Police officer who lied to get job with Northamptonshire force quit before he could be sacked, panel rules

Chief Constable hears how former PC was sacked for gross misconduct in 2017
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

A man who lied to get a job as a police constable would have been sacked for gross misconduct if he hadn’t already quit, a disciplinary panel has ruled.

Former PC Richard Wilson was sacked from a job for gross misconduct in January 2017 — but failed to disclose the fact on his application to Northamptonshire Police in March 2020.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The hearing held earlier this month, chaired by Chief Constable Nick Adderley, was also told that Wilson was asked specifically if he has previous involvement in disciplinary proceedings.

A Northamptonshire Police tribunal ruled Richard Wilson would have been sacked for gross misconduct if he hadn't already left the forceA Northamptonshire Police tribunal ruled Richard Wilson would have been sacked for gross misconduct if he hadn't already left the force
A Northamptonshire Police tribunal ruled Richard Wilson would have been sacked for gross misconduct if he hadn't already left the force

A Northamptonshire Police statement said: “The former officer resigned prior to the hearing being held and did not attend.

“The Chief Constable considered the available evidence and found the allegations proven as gross misconduct.

“It was determined that, had former officer PC Wilson still been a serving police officer, he would have been dismissed.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It was alleged that Wilson breached standards of professional behaviour between November 2019 and June 2020 in respect of his responses to questions on his vetting application to join the force.

In the course of the application process he completed forms, the accurate completion of which was a condition of him being confirmed in post as a serving police officer, and also lied during an ethical interview.

The police statement added: “The reason the conduct amounts to gross misconduct is that it was fundamentally dishonest.

“If accurate information had been provided it was likely to have an adverse effect on his vetting application.

"He then maintained a dishonest response when questioned about his answers in an interview.”