Student officer barred from Leicestershire Police after being absent for more than a month without authorisation

A student police officer missed more than a month of work without authorisation, a gross misconduct hearing held by Leicestershire Police has found.

The unnamed former officer, who has since left the force, did not attend work between October 31 and December 12, 2022, but had not sought or been granted permission to be absent.

The hearing ruled she would have known she was being paid for work she was not doing, and this was dishonest.

The police officer tried to cover up her unauthorised absence by claiming she had been doing resource planning work and working on her university degree during that time, Chief Constable Rob Nixon, the officer presiding over the hearing, said.

He added there was no evidence she did this work, and if she was still a serving police officer, she would have been dismissed from Leicestershire Police.

The former officer – who did not attend the hearing - has also been placed on a barred list, meaning she cannot be employed by a police force. She can have her barred status reviewed in five years.

The former officer told the force the day before her unauthorised absence began that a family member had died, but she did not apply for compassionate leave, the hearing report stated, nor did she apply for what Leicestershire Police calls ‘protected study shifts’ to allow her to complete her university work, it added.

Mr Nixon said he was ‘sympathetic to the loss of her family member’, but ruled ‘on the balance of probability she was able to seek the correct authority’ for being off work.

Mr Nixon said: “It is clear the former officer knew that she should have been at work and hadn’t sought the appropriate authority to be absent. It is also clear that she had sufficient time to ask for clarity if uncertain.

“The actions and behaviour displayed fell short of what the public and the force expect and would significantly undermine public confidence in our policing. It was concluded the only appropriate outcome was that the officer would have been immediately dismissed had she still been serving.”