Former Police Officer Accessed Confidential Systems to Locate Missing Relative
A former police officer has been found to have accessed confidential crime reports in an attempt to locate a vulnerable missing family member, according to details from a misconduct hearing.
Unauthorised Access to Police Systems
The hearing heard how former PC Sandall, who was off-duty at the time, made what has been described as an unlawful check on police computer systems in April 2022. This occurred after his relative was reported missing, with genuine concerns for their welfare. Sandall stated that his intention was purely to safeguard his family member and ensure they did not come to harm.
During the early hours of the morning, between 12.41am and 12.44am, Sandall accessed a crime report relating to an incident involving his family member. Following this unauthorised access, he and a colleague managed to successfully locate the missing relative themselves.
Second Breach Two Years Later
The misconduct panel heard that this was not an isolated incident. Two years later, in February 2024, Sandall again accessed confidential police systems without authorisation. This occurred after plain clothes officers visited his home address while he was at work, speaking to a family member who was alone at the property.
Concerned about whether the visit was legitimate, Sandall accessed the police system to check if there had been a genuine call. In doing so, he viewed a crime report about a vehicle theft at his neighbour's address. The panel noted that he could have simply approached a supervisor for assistance rather than accessing the confidential data himself.
Gross Misconduct Findings
The accelerated misconduct hearing, which took place in January, found that Sandall's actions amounted to gross misconduct. He was found to have breached policing standards of professional behaviour relating to both confidentiality and discreditable conduct.
A report from then-Chief Constable Craig Guildford stated: "The former officer treated the data with no respect for its confidentiality or care whatsoever, he was only interested in the two matters which impacted upon himself and his family personally."
The hearing determined that had Sandall still been serving with West Midlands Police, he would have received a five-year final written warning. However, he had already resigned from the force prior to the hearing.
Mitigating Circumstances and Character References
While condemning the breaches of protocol, the panel acknowledged some mitigating factors. Regarding the first incident in 2022, Mr Guildford noted that Sandall had "acted in the interests of saving his family member from harm" and that his subsequent actions demonstrated a level of care that represented an important balancing factor.
The panel was presented with nine character references from colleagues, supervisors, and an external partner, along with information about Sandall's volunteer work as a football coach. These references painted a picture of an experienced officer generally regarded as an asset by those who had worked with him.
Sandall admitted the breaches during the hearing and offered what was described as a "genuine apology" to the force. Mr Guildford acknowledged the officer's regret while emphasising that he had "consciously elected to disregard his training and legal obligations on two individual occasions, two years apart."
The report concluded that while there were understandable human concerns behind the first breach, the second incident served primarily self-interest purposes. Both instances demonstrated a lack of respect for data confidentiality that contravened fundamental policing principles.
