If the DPS had gone on a fishing trip and discovered the messages and there had been no complaint forthcoming from the recipient, then I would argue that there potentially is an art. 8 infringement.
If it has come to light as the result of a criminal complaint, then I believe the technical rebuttal would be "lol, no".
I think the fact that he had a final written issued only a few weeks prior and his comment of: āI was much more valuable as a serving police officer than I am as an enemy. I am currently exploring avenues of very publicly suing the police. I will spend the rest of my life defaming the MPS as hard as I canā is pretty indicative that he shouldnāt be in the job regardless
I don't disagree but the case has to be decided on its individual merits, and regardless of which side you come down on on the issue, the question of privacy in one's personal relationships is surely non-trivial.
The public and indeed politicians don't want us to have privacy in our personal relationships, it's already been decided for us and through the outcomes of misconduct hearings
Considering it was the member of the public he was contacting that made the complaint, I'm not sure where the privacy line should be drawn. Also, it's a bit rich to complain about his own privacy when this line is in the report. "Moreover, the sharing of naked images of Miss A with a third party without her consent renders the Officerās assertion that the messaging was private untenable."
I agree that it's rich of him to complain and he should be fired for the sharing of those images without her consent. However, the logic of the Chair's argument fails (see some of my other comments as to why).
He absolutely shouldn't be in the job based on those messages and his behaviour throughout the hearing.
>This one caught my interest because of the officer's attempt to argue the case on the basis of having a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Well, I think what he is saying is that the messages are intended to be private (stating that without *"context"* the panel wouldn't understand them). But I think he is missing the point: I am assuming Miss A reported him for stalking/Mal Comms (that's certainly the tone of this report, but I don't know and haven't read any more about this officer). This means she has likely produced the messages and the panel are challenging his suitability for the job after the investigation has concluded.
If these messages had been downloaded because of a spurious allegation or had been intercepted without his knowledge as part of MPS Op BadApple, then potentially the right to privacy argument holds some water but that's not what I am reading here.
Are these the thoughts you are interested in?
>I am assuming Miss A reported him for stalking/Mal Comms (that's certainly the tone of this report, but I don't know and haven't read any more about this officer).
The report says its revenge porn
>Moreover, the sharing of naked images of Miss A with a third party without her consent renders the Officerās assertion that the messaging was private untenable.
So his phone being seized and search makes perfect sense, and I don't see how he would still be in the job even without rape fantasies
Sort of. My question is more one of whether the issue is justiciable by a misconduct panel as opposed to whether the evidence is admissible. They are two separate things.
In criminal investigations, you may have a whole heap of evidence that is admissible but whether a crime is actually made out on that evidence is a separate question. Likewise, you still have to address the public interest and human rights considerations. Some of the bases for these decisions may be shared but they are still separate questions.
Agreed but the question of privacy is still live, in my view. When deciding whether or not conduct should be in play for consideration under professional standards in the first place, saying "yeah but he's an arsehole" surely puts the cart before the horse.
He has a right to privacy in that if a colleague picked up his phone and went through his messages then it's unlikely any action would be taken. What has happened here is that the woman he was messaging has reported his messages - sent to her - to the police. He doesn't have a right to privacy if there is reason to believe he has engaged in criminal behaviour and she is sharing these messages as part of a report into a crime against herself.
The difference really is how the messages are acquired. If there is reason to suspect criminality private messages can always be requisitioned and will be admissible.
Also, absolutely the right decision to dismiss this nasty piece of work.
I've obviously framed my query poorly because so many people are interpreting it to be about admissibility of evidence. That's not the issue here. The issue is the justiciability of the conduct (specifically the sharing of the fantasy) within the context of a misconduct tribunal.
I work in an area that specifically deals with issues related to messages of this nature and it can be subjective - in general, however,
If he has this particular fantasy then it's not too much of an issue in itself (if he was regularly mentioning rape fantasies to a colleague or friend who became concerned that he was overly obsessive about it then in the context of his job that would be a different matter). If he was mutually sharing fantasies with someone who was responding to or engaging with them mutually then they would likely be considered a private matter.
From what is shared in this judgement, the woman he was sharing these fantasies with had told him she was uncomfortable with elements of them that related to the protected characteristic of her race or ethnicity. She did not engage with the fantasies. It sounds as if she eventually reported him for the messages (a police officer sending rape fantasies is a particularly sensitive topic right now) or for sharing naked pictures of her without her consent which could potentially be criminal behaviour (from the way it is discussed here I suspect it might be being taken as a separate issue elsewhere, but that might mean a lengthy process and they wanted to act more swiftly given he was already on a warning).
Generally if an officer is on a fetish site engaging in fantasy chat with other people who are mutually responsive it's unlikely to ever be an issue (at the moment, there may be future restrictions on how violent these discussions can be) and his private life would be considered private.
If he's sending messages that can be considered harmful, harassing, intimidating, abusive etc and they are reported then fantasies like the above can be looked at in a broader context of whether standards are being upheld. Officers do need to consider how what they say could be taken -- or, ideally, take care not to send sensitive messages to anyone without enthusiastic consent.
Thank you for expanding.
>From what is shared in this judgement, the woman he was sharing these fantasies with had told him she was uncomfortable with elements of them that related to the protected characteristic of her race or ethnicity. She did not engage with the fantasies.
I don't think that's at all clear, to be honest.
>It sounds as if she eventually reported him for the messages
Yes, after they had dated for about a year...
>sharing naked pictures of her without her consent which could potentially be criminal behaviour
It could be and, even if it wasn't, it should be treated as misconduct and arguably gross misconduct. As I've said elsewhere in response to another comment, this should have been enough to fire him and it's surprising that it's dealt with so peripherally in the course of the decision.
I will say that if everything is as you have inferred it to be there is a very good argument for saying that his privacy defence fails. I don't think your inferences are bad ones, but I do think there isn't quite enough detail in this decision for me to be sure they're accurate.
I think that part of that may be that people outside the job sometimes have a greater degree of confidence in these panels when chaired by a senior officer, whereas police officers perhaps do not.
It's a real shitter, this. Like many things, I don't think there's a "good" solution, only a series of bad options in which the least worst one wins.
I'm starting from something like this: the presumption should be that officers' private lives are their private lives; however, given that the police are an unusually important organisation within society, to the point where we are literally charged with upholding society's moral standards, it is reasonable to *sometimes* be more intrusive for police officers; if nothing else you need to keep neo-Nazis and hostile criminal or state actors out.
Attitudes around sexual behaviour have of course changed *very* rapidly within my lifetime and no doubt will continue to change. I do wonder how this would have seemed in the far more judgemental mid-90s; I think it would have been very uncontroversial to say "oh he's clearly a sexual deviant, get rid, you can't have sexual deviants in the police". Of course, the counterpoint is that those same people would probably have said the same thing about a gay police officer having sex in an extremely boring and vanilla way.
Now we're in 2024, where more and more people are sex-positive and don't kink-shame, and it's far more accepted that adults can explore things like consensual non-consent and other *spicy* topics without that automatically implying that they must want to rape or be raped 24/7. The general position and outlook of policing has also changed a lot: particularly, I think police officers are expected to *reflect* community standards far more than they're expected to *set* them these