FOI 620/25
Original request 397/25
Can I please be provided with the following information for all of the force's police misconduct hearings from the last two years:
1) Full name of police officer subject to misconduct hearing
2) Regulation 30 notice in the case
3) The date of the hearing
4) The findings of the hearing
5) The outcome of the hearing, including any disciplinary action.
6) Confirmation of whether the case was decided by misconduct panel, chief constable, or other (in which case the role of the other should be specified).
Request for internal review 620/25
Your response states that question three is answered, but it is not. The enquiry asked for the date of the hearing, not the year. In order to avoid a further complaint to the ICO, please urgently amend the table to include that detail.
Secondly, your response states that "the following exemption applies for those officers whose details are subject to an anonymity order: Section 44(1) Prohibitions on Disclosure". However, it does not make clear which cases were covered by an anonymity order. Please urgently amend the table to include that detail.
In addition, I'd like to make an appeal on the following basis. The response states that names will not be provided because that information is "reasonably accessible by other means", and cites the barred list. However, the barred list is only searchable by name. It cannot be searched using details like the date of the hearing. The suggestion, then, that the names of officers are accessible via the barred list, when that list can only be searched using a name in the first place, is patently wrong.
RESPONSE
Part VI of the Section 45 Code of Practice places a duty on public authorities to implement a complaints process to ensure that applicants are able to request an internal review if they are not content with an authority response.
An internal review has been conducted in a fair and impartial manner and I can provide our revised response below:
| Date | Role | Personnel | Findings | Result | Sanction | Decided by |
| 2023 | Police Officer | Ongoing court case | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Authority, respect & courtesy - Duties & responsibilities - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice (if serving) | Chief Constable |
| 2024 | Police Officer | Ongoing court case | Breach of Standards: - Orders & instructions - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed as if serving | Chief Constable |
| 2024 | Police Officer | Ongoing court case | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed as if serving | Chief Constable |
| 12/01/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Authority, respect & courtesy - Challenging and reporting improper behaviour - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed Without Notice (if serving) | Panel |
| 13/03/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed Without Notice (if serving) | Chief Constable |
| 29/03/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Duties & responsibilities - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed Without Notice (if serving) | Panel |
| 06/04/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & Integrity - Authority, respect & courtesy - Use of force - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed Without Notice | Panel |
| 26/05/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice (if serving) | Chief Constable |
| 03/08/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Confidentiality - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice (if serving) | Chief Constable |
| 06/09/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Authority, respect & courtesy - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice | Panel |
| 07/09/2023 | Police Officer | Anonymity Order | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Authority, respect & courtesy - Use of force - Orders & instructions - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice (if serving) | Panel |
| 09/10/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Confidentiality |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice (if serving) | Chief Constable |
| 17/10/2023 | Police Officer | Anonymity Order | Breach of Standards: - Authority, respect & courtesy - Duties & responsibilities - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Final Written Warning | Panel |
| 23/10/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Use of force - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice (if serving) | Chief Constable |
| 08/11/2023 | Police Officer | Anonymity Order | Alleged breach of Standards: - Use of force - Duties & responsibilities Actions by the Officer were proportionate |
Not Proven | No sanction | Panel |
| 29/11/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Authority, respect & courtesy - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice (if serving) | Chief Constable |
| 29/11/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice (if serving) | Chief Constable |
| 21/12/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed as if seving | Chief Constable |
| 29/12/2023 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Confidentiality - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed as if seving | Chief Constable |
| 15/01/2024 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Authority, respect & courtesy - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice | Panel |
| 23/01/2024 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Orders & instructions - Duties & responsibilities - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Final written Warning | Chief Constable |
| 07/02/2024 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Authority, respect & courtesy - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice | Panel |
| 29/02/2024 | Police Officer | Section 40 | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice | Chief Constable |
| 22/10/2024 | Police Officer | Jamie Davies | Breach of Standards: - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed as if serving | Chief Constable |
| 22/10/2024 | Police Officer | Matthew O'Sullivan | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Authority, respect & courtesy - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Final Written Warning - 5 Year extended. | Chief Constable |
| 05/12/2024 | Police Officer | Katie White | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Duties & responsibilities - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed as if serving | Panel |
| 11/12/2024 | Police Officer | Darren Whatley | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - Authority, respect & courtesy - Orders & instructions - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed as if serving | Panel |
| 18/12/2024 | Special Constable | Joshua Edwards | Breach of Standards: - Authority, respect & courtesy - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed if still serving | Panel |
| 17/01/2025 | Police Officer | Rhodri Davies | Breach of Standards: - Use of force - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without Notice | Panel |
| 19/02/2025 | Police Officer | Salman Malik | Breach of Standards: - Honesty & integrity - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed without notice | Chief Constable |
| 20/02/2025 | Police Officer | Anonymity Order | Breach of Standards: - Confidentiality - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed if still serving | Chief Constable |
| 26/02/2025 | Police Officer | Spencer Crane | Breach of Standards: - engaged in Discreditable conduct |
Proven | Dismissed if still serving | Panel |
In relation to your request, the following exemption applies for those officers whose details are subject to an anonymity order:
Section 44(1) Prohibitions on Disclosure
Section 44 is a class based absolute exemptions which means there is no requirement to identify the harm or consider the public interest in disclosure.
In relation to those cases that are over 12+ months old, the names of the officers have been considered for release and the following exemption applies:
Section 40(2) – Personal Information
Section 40(2) is an absolute class-based exemption and therefore the authority is not required to consider the public interest in disclosure.
Personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified:
- from those data, or
- from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.
Any information disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act is not a private transaction. Both the request itself and any information disclosed are considered suitable for open publication, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the legislation, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.
After a considerable amount of time has passed, an individual will have moved on from these experiences and will be making best efforts to get on with their lives. Therefore, to disclose information under the Act would prevent an individual from moving on with their lives, which could have a serious impact on them personally.
All individuals have an intrinsic right to privacy and therefore have a right to be forgotten. These rights are protected by virtue of the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act, and a public authority therefore must not interfere with these rights.
Any release of the information subject to the exemption is likely to compromise those rights.
The full date and the names of the officers in the cases that are still ongoing have been considered for release and the following exemption applies:
Section 30(1) – Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to consider the public interest arguments for and against the disclosure of the information.
Public Interest Factors favouring disclosure.
Disclosure of the requested information would give the public increased satisfaction of knowing that these types of cases are investigated properly, as well as raising further awareness of crimes of this type. In addition to this, disclosure would allow the public to be more informed about the use of public funds.
Public Interest Factors favouring non-disclosure.
The information has been obtained for the purpose of an investigation.
Disclosure of the information could prejudice any future investigation and a right to a fair trial would be undermined. This could affect the force's future law enforcement capabilities and would hinder the prevention and detection of crime.
Balancing Test
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of investigations and providing assurance about the effectiveness of the regulatory approach taken by South Wales Police, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the current investigation and any future investigations. It is therefore our opinion that the balance lies in favour of the non-disclosure of information.
In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a refusal notice for this part of your request.
When an officer or member of police staff is suspected of committing a criminal offence, or is facing an allegation of gross misconduct, consideration is given as to whether it is appropriate for them to remain in their role.
In certain circumstances a decision may be made to suspend them from duty, pending the progression of any criminal or gross misconduct investigation. In all cases the necessity to suspend from duty is given careful consideration with suspension only being authorised when it is necessary to prevent compromise to the ongoing investigation or to ensure that public confidence and trust in the police service is maintained.
South Wales Police expects the highest standards of professional conduct from all members of staff and will not tolerate individuals who undermine the committed public service of their professional colleagues.