PSNI officer dismissed after Ombudsman uncovers ‘catalogue of corruption’

A PSNI officer who began a sexual relationship with a woman within 24 hours of meeting her through a criminal investigation, concealed three conflicts of interest and attempted to falsify an official statement has been dismissed without notice.

Police Ombudsman Jacqui Durkin described the officer’s conduct as a “catalogue of corruption”, saying he abused his position for sexual purposes, lied, tried to involve another officer in his deception and sought to bully and intimidate a former partner.

The case has also exposed a wider concern for policing in Northern Ireland: the Ombudsman says allegations involving abuse of position for sexual purposes now account for 36% of the most serious cases currently under investigation by her Office.

The officer was ultimately found guilty of gross misconduct by a three-person PSNI misconduct panel in April 2026 and dismissed without notice. A criminal investigation had previously resulted in the Public Prosecution Service directing that there should be no prosecution.

Relationship began within 24 hours of meeting woman

The case stretches back to late 2018, when one woman, referred to as Woman A, made an assault allegation against another, Woman B. Woman B then made a counter-allegation against Woman A.

Police Officer A, who was responsible for investigating the allegations, asked Police Officer B to take a statement from Woman B.

But Police Officer B did not disclose a significant conflict of interest: he had previously been in a sexual relationship with Woman A in 2016 and remained in social contact with her.

Within 24 hours of meeting Woman B to take her statement, the officer contacted her through Facebook and Snapchat. They subsequently began a sexual relationship, later lived together and had a child before separating in early 2020.

Ms Durkin said:

“Every action he took from the point he chose not to disclose his original conflict of interest with Woman A compounded his failure.

“It is appalling that within 24 hours of meeting Woman B, he had taken advantage of his position as a police officer to contact her and to form an inappropriate relationship with her.

“The power imbalance between a police officer and a woman who is not only accused of a crime but has also alleged that she was a victim of a crime herself, could not be more stark.”

She added:

“Police Officers know the standards which are expected of them and the professional boundaries which they must not cross.”

Officer attempted to falsify official statement

The investigation uncovered further serious conduct around Woman B’s police statement.

About five weeks after taking her original handwritten account, Police Officer B created a typed version, changed the date on which it had been taken and brought it home for Woman B to sign.

She later told Police Ombudsman investigators that she had not understood the implications of signing the altered statement. Her account of the incident itself had not been changed.

Police Officer B also removed his own name from the statement and replaced it with that of Police Officer A.

He then asked his colleague to sign it, claiming he knew Woman B because she lived close to some of his family members.

Police Officer A refused and reported the matter to his supervising sergeant.

Although the sergeant did not recall the issue concerning the second statement being raised, investigators subsequently found both statements within PSNI records.

Importantly, the Ombudsman established that it was the original statement — not the altered version — that was submitted to the Public Prosecution Service.

Three conflicts in ongoing criminal investigations

Investigators then uncovered another conflict of interest.

A week before Police Officer B first met Woman B to take her statement, he had been appointed as investigating officer in a separate assault allegation involving Woman B’s former boyfriend.

That investigation continued until March 2019 — overlapping with the officer’s relationship with Woman B.

Despite knowing the man under investigation was her former boyfriend, Police Officer B did not disclose that he was living with Woman B, was in an intimate relationship with her and that she was expecting his child.

Ms Durkin said the officer had reached the point where he had three separate conflicts of interest in ongoing criminal investigations.

“He has not disclosed his original relationship with Woman A. He has not disclosed his relationship with Woman B and also attempted to conceal it by falsifying an official record and trying to make a colleague complicit in his lie. And finally, he has not disclosed that he is investigating Woman B’s ex-boyfriend.

“Each of these conflicts compromised his position as a police officer and brought his integrity, independence and impartiality into question at any future criminal proceedings.”

The Ombudsman warned that such behaviour had the potential to cause “serious damage to public trust and confidence in policing”.

Threatening anonymous letter investigated

The investigation subsequently widened to examine a disturbing incident involving another former partner of Police Officer B.

In 2021, the woman reported to police that she had received a threatening anonymous letter.

It arrived a short time after Police Officer B had become aware that he was being investigated over his contact with vulnerable women.

The letter included an intimate photograph of the woman and threatened that further photographs would be sent to members of her family.

According to the Ombudsman, the woman said the only person with whom she had shared the photograph was Police Officer B.

Two weeks before the letter arrived, she had also received a phone notification indicating that he had downloaded all the images she had shared with him.

