Former Northamptonshire police officer would not have been sacked for accessing force systems after being told car had been stolen from someone who knew, panel finds
A former Northamptonshire police officer would not have been sacked for accessing force systems after being told a car had been stolen from someone he knew, a panel has found.
Steve Scott was subject to a gross misconduct hearing on Tuesday February 24, after it was alleged he breached the standards of professional behaviour on July 22, 2025.
Mr Scott, who was off sick at the time of the incident, attended the hearing and admitted breaching standards relating to orders and instructions and confidentiality, but not that of discreditable conduct.
It is alleged that the officer, who had resigned prior to the incident, accessed force systems after he was told a car belonging to someone he knew had been stolen. The systems contained ANPR information relating to the car being in the area.
The panel also heard that the former officer conducted his own enquiries by driving around the area to locate the vehicle and contacted the force control room to arrange recovery of the vehicle after he found it. He accessed police systems and confidential information relating to three individuals in connection with the offence. When he rang the control room, the former officer stayed in his car and monitored suspects interacting with the vehicle, while he waited for an on-duty police officer. He also provided a witness statement.
According to the panel, the behaviour had to be subject to a misconduct hearing as there is a policy in place that dictates all officers must have supervisor authority to access information on systems that relate to friends, family and acquaintances.
It is claimed that accessing this information was “deliberate subversion” of the policy, suggesting that the former officer “knew he should not be committing the conduct and that this can be inferred from his failure to tell control room that he had accessed systems about the crime and that this was how he had traced the vehicle”.
The hearing report added: “He [the former officer] stated that he had no benefit to obtain from the recovery of the vehicle, and that he reacted on instinct. He accepted that he was aware of the policy, although not ‘100%’ of its detail. He considered that all he was doing was recovering the vehicle because the likelihood of recovering the vehicle if it was left to others was low, because the nature of the crime is that it is of lower priority and his perception was that others would be too busy to do it.”
Chief Constable Ivan Balhatchet said: “Public confidence in the police is undermined by the impression that police officers carry out their duties with favouritism, or if they prioritise their friends and family in the exercise of their powers and discretions.
“However, I am not persuaded that this happened in this case. I find that the relationship was caught by the policy, but there is no evidence of any close relationship…. I believe if the public knew of the circumstances of this case, public confidence would not be diminished… I consider that the unusual circumstances of this particular case are such that I do not consider that dismissal would be justified.”
The hearing concluded that the officer would not have been dismissed if he was still a serving constable.