WRITTEN DECISION OF GROSS MISCONDUCT HEARING – FORMER OFFICER.
(Regulation 43 Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020)
FORMER OFFICER DETAILS
Name
|
Anthoni Eronini
|
Name
|
Chloe Caulfield
|
Pin
|
18337
|
Pin
|
04474
|
Warrant No
|
217254
|
Warrant No
|
218530
|
File Ref
|
CM/28/23
|
File Ref
|
CM/28/23
|
IN THE MATTER OF POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY – GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE
AND
FORMER PC 04474 CAULFIELD
AND
FORMER PC 18337 ERONINI
- This is a case involving the alleged misconduct of FORMER PCs 04474 CAULFIELD and 318337 ERONINI.
- The full details of the allegations are outlined within the Regulation 30 Notice at page 2 of the bundle.
- FORMER PCs 04474 CAULFIELD and 318337 ERONINI face allegations involving a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour, in particular the standard relating to:
i) Duties and Responsibilities
You failed to carry out your duties and obligations to the best of your ability. You engaged in sexualized messaging and interactions whilst on duty and you were not diligent in the performance of your duties.
ii) Discreditable Conduct
Your behaviour as set out in the Particulars of Misconduct has discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence in it.
The public do not expect police officers to engaged in sexualized messaging or sexual acts whilst on duty.
Background
- Ex-PC Caulfield and Ex-PC Eronini commenced a relationship. It was an emotional and sexual relationship. It was sufficiently serious for Ex-PC Caulfield to ask Ex-PC Eronini if he would leave his wife and for Ex-PC Eronini not to rule that possibility out.
- The Officers engaged in sexual misconduct whilst on duty by:
-
- Instigating, or continuing, conversations about sex.
- Engaging in sexualised messaging.
- Engaging in sexualised physical contact.
This included:
-
- Kissing
- Ex-PC Caulfield removing her knickers whilst on duty.
- Ex-PC Caulfield giving Ex-PC Eronini a pair of her knickers, and
- Foreplay sufficient to make Ex-PC Eronini believe that Ex-PC Caulfield was likely to orgasm.
- This conduct continued over a significant period.
- Ex-PC Caulfield was in a long-term relationship and lived with her then partner. Their property had a Ring Doorbell. This meant that Ex-PC Caulfield’s ex-partner was aware of when she was and was not in the property. Ex-PC Eronini was married (since 2021) and lived with his wife. They have several children. Their domestic situation was such as to make infidelity at Ex-PC Eronini’s home address almost impossible.
- The Officers exchanged the following sexualised messaging whilst on duty (as outlined in the Regulation 30 Notice).
- Ex-PC Eronini and Ex-PC Caulfield engaged in sexualised physical contact.
The Evidence
- The evidence was put forward in a 106 page bundle.
- The panel had the benefit of a Case Summary, which outlined how the AA put its case.
- The panel considered the bundle in its entirety.
- Ex-Police Constable Eronini joined the Greater Manchester Police on 07/10/19. He resigned from the Greater Manchester Police on 05/01/24.
- Ex-Police Constable Caulfield joined the Greater Manchester Police on 28/06/2021. She resigned from the Greater Manchester Police on 09/06/23.
- The Officers took no part in the proceedings.
The Conduct is Found Proven and Constitutes that of Gross Misconduct
Live Written Warning or Final Written Warning Existing No
The Decision of the Panel is:
Finding of Gross Misconduct - Disciplinary Action imposed – (A finding that the officer concerned would have been dismissed if they had not ceased to be a member of a police force or a special constable)(Reg 42(1)(a))
This is your Outcome Notice for the allegation outlined above.
The Reasons are Shown Below:
Findings
- In making its findings, the panel took account of the entirety of the evidence including the evidence contained in the bundle, and the submissions made by Counsel on behalf of the AA.
- None of the evidence has been challenged by the former officers, although certain denials have been made.
- The panel reminded itself that it had to make findings in relation to the facts of this case on the balance of probabilities. The appropriate authority was required to prove its case such that it was more likely than not that the allegations as outlined occurred in the manner alleged.
- This case involved allegations that former PCs Caulfield and Eronini conducted an emotional and sexual relationship prior to 21 January 2023. In particular, it is alleged that the former Officers engaged in sexual correspondence and activity whilst on Police duty.
- This case was unusual in that the panel were not provided with any specific dates upon which the alleged behaviour took place. The panel found that the evidence was limited in this regard.
- Nevertheless, the panel found, after considering the emails and statements o the former officers, that it was likely that the alleged behaviour took place during December 2022 and January 2023.
- The panel firstly had to satisfy itself that the conduct as alleged occurred whilst the former officers were on duty. As the panel had not been provided with dates for text messages or the Officers’ shift details, the AA asked the panel to assume that the Officers had been on duty at the time of the alleged misconduct, due to the nature and content of the text messages provided.
- The panel had also been provided with the details of the complaint made by the former partner of former PC Caulfield. The details provided in the complaints outlined that the nature and content of the text messages found upon former PC Caulfield’s phone were highly suggestive that the text messages and conduct of the former Officers had taken place in Police motor vehicles and at Police Stations and whilst on duty.
- The text messages themselves referred to “the van”, “the steps near the gym” and “police kit” such as high visibility jackets.
