptance of responsibility.

10. The Panel have therefore concluded that as the culpability of Former PC BEDDINGTON is high, the harm caused by his misconduct is high, there is an aggravating factor and very little mitigation, the level of Misconduct is properly assessed as Gross Misconduct, that is conduct that is so serious as to justify dismissal. The Panel are satisfied that the matters set out in the allegation collectively amount to Gross Misconduct