Bath police officer who pinched colleague’s bottom cleared of misconduct

A police constable who pulled up a colleague’s coat and pinched her bottom has been cleared of gross misconduct.

But an Avon & Somerset Police tribunal panel ruled that PC Chenise Austin, based in Bath, committed the lesser offence of misconduct and told her in no uncertain terms that she needed to change her behaviour, as it gave her a final written warning for three years.

The panel found that for all four allegations by the colleague, Miss A, who cannot be named for legal reasons, the officer’s conduct was unwanted.

Delivering the decision, misconduct hearing chair Craig Holden said that the first of these – pulling the tassels of the alleged victim’s jogging bottoms exposing her underwear in front of other officers in a rest room, caused Miss A embarrassment but that there was no evidence anyone saw her knickers.

He said that on the second accusation – that PC Austin tried to kiss the colleague as she lay on a sofa watching TV at work, which led to Miss A covering her face and the constable’s mouth coming into contact with her hand – the panel did not interpret this as an attempted kiss.

Mr Holden said the third allegation – the officer placing her face on Miss A’s neck as she worked at a computer in the office next to others – was found proved, although this was not inherently sexual.

However, on allegation four – that she pinched her colleague’s bottom after putting her hands underneath her coat – the panel chair said: “This allegation is disputed by the officer but her evidence is less credible and not entirely consistent.

“The officer says she put her hands on Miss A’s back to demonstrate how cold it was outside.

“This explanation is simply implausible. The panel found this allegation proved.

“Allegation four was a deliberate placing of a hand on a bottom.

“This was inherently sexual in its nature.

“It does not follow that the intention was necessarily sexual.

“Miss A was made to feel awkward and felt unable to challenge it. It left her shocked.”

Mr Holden said that while the incident was ‘in no way acceptable in a professional environment’, it was consistent with PC Austin’s tactile nature with others.

He said: “As to consent, this conduct was outside the boundaries of ordinary everyday actions.

“The panel considers there was no consent for any of the conduct, either expressly or implied.”

He said that Miss A trying to move away and covering her face with her hand indicated a lack of consent.

“Nevertheless, the panel accepts the officer’s deep-held belief she had implied consent from Miss A for allegations one to three,” Mr Holden said.

“Allegation four, however, treads into the territory of deliberate and inherently sexual touching.

“There was no one else in the room. The officer had to remove a layer of clothing to access Miss A’s bottom.”

The panel found PC Austin, 33, a bisexual former women’s footballer who played at a high level for West Ham, Cheltenham Town, Swindon Town and Coventry United, breached the standard of professional behaviour in terms of authority, respect and courtesy, but not for equality and diversity or discreditable conduct.

Mr Holden said: “The breach amounted to misconduct but not gross misconduct.

“Miss A was a credible witness with no ulterior motive or malice.

“While PC Austin maintains her defence, she made appropriate concessions and was generally credible.

“Evidence regarding allegation four was, however, inconsistent.”

He said the panel accepted the pair had a close friendship which did not extend outside work.

Mr Holden said: “There is certainly no evidence of a romantic attachment.

“Is the conduct sexual? Allegation one was an extremely brief encounter and was consistent with jocular, changing-room type behaviour.

“A reasonable person would not consider it to be sexual.

“As for the breaches of the standards, for all four allegations the officer failed to act with self-control or with authority, respect and courtesy.

“The officer did not have consent, regardless of what she thought.

“Allegation four was of a sexual nature regardless of intent.

“The panel did not consider it reached the level of creating an intimidating, humiliating or degrading environment.

“The overall conduct is not considered to be planned and was not discriminatory.

“There was a genuine, if naive, belief of implicit consent for allegations one to three.

“On allegation four, the conduct was not considered to be predatory.

“Miss A felt awkward and embarrassed.”

He said the public, knowing the full facts, would be concerned but not outraged by PC Austin’s behaviour and that it fell short of undermining public confidence in the police.

Mr Holden said: “There was no finding of intent or sexual gratification by the officer.

“The panel concluded that the conduct should be classed towards the higher end of misconduct.”

Barrister Kevin Baumber, representing the constabulary, told day four of the hearing at police headquarters in Portishead on Thursday 16th July, that the sanction should be a final written warning for the maximum five years.

He told the panel: “You have found that on allegation four, the touch was inherently sexual.

“The signs should have been obvious that it was not consented to.

“There is evidence of psychological distress in this case.”

Barrister Julian King, representing PC Austin, said the panel should impose a final written warning for the minimum two years.

He said: “There was clearly a misunderstanding between the parties.

“The officer has modified her behaviour, she has apologised and she will proceed as a useful officer.

“This is a person with a lot to give.

“It’s not an example of targeted or predatory behaviour and it was not pre-planned.

“There is genuinely real remorse.”

Because the panel’s finding was of misconduct and not gross misconduct, the only options it had were for a written warning of a final written warning – a reduction of rank, which could also be considered, is not possible for a PC.

Giving the officer a final written warning for three years, Mr Holden told her: “It is absolutely the view of the panel that you need to reflect on your actions and their impact on others.”

Adam Postans, Local Democracy Reporter