Ex-Cleveland Police Officer Placed on Police Barred List, After Gross Misconduct Finding...
- 11 minutes ago
- 4 min read
Former Cleveland Police Officer Would Have Been Sacked Over Relationship With Vulnerable Domestic Abuse Victim
17th August 2026
A former Cleveland Police officer who previously appeared on Channel 5’s fly-on-the-wall documentary Inside the Force: 24/7 would have been dismissed without notice after a misconduct panel found he entered into an inappropriate sexual relationship with a vulnerable domestic abuse victim he had first encountered while carrying out his policing duties.
Former Police Constable Burgess had already resigned from Cleveland Police before the misconduct hearing took place on 10 August 2026, meaning the panel was instead required to determine what sanction would have been imposed had he remained a serving officer.
Following a one-day hearing, the panel concluded that the allegations against the former officer were proven and amounted to gross misconduct, finding that dismissal without notice would have been the appropriate outcome.
The woman involved in the proceedings is referred to only as Ms A after the hearing chair ordered that her identity be protected and that no information capable of identifying her should be published.
Relationship began after police attendance
The case centred on events beginning on the 1st of July 2024, when its claimed Burgess attended Ms A’s home following a report concerning the theft of a vehicle.
The panel said there was nothing improper about his conduct during that initial police attendance. However, Ms A subsequently contacted him through Facebook and the pair began communicating privately.
The panel heard that personal telephone numbers were then exchanged and Burgess later attended her home. Evidence recovered from his device showed that communications between the pair became intimate and sexual.
The panel ultimately found that between the 9th of July and the 22nd of July 2024, Burgess had established an inappropriate sexual relationship with Ms A, whom the proceedings described as a vulnerable victim of domestic abuse.
Messages recovered during the investigation included intimate and sexual communications from 12 July onwards, while CCTV evidence also recorded Burgess’s vehicle outside or close to Ms A’s home.
The misconduct panel said the evidence demonstrated that an intimate or romantic relationship was taking place and continued throughout the relevant period.
Officer sought advice — but failed to reveal full picture..
On the 16th of July 2024, Burgess approached an inspector and explained that he had attended an incident involving somebody he previously knew and that she had subsequently contacted him.
He was advised to speak to Cleveland Police’s Professional Standards Department because of concerns surrounding an inappropriate relationship and was provided with guidance concerning Abuse of Position for a Sexual Purpose.
However, when Professional Standards became involved the following day, Burgess disclosed that sexual communications had already taken place.
The panel found that Burgess had not been truthful with his supervisors about the full nature of the relationship, including failing to properly disclose its sexual nature and the extent to which it was continuing.
He was then placed on restricted duties and ordered not to have any further contact with Ms A.
Around 250 messages after order to stop contact
Despite instruction from his superiors, the hearing found Burgess continued communicating with the woman. One of the misconduct allegations stated that after being given a lawful order on the 17th of July 2024 to cease communication with Ms A, Burgess met her during the night of 21/22 July and exchanged around 250 messages with her on the 22nd of July alone.
Burgess had disputed during an earlier interview that he’d been given such an order, although the panel found that the instruction had been clearly given.
It concluded that he continued contacting Ms A despite knowing the seriousness of the situation.
Allegations of offences went unreported
The hearing also considered several matters which the panel found had been disclosed to Burgess but which he failed to report.
These included a message in which Ms A allegedly said her former partner had assaulted and choked their son, information indicating that she was in possession of an XL Bully, and photographs allegedly showing children travelling without seatbelts while Ms A used a mobile phone while driving.
The panel found those parts of the allegation proven on the basis of message evidence.
Addressing the alleged assault on the child in particular, the panel described it as a potentially very serious matter which should have caused Burgess concern.
It also found that he failed to act over the dangerous dog and driving matters, stating that in one instance his response amounted to sending an emoji rather than reporting the issue.
Training specifically covered inappropriate relationships
The panel heard that Burgess had received training back in November 2021 and in May 2022 concerning Abuse of Position for a Sexual Purpose.
Guidance considered during the hearing states that police officers should not pursue sexual or improper emotional relationships with members of the public whom they meet through their policing duties, with domestic abuse victims specifically recognised as potentially vulnerable.
The panel concluded Burgess had breached a number of Standards of Professional Behaviour, including Honesty and Integrity; Authority, Respect and Courtesy; Orders and Instructions; Duties and Responsibilities; and Discreditable Conduct.
It found that he should have exercised proper professional self-control and declined any advances from Ms A, regardless of who initiated the contact.
Culpability and harm assessed as high
When deciding the seriousness of the case, the panel assessed Burgess’s culpability as high. The panel also concluded his conduct was deliberate and repeated over a period of weeks, including after supervisors had intervened and instructed him to cease contact.
Would have been dismissed without notice
Burgess made admissions during proceedings and expressed remorse and some insight into his behaviour. The panel also considered his service record, which showed no previous behaviour of this kind.
However, it concluded those factors were insufficient to justify any lesser outcome.
The panel ruled:
“The appropriate outcome in this case would have been dismissal without notice had the Former Officer remained in service.”
It said the breaches were sufficiently serious that no other outcome would adequately maintain public confidence or uphold the standards expected of police officers.
As Burgess had already resigned, he could not formally be dismissed.
Instead, the panel directed that his details should be included on the Police Barred List, preventing him from returning to policing in roles covered by the regulations.
The written determination was dated 10th of August 2026.
