Former Durham PC Found Guilty of Gross Misconduct Over Woman’s Data..

Gross Misconduct Finding After Durham PC Accessed Woman’s Personal Records

Former Durham Police Officer Would Have Been Dismissed After Misusing Force Database to Pursue Woman

6th August 2026

A former Durham Constabulary officer has been found guilty of gross misconduct after using a police computer system to obtain private information about a woman he was interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with.

Police Constable Stephen Holmes resigned from Durham Constabulary on 14 July 2026, one day before the written determination was set to be issued following an accelerated misconduct hearing.

The hearing chair, Rachel Bacon, concluded that Holmes would have been dismissed without notice had he remained a serving officer. His details are also to be placed on the Police Barred List, preventing him from ever returning to policing.

Woman’s details searched without a policing purpose…

The proceedings concerned six allegations arising from an incident on 19 April 2025.

According to the misconduct determination, Holmes obtained the personal mobile telephone number of a civilian woman, identified only as “H”, while he was on duty and partially dressed in police uniform.

Later that evening, he accessed Durham Constabulary’s Sigma computer system from Crook Police Station and searched the woman’s telephone number.

The panel found that Holmes accessed information including her name, date of birth, home address and crime-related records despite having no policing or lawful purpose for doing so.

The determination states that Holmes subsequently contacted H, attended her home and took her to his address, where they had sexual intercourse. It also records that Holmes accepted in a police interview that he had accessed the force system without any policing purpose.

An application was granted to preserve the woman’s anonymity because she was not involved in the misconduct proceedings and was entitled to privacy.

Former officer accepted his conduct

Holmes did not attend the misconduct hearing, although the chair was satisfied that he had been properly notified and decided it was in the public interest for the proceedings to continue in his absence.

A written response submitted on his behalf by his Police Federation representative accepted the conduct alleged, acknowledged that it amounted to gross misconduct and included an apology and matters of mitigation.

The panel also considered an audit trail from the force’s computer system. It showed Holmes using Sigma between 10.38pm and 10.52pm and searching the woman’s number before navigating through her personal details.

The determination noted that officers are warned when logging into force systems that they must only be used for official policing purposes and that private or personal use is strictly prohibited.

The chair found that Holmes knew, or should have known, that the search was forbidden and that he ignored the warning displayed when accessing the system.

Gross misconduct proven

Rachel Bacon found all the allegations proven on the balance of probabilities.

She concluded that Holmes had breached the professional standards relating to honesty and integrity, confidentiality and discreditable conduct. Those breaches were assessed as gross misconduct.

The misconduct was described as intentional and deliberate, with Holmes using confidential police information for his own personal purposes.

The chair said he had searched for information about H because he was interested in developing an intimate or sexual relationship with her, rather than for any legitimate policing reason. His culpability was assessed as high.

The panel also found that the harm caused by the misconduct was high, even though the determination did not identify direct harm suffered by H, with the panel also concluding that public confidence would be seriously damaged by an officer accessing private information without regard for confidentiality and for the purpose of pursuing a personal relationship.

Dismissal was the only appropriate outcome

As Holmes had already resigned, the panel could either take no disciplinary action or decide that he would have been dismissed had he remained in service.

The chair concluded that dismissal without notice was the only appropriate outcome, stating that no lesser sanction would adequately maintain policing standards or uphold public confidence.

She said the case was a very serious matter and that the misconduct significantly threatened public trust and respect for the police service.

Holmes has the right to appeal the decision through the Police Appeals Tribunal process.