‘Sacked’ Northamptonshire Sergeant claims discrimination because he is ‘male and a police officer’

A Northamptonshire Police Sergeant stashed his phone and bought a new one to dodge an investigation into allegations of criminal conduct.

Dale Iniff hid his phone in a wall behind a bookcase to avoid it being found by fellow officers during a search in November 2021, according to details of a disciplinary hearing.

He then obtained an alternative handset to hand over to the investigators.

A statement read to a disciplinary panel last month claimed the former officer appeared to suggest he had been “discriminated against by the police on the basis of being male and being a police officer” and that his complaints over “malicious allegations” made against him were not taken seriously.

The panel last month ruled Iniff was guilty of gross misconduct and would have been sacked if he had not already quit the force.

Iniff, who did not attend the hearing, was also accused of breaching bail conditions and unfairly discriminating against a colleague as a result of his perception of her sexual orientation.

Details of the case later published by Northamptonshire Police confirmed: “Dishonesty in relation to policing matters is always serious, the behaviour was deliberate, had serious implications, involved misleading colleagues and obstructing an investigation, and demonstrated a discriminatory attitude towards a colleague.”

According to the decision notice, Iniff had raised stress and mental health issues affecting his decision making.

It added: “The panel noted that it had no direct medical evidence of any mental health diagnosis. However, it noted concerns amongst colleagues about Mr Iniff’s coping abilities, both before and after the series of events in question, and the concern for his welfare shown by investigating officers.

“A statement from Mr Iniff was read out which appeared to suggest that he had been discriminated against by the police on the basis of being male and being a police officer; that malicious allegations had been made against him which were not treated impartially and his complaints had not been taken seriously by the police.

“Set against this, it noted that there were elements of calculated behaviour and some inconsistencies in Mr Iniff’s evidence in that he appeared to attribute some of his decision making to the impact of mental health issues, whilst at the same time showing a degree of pre-planning.”

The panel heard that Iniff had apparently bought a new phone the day after he became aware of a potential criminal investigation.

It added: “The conduct was aimed at manipulating the process of the investigation against him by controlling the evidence available to investigators.

"Our finding of a breach of honesty and integrity would have placed on the ability to deploy Mr Iniff to any meaningful range of policing duties in the future had he not resigned, and to the impact of discriminatory behaviour on the confidence of the public and of colleagues.

“The panel concluded that dismissal without notice would have been the only appropriate and proportionate outcome had Mr Iniff not resigned.”