Skip to content
Contacting us

Due to unprecedented demand and unforeseen staffing issues, people calling 101 are experiencing longer waiting times than normal. Please report non-emergencies to us via our webchat and online reporting tool, but always call 999 in an emergency.

Quick exit
REPORT CRIME ONLINEEMERGENCY CALL 999
REPORT CRIME ONLINEEMERGENCY CALL 999

Misconduct Hearings

We demand the highest standards of professionalism, honesty and integrity from our officers and staff. Where those standards are not met, misconduct proceedings may be started. 

This page provides information on both upcoming misconduct hearings and the outcome of cases of formal misconduct proceedings.

We are committed to transparency and accountability.As such we will publish the outcomes of misconduct meetings, misconduct hearings. This includes those who resign prior to the conclusion of misconduct proceedings (where it is established that there was a case to answer).

Professional standards for Bedfordshire Police is overseen by the collaborated Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Professional Standards Department.

Attending a hearing

Police misconduct hearings are held in public and we will advertise notices of hearings on this page.

The notice provides information about the hearing including how to apply to attend. It also gives details of any exclusions or attendance conditions which have been set by the person who is to chair the hearing.

In the event that the chair of the hearing sets conditions for public attendance the below may apply:

Any person wishing to attend the hearing must register their details in advance.  Failure to register will lead to entry being declined. The registration facility will close three working days before the hearing.

Members of the public are required to be in possession of valid photographic identification upon arrival and produce it upon request. Failure to do so will lead to entry being declined.

Public attendees are prohibited from using any sound or film recording equipment at the hearings or taking photographs of the proceedings.

Members of the public attending the hearing do so at their own expense.

Any person whose behaviour is deemed likely to disrupt proceeding may be excluded.

Additionally the chair may set any additional conditions he decides are appropriate to the particular case.

The notice will also give access to a public guidance and advice document which gives practical advice about various matters including an age limit applied to attendance, facilities at the venue and the use of mobile phones. 

Forthcoming Hearings

Officer Name - PC Nicholas Attwater

Date - Tuesday 19 January 2021

Allegations:

It is alleged that on the 30 June 2019 the officer, who was off duty, drove his own vehicle to a lay-by on the old A421, Bedfordshire.  He then telephoned a colleague who attended the lay-by and suspected alcohol consumption.  Other officers arrived at the lay-by and the officer provided a positive breath test and was arrested.

Due to unreliable readings taken at the police station the officer provided a urine sample some hours after the initial arrest and he was found to be over the prescribed limit.

It is alleged that accounts given by the officer concerning the amount and time of alcohol consumption were dishonest and breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of honesty and integrity, orders and instructions and discreditable conduct, and amount to gross misconduct.

In view of restrictions and guidance concerning the COVID-19 pandemic, this hearing will take place remotely. Those interested in attending will be provided access to this hearing the hearing is due to commence at 10am on the first day and is scheduled for four days.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this hearing will be conducted remotely

Those wishing to attend this hearing should register their interest to attend by emailing public hearings by 3pm on Monday 18 January 2021

Misconduct Outcomes

Gross Misconduct hearing: Superintendent Nick Lyall

A former superintendent would have been dismissed without notice after he was found to have committed gross misconduct by repeatedly lying to senior officers about a relationship with a member of staff.

Nick Lyall resigned from Bedfordshire Police last month following a three-week hearing at Wyboston in September after which a misconduct panel ruled his behaviour had amounted to gross misconduct.

You can read the panel’s full decision in this document.

Special Case Hearing: PC Del Marwaha

A Bedfordshire police officer has been given a suspended prison sentence and dismissed from duty after he used excessive force during an arrest of a teenage boy. 

PC Del Marwaha was convicted of common assault on the 15-year-old which took place on 10 October 2019, in Luton. The boy had been arrested on suspicion of drugs offences when the incident occurred. 

PC Marwaha denied the charge, but was convicted following a trial at Huntingdon Magistrates’ Court. He was handed an eight-week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court. He was also ordered to complete 20 days of rehabilitative activities and pay £775 costs, a victim surcharge of £122 and £100 compensation to the victim. 

PC Marwaha, who had been suspended from duty, was dismissed with immediate effect following a Special Case Hearing on 30 September in front of Chief Constable Garry Forsyth. PC Marwaha did not attend the hearing which upheld he had breached the standards of professional behaviour for use of force and discreditable conduct amounting to gross misconduct. 

Chief Constable Forsyth’s Written Determination 

The public are entitled to expect high standards from the police who are sworn to serve and protect them, without fear or favour. Any deviation from these standards cause the trust that the police rely on to be damaged and then in turn damages the legitimacy that policing enjoys with the public and indeed relies upon in order to continue to police by consent, a fundamental and essential characteristic of policing in this country. 

It follows therefore that a case such as this where the departure from the standards required by the code of ethics and the core values of policing along with the severe breach of trust the outcome could be commensurate. 

Only by applying and appropriate outcome will it be possible to seek the restoration of trust and confidence in the public and reiterate the required standards to all officers and staff in Bedfordshire Police and therefore, even having due regard for your antecedence and character evidence, I find that you are dismissed without notice.

Gross Misconduct hearing: August 2020

A former Bedfordshire Police officer has been found to have committed gross misconduct after sending inappropriate messages to female colleagues over social media.

Jagjeet Dhillon who resigned from his detective constable post in November after a 10 year career, had denied breaching the standards of professional behaviour. He would have faced instant dismissal had he still been a serving officer.