When investigators examined the officer’s phone, they found 51 images of the woman, including intimate photographs similar to the one contained in the anonymous letter.

The Ombudsman’s published findings do not state that the officer was prosecuted over the letter. At the conclusion of the wider criminal investigation, a file was submitted to the PPS, which directed no prosecution.

‘This was not a series of mistakes’

For Ms Durkin, the cumulative conduct represented something considerably more serious than isolated lapses in judgement.

She said:

“Members of the public rightly expect police officers to behave ethically and uphold the highest professional standards. In this case, they have been failed by someone who did not declare a conflict of interest at any time and who abused his position for sexual purposes, one of the most serious forms of police corruption.”

The Ombudsman also disclosed the scale of similar allegations currently reaching her Office.

“One case of this kind of abuse of position for sexual purposes is one case too many. However, these cases account for 36% of the most serious cases under investigation currently by my Office.”

She continued:

“This officer abused his position with a woman who was vulnerable, given she was not only accused of a crime but also alleged she was a victim of crime. He lied, he attempted to get a colleague to support his deceit and he sought to bully and intimidate a woman he had previously been in a relationship with.

“This was not a series of mistakes. It was calculated behaviour from the moment this police officer chose not to declare his first conflict of interest until he was reported, arrested, suspended and dismissed. This was a catalogue of corruption.”

Officer dismissed without notice

The PSNI confirmed that it was the Police Service itself which referred the case to the Police Ombudsman in November 2021 after internal enquiries identified concerns that the officer may have abused his position for sexual purposes.

Police Officer B was arrested by Ombudsman investigators during the subsequent investigation.

After the PPS directed no prosecution, the Ombudsman submitted a misconduct file to the PSNI’s Professional Standards Department.

A PSNI-chaired misconduct hearing was held in April 2026.

The three-person panel unanimously found the officer had committed gross misconduct, breaching the PSNI Code of Ethics in relation to professional duty, police investigations and integrity.

He was dismissed without notice.

Chief Superintendent Stephen Murray, Head of the PSNI’s Professional Standards Department, said:

“The serious misconduct identified in this case is unacceptable and clearly falls far below the standards the public rightly expects, at all times, from police officers and staff.

“Police officers are entrusted with significant powers and responsibilities. That trust must never be abused for personal or sexual gain. Abuse of position for sexual purposes is wholly unacceptable, it is a serious abuse of authority and a breach of the trust placed in policing by the public.”

He described the behaviour as “simply intolerable”, involving dishonesty, failures to declare conflicts and conduct which undermined the integrity, impartiality and professionalism expected of police officers.

Chief Superintendent Murray said the misconduct panel considered the seriousness of the proven behaviour, the harm caused and the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in policing.

“It found that no lesser outcome was appropriate and dismissed the officer without notice.”

PSNI says conflict procedures strengthened

The case has prompted the PSNI to point to changes in how conflicts of interest are handled.

Chief Superintendent Murray said the Service had “significantly strengthened” its processes around conflicts of interest to make clear that officers must declare them and ensure they are properly managed.

He added:

“We recognise the harm this type of behaviour can cause to those directly affected and the wider damage it does to public confidence in policing.

“The public should also be assured that we will act on concerns, engage and work closely with the Police Ombudsman taking robust action where misconduct is proven.”

He said the overwhelming majority of PSNI officers and staff served communities across Northern Ireland with “integrity, professionalism and care” and were themselves appalled when behaviour of this nature was uncovered.

Separate USB discovery led to gross misconduct finding

The Ombudsman’s investigation also produced a separate misconduct case.

During a search connected with the investigation, officers discovered a USB memory stick containing the entire contents of a missing person’s laptop.

A separate Police Ombudsman investigation found that Police Officer B had committed gross misconduct in relation to that matter, for which he received a final written warning.

His subsequent dismissal in the principal case means he is no longer serving with the PSNI.

The case now stands as one of the starkest recent examples of the consequences of an officer crossing professional boundaries: conduct which began with an undisclosed conflict of interest ultimately developed into what Northern Ireland’s independent police watchdog concluded was calculated corruption and abuse of public trust.

Support for people affected

The Police Ombudsman has encouraged anyone affected by publication of the investigation to contact Victim Support NI, which provides trauma-informed, confidential and free services.

Support is available from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday:

Belfast: 028 9024 3133

Foyle: 028 7137 0086

Belfast: belfast@victimsupportni.org.uk

Foyle: foyle@victimsupportni.org.uk

Further information and details of services are available from the Victim Support NI website.