- The panel also had the benefit of discussions which had taken place with PC Eronini’s Federation Representation and with his line manager. Within those conversations it had been recorded that PC Eronini had accepted that the text messages had been exchanged whilst the former Officers had been on duty.
- The panel had regard to the fact that both former Officers denied that any sexual activity had occurred.
- Neither of the Officers had provided detailed responses to the detailed particulars of the allegations. However, PC Eronini (page 90) appeared to have accepted that he had breached the Standards of Conduct, discredited his partner and his job and accepted that he had breached the duties and responsibilities required of him as a Police Officer.
- The panel noted that former PC Caulfield had stated that the allegations made had not occurred, although she had apologised sincerely. The panel noted that former Officer Caulfield had not made any specific denials in relation to either the text messages or the alleged sexual activity.
- In the circumstances, the panel found on the balance of probabilities that the text messages had been exchanged whilst both former Officers had been on duty.
- The panel found that the nature of the text messages, having been exchanged whilst on duty, were such that they amounted to a breach of the Code of Ethics and that they amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to duties and responsibilities and discreditable conduct.
- The panel then considered whether or not any sexual activity had, in fact, taken place whilst the former Officers had been on duty.
- Again, the evidence was extremely limited in this regard.
- Again, the panel took into account that both former Officers had denied that any sexual physical contact had taken place.
- Nevertheless, the panel found that it was entitled to take into account the nature and content of the text messages within the bundle. The panel found that some of the messages suggested that sexual activity had been arranged, had occurred and had been discussed or referenced, following its occurrence.
- It had been accepted by former PC Eronini that he had kissed PC Caulfield and that she had given him a pair of her knickers. This admission was significant, because it was consistent with an exchange within the text messages whereby former PC Caulfield had asked former PC Eronini if he still had her underwear. He had responded to this question by providing detail suggesting he had. He later admitted that he had to other officers.
- The panel found therefore, on the balance of probabilities, that it was more likely than not that former PCs Caulfield and Eronini engaged in sexual activity whilst on duty.
- The panel therefore found that this behaviour breached the standards of professional behaviour in relation to duties and responsibilities and discreditable conduct.
- The panel also found that the former Officers’ conduct individually and collectively amounted to gross misconduct, namely a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to duties and responsibilities and discreditable conduct which were so serious as such that they amounted to gross misconduct.
OUTCOME
- In the determining the outcomes the panel have adopted the structured 3 stage approach outlined in the Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings.
The Seriousness of the Misconduct
- When considering outcome the panel must remember that the most important purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions is to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the policing profession as a whole.
Culpability
- The panel found that the conduct of both Officers was intentional and deliberate and was sexually motivated.
- The panel found that both former Officers would have been well aware that their conduct whilst on duty was unacceptable and their behaviour was inappropriate.
- The panel accepted that both former Officers could reasonably have foreseen the risk of harm, in particular to the reputation of the Police Service.
- The panel also accepted that their conduct represented misconduct in a public office, albeit at a low level.
- In the circumstances, the panel found that both Officers were entirely culpable for their actions and that the gross misconduct as found represented high culpability.
Harm
- The panel found that the former Officers’ conduct would result in significant damage to the reputation of the Police Force.
- In addition the former Officers’ conduct clearly caused emotional harm to their respective partners.
- For these reasons the panel found that the harm suffered, when put into context of other allegations of Police Misconduct, was medium.
- Nevertheless the panel found that the gross misconduct as found was serious.
Aggravating Features
- The panel found that the following aggravating features were present in this case:-
a. The misconduct pursued was for sexual gratification.
b. Both former Officers abused their positions.
c. No detailed admissions have been made in relation to the misconduct as alleged.
d. There was repeated misconduct albeit over a short period of time.
e. Both Officers continued to text each other inappropriately after they should have realised that it was improper.
f. Their conducts represented a significant deviation from instructions.
Personal Mitigation
- The panel found that both Officers were relatively young in their careers with former PC Caulfield in particular, having been in the Police Force for only 18 months.
- The panel found that the misconduct as found took place over a relatively short period of time.
- The panel noted that both Officers within their correspondence with the appropriate authority had expressed remorse and had apologised for their actions.
Seriousness
- The panel found after considering both former Officer’s culpability, the harm caused, the aggravating and mitigating features that both former Officers’ misconduct was serious.
The Purposes of Imposing Disciplinary Action
- The panel reminded itself that the primary purpose of imposing disciplinary action is to protect the public confidence in the reputation of policing.
- The panel understands its duty when imposing disciplinary action in Police Misconduct proceedings is to maintain high professional standards by demonstrating to other Officers that misconduct of a certain kind or of certain seriousness, will be dealt with by disciplinary action.
- The panel must consider the appropriate sanction in the particular circumstances of this case.
Appropriate Disciplinary Action in this Case
- The Panel considered all of the evidence put forward and weighed it against its findings in relation to the misconduct as found, bearing in mind the purposes of imposing an Outcome in police misconduct proceedings.
- The panel considered whether disciplinary action would be appropriate in this case, as the officers have resigned. The panel found that disciplinary action would be appropriate.
- Accordingly, it found that the most appropriate sanction in this case, and that which reflected the evidence, the former officers’ culpability and the serious nature of these findings, would have been dismissal without notice in relation to both former officers.
Presiding Officer: Warren Spencer
Superintendent: Dean Purtill
Independent Member: Sian Barker
Date: 10.10.24