Violence, Lies and a Phone Hidden in a Plant Pot: Former Cleveland PC Barred....

Former Officer PC Smythe, Pictured Here when he was a PCSO for Harrogate Police Tried to Destroy and Conceal Evidence, Misconduct Panel Finds

31st July 2026

A former police officer would have been dismissed from Cleveland Police without notice after a misconduct hearing found that he assaulted a witness on two occasions before then attempting to destroy and conceal evidence held on his mobile phone.

Former PC 2522 Daniel Smythe was found to have committed gross misconduct following an accelerated misconduct hearing held on the 23rd of July 2026. As Smythe had already left the police service, the hearing determined that he would have been dismissed had he remained a serving officer. His details are now also said to be added to the Police Barred List, preventing him from ever re-applying to be a police officer ever again.

The determination, signed by Chief Constable Victoria Fuller, found all four allegations brought against the former officer were proven on the balance of probabilities.

Two assaults proven…

The first allegation concerned an incident said to have occurred on or around April 28, 2024, when Smythe was accused of assaulting a person referred to in the determination as Witness A by grabbing their back as they were leaving.

The hearing accepted the witness’s account as credible and found that it was supported by text messages sent by Smythe in which he admitted that he had once attempted to drag someone out of the house.

A second assault was found to have taken place on March 11, 2024, when Smythe threw liquid over Witness A.

The determination said the witness’s account was supported by photographs showing Witness A and another person wet following the incident, together with text-message exchanges in which the accusation was raised but not disputed by Smythe.

Both incidents were found to have breached the professional standard relating to discreditable conduct.

The hearing chair concluded that the behaviour was intentional, targeted and could not be treated as an isolated incident. The determination described the conduct as involving violence and bullying and assessed the resulting harm as high, including the damage such behaviour could cause to public confidence in policing.

Although the determination records that there was no criminal conviction arising from the assaults, the chair concluded that the conduct found proven would have amounted to common assault.

The misconduct hearing was a disciplinary process conducted under the Police Conduct Regulations, applying the civil standard of proof. Its findings should therefore not be confused with a criminal conviction.

Mobile phone hidden in plant pot

The two remaining allegations related to Smythe’s actions when police officers attended to arrest him on April 24, 2025, with the hearing finding that Smythe falsely told officers he had lost his mobile phone when he had instead hidden it inside a plant pot at the address.

Digital forensic evidence also indicated that the phone had been factory-reset moments before his arrest, preventing investigators from recovering material stored on the device.

The determination found that Smythe only revealed where he had hidden the phone after officers threatened to deploy a specialist search team and explained the potentially invasive nature of the search.

Chief Constable Fuller concluded that Smythe had wiped and concealed the phone in an attempt to obstruct the investigation into the allegations made by Witness A.

The decision found that Smythe acted dishonestly when claiming the phone had been lost and that factory-resetting a device he knew was relevant to an active police investigation represented a serious breach of the professional standards of honesty and integrity.

For the purpose of assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, the chair concluded that destroying and concealing evidence in those circumstances amounted to conduct capable of constituting an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

The determination described the actions as intentional, deliberate, partly planned and highly culpable.

Hearing Undertaken in Smythe’s absence…

Smythe did not attend the accelerated misconduct hearing and had not submitted a formal response to the allegations. The hearing was told that he had been notified of the proceedings and informed that he could obtain legal representation. However, he failed to respond and had disengaged from the misconduct process.

He was however represented at the hearing by a Police Federation representative, with the chair deciding that Smythe had voluntarily chosen not to attend and that it was in the public interest for the proceedings to continue without further delay.

Smythe reportedly joined the police service on April 4, 2016 beginning his carear as a PCSO before joining as a regular police constable, his effective termination date from the force with no public confidence was recorded as the 12th April, 2026, shortly before the accelerated misconduct hearing took place.

Chief Constable Fuller concluded that Smythe’s decision to engage in violence and then attempt to destroy and conceal evidence was completely incompatible with continued service as a police officer.

She determined that dismissal without notice would have been the only appropriate outcome had Smythe still been serving.