An independent panel sitting at King’s House in Bedford upheld that he had committed gross misconduct for authority, respect and courtesy, equality and diversity, duties and responsibilities and discreditable conduct.

The full written determination of the panel, which comprised Miss Siobhan Goodrich (Chair), Superintendent Sue Jameson and John Jones, is as follows:

Our task is to assess the seriousness of the proven breaches of standards, in the context of all the circumstances including Mr Dhillon’s character, his record of service, and factors relevant to mitigation of the misconduct and any aggravating features.

We recognise the strength of the many testimonials before us, some of which were from officers of senior rank, which speak to Mr Dhillon’s reputation as a hard-working, diligent officer whose work ethic is regarded by senior officers as commendable.  We noted also that the references before us emphasised Mr Dhillon’s reputation for being well-liked and polite and courteous in the work-place.

We must consider the impact of the proven misconduct upon the individuals concerned. It is highly relevant to mitigation that PCs [names redacted] were his friends and they were not offended or upset by his behaviour. Although they each considered it inappropriate, but for the allegation made by PC [name redacted] their accounts may never have seen the light of day. The same may apply to PC [name redacted], but not necessarily for the same reasons. It is obvious to us that she was troubled by Mr Dhillon’s conduct. She brought this to the attention of her Tutor but she was reluctant to take matters further because of she did not want to cause trouble.  In our view she was young in full time service and vulnerable. PC [name redacted]  was offended and upset by Mr Dhillon’s messaging, and not least because he brought matters into the work place. 

It is clear to us that Mr Dhillon’s attitude was that as his activities were via social media and off duty they were unimpeachable.  The matter that concerns us is Mr Dhillon’s lack of insight and his continuing lack of understanding regarding the proper sexual and professional boundaries required in the police service.  In particular, it is clear to us that he had no understanding at all of the power imbalance in relation to probationary officers.

We recognise that Mr Dhillon’s action to PCs [names redacted] did not involve any physical contact. The touching of PC [name redacted] hair is the only evidence of invasion of personal space. We take fully into account that in the scale of things his actions were at a relatively low level. However, his misconduct shows a pattern of behaviour and, in the case of PCs [names redacted] involved predatory behaviour towards probationary officers.

In our view the aggravating feature when considering the issue of seriousness is that his behaviour in sending unsolicited images of his penis to PCs [names redacted] was similar to his admitted past behaviour in 2014 when he sent an unsolicited image of his penis to a female detention officer. In our view the proven facts show he has learned nothing.

In our view the totality of the misconduct was so serious that dismissal would be justified had Mr Dhillon been in service  In the context of the submissions before us it is appropriate to say that we would have reached this conclusion even if the facts in relation to PCs [names redacted] had not been proven.

Special Case Hearing: 9 June 2020

A Bedfordshire Police officer who shared details from police systems with their partner has been dismissed without notice.

The detective constable, who joined Bedfordshire in 2019 after serving with Thames Valley Police since 2008, was also accused of sending inappropriate personal images to the same partner while on duty. The majority of the allegations related to incidents prior to the officer joining Bedfordshire Police.

A Special Case Hearing was held in front of Chief Constable Garry Forsyth on Tuesday, 9 June where it was concluded that the officer’s actions breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour with regard to Duties and responsibilities; Confidentiality and Discreditable conduct. Furthermore, the breaches amounted to gross misconduct.

An application for the officer’s anonymity was upheld, hence their name has been removed from this report.

The full written determination is below:

Chief Constable Forsyth’s Written Determination

In considering the outcome I have reflected carefully on the helpful representations from both the counsel to the AA and also (the officer’s) counsel.

It is readily apparent that (the officer) is a highly capable officer of good reputation, with considerable career achievements and a promising career in the future until interrupted by this case.  I have also heard directly from (the officer) today and it has been helpful to hear first-hand from him his recognition of his gross misconduct and his explanations for it, all of which enables me to reach a finely balanced decision with regards to outcome.

Both counsel agree that the purpose of the outcome is concerned with three separate elements, primary of which is maintaining public confidence in the police service and to maintain collective reputation, with lesser but still important consideration regarding ensuring there is no prospect of a repetition of the misconduct and the inclusion of a punitive element to deter others.

I am inclined to accept (the officer’s) assurances that he would not misconduct himself in a similar way again and I do believe that he has learnt a painful lesson already irrespective of the outcome of the conclusion of today’s proceedings, both factors favouring the careful consideration of a proportionate outcome that achieves the regulatory requirement of this tribunal as a final written warning, however the third and most important consideration relates to public confidence and the collective reputation of the police service.

The public rightly has very high expectations of the police and the British policing style of policing by consent is derived from the legitimacy that we draw from the trust that the public place in us.  Fundamental to that trust is how policing obtains, secures and manages the most sensitive of personal information and the diligence exercised by officers in protecting the public.

I must take into account, therefore, in discharging my duties and responsibilities to the public the severity of the gross misconduct admitted in the round.  Any misuse of information for whatever purpose will always be threatening to the nature of our relationship with the public and the sharing of such sensitive operational information over such a prolonged and sustained period cannot be heard as anything other than deeply problematic in repairing the public’s confidence, especially when it is so readily apparent to everyone, including (the officer) that this should never have been shared.

On the matters of the personal images the fact that these were created in police time and in police premises is the biggest factor that goes to undermine the confidence of the public.

All of this cumulatively leads me to the conclusion that you will be dismissed without notice.

Previous misconduct hearings

 

Our website uses cookies to improve your experience.

OK