Ex-Durham Police Officer Abused Position to Pursue Witness, Misconduct Hearing Finds

The former Durham Police Officer has been placed on the Police Barred List

Former police officer would have been dismissed over “predatory” pursuit of vulnerable witness..

25th August 2026

A former police officer would have been dismissed from Durham Police had he not resigned after a misconduct hearing found that he’d used his position to pursue an emotional and sexual relationship with a vulnerable witness during an ongoing investigation.

The officer, identified only as former PC D, exchanged 636 messages with the woman over a period of around three weeks in October 2025.

An accelerated misconduct hearing concluded that his behaviour amounted to gross misconduct and ordered that he be placed on the police barred list, preventing him from ever returning to policing.

The officer had reportedly already resigned from the force and chose not to attend or participate in the hearing, despite being aware that it was taking place. It was reported that the proceedings took place in his absence.

Hundreds of messages exchanged

The woman, referred to as A, was a witness in an investigation concerning an alleged assault involving her partner and his former partner. PC D became involved in the investigation and subsequently began contacting A through his police-issued work phone.

According to the hearing’s written findings, the pair exchanged 636 messages between October 7 and October 27, averaging approximately 30 messages a day.

Most of those conversations were unrelated to police work. On some days, the exchanges reportedly continued for more than two hours, including late at night and into the early hours of the morning.

The hearing found that the messages became increasingly familiar and flirtatious. PC D described both himself and A as a “catch”, told her she was “stunning” and had a “beautiful face”, and admitted that he had looked at her because he found her attractive.

He also discussed the possibility of beginning a casual relationship in which neither person would develop feelings and both could walk away.

The officer later attempted to arrange a private meeting with A while he was working. The hearing was told that a planned encounter, during which A intended to kiss him, was interrupted when a member of the public spoke to the officer.

Woman’s vulnerability was known

The hearing found that PC D knew the woman was vulnerable because she had previously told him that she experienced severe anxiety and panic attacks. Despite this, the officer reportedly continued his contact and reportedly asked whether her partner monitored her messages and whether he was present every day.

The findings said PC D suggested regularly deleting their message thread and asked whether A could be trusted. The panel concluded that these conversations demonstrated that he knew his conduct was inappropriate and was attempting to avoid being caught.

PC D had also received specific training in November 2022 about the abuse of a police position for a sexual purpose. The hearing found that his actions were not merely those of an officer becoming overly familiar with a witness.

“The messages suggest he was grooming Ms A for sexual purposes,” the decision stated, with the panel concluding that his behaviour had been “intentional, deliberate, targeted and planned” and involved an effort to exploit a vulnerable witness.

Messages deleted from police phone

A second allegation concerned the deletion of the communications from PC D’s police-issued mobile phone. The officer did not provide an explanation for why the messages were missing. The hearing found that they had been deleted to conceal the inappropriate relationship.

Both allegations were upheld on the balance of probabilities.

The officer was found to have breached professional standards relating to authority, respect and courtesy; orders and instructions; duties and responsibilities; discreditable conduct; and honesty and integrity, with the hearing also finding that the relationship created a serious conflict of interest.

No mitigating factors identified

During police interviews, PC D accepted that some of the communication had been excessive and could be viewed as flirtatious or overly familiar. However, he denied believing that A was vulnerable and maintained that he’d not been seeking sexual gratification or intending to begin a relationship with her.

Placed on barred list

PC D joined the force in October 2022 and worked as a response officer. He’d resigned by the time the disciplinary proceedings were held.

Because of this, & the fact that he was no longer a serving officer, the hearing could not dismiss him directly. It instead determined that he would have been dismissed had he remained a police officer.

He will now be added to the police barred list.

The former officer retains a right to appeal....