Gross Misconduct Allegation Against Cleveland Police Officer 'Not Proven' After Three-Day Hearing..
- 4 minutes ago
- 3 min read
Night-Out Allegation Against Cleveland Police Officer Dismissed After CCTV Review
4th June 2026
A police misconduct panel has ruled that an allegation of inappropriate touching made against a Cleveland Police officer following a staff night out was not proven.
The officer, identified only as Police Constable A, appeared before a misconduct hearing held at Scotswood House in Stockton-on-Tees in a three day hearing held in May 2026
The officer was granted full anonymity by the chair of the panel. The complainant, referred to only as PC X, was also granted anonymity. The proceedings reportedly related to an alleged incident arising from a night out involving members of a response policing team based in Stockton. According to the panel’s written determination, members of the team attended Bongo’s Bingo in Middlesbrough on October 18, 2024, before later visiting other venues including Macey Brown’s and Flares.
Allegation of Inappropriate Touching
The allegation centred on an incident which is said to have taken place between 11pm on October 18 and 12.15am on October 19, while members of the group were walking between venues. PC X alleged that PC A described them as a “good looking” person, placed a hand into the back pocket of their jeans and squeezed their backside twice without consent.
It was alleged that this conduct breached the police standards of professional behaviour relating to authority, respect and courtesy, as well as discreditable conduct.
Had the allegation been proven, the panel was asked to consider whether the officer’s behaviour amounted to gross misconduct — a finding sufficiently serious to justify dismissal.
PC A denied the allegation throughout the investigation and hearing.
CCTV Footage Carefully Examined
The misconduct panel was said to have considered a 143-page evidence bundle, viewed CCTV footage from the night in question and heard evidence from four other witnesses, including PC A and PC X. The panel accepted that the group had been drinking alcohol during the evening and that officers attending the night out had generally been in good spirits.
Evidence presented during the hearing suggested that some members of the group had been behaving in a friendly and affectionate manner, with hugging and people placing their arms around one another described as relatively commonplace during the evening.
PC A accepted placing an arm around another colleague at one stage during the walk between venues. However, the officer said the contact ended immediately after it became clear it was not welcome. That separate interaction was said to have been visible on CCTV and was not considered by the colleague involved to have had a sexual motive.
However, after closely reviewing the available CCTV footage covering the walk between the bars, the panel said it could find no support for the sequence of events as described, with the panel concluding that the alleged incident did not appear anywhere in the footage covering the journey.
Witness Accounts Considered
The panel also considered whether PC X had reported the alleged incident to colleagues immediately after it was said to have happened. PC X said the matter had been disclosed within seconds. However, the two colleagues identified did not recall being told about the allegation on the night itself. The panel found that the allegation was not communicated to them until the following day.
The panel found that PC A gave a more accurate recollection of the evening than PC X and described PC A’s evidence as consistent and candid.
The panel also considered character references provided by 13 colleagues, including nine female officers and four male officers, which described PC A positively.
Allegation Not Proven
The panel concluded that the evidence, on the balance of probabilities did not establish that the behaviour complained of had occurred.
In its determination, the panel stated:
“Overall we do not find, on the balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not that the behaviour complained of by PC X occurred and on that basis do not find the matters proved.”
The decision means the allegation of gross misconduct was not upheld.
The report also confirms that there is a right of appeal on limited grounds, including where a finding is considered unreasonable, where critical new evidence emerges or where there has been a serious procedural breach capable of affecting the outcome.
The Teesside & Durham Post were only in a position to publish the outcome of the officers report after submitting a formal request for disclosure to Cleveland Police late last month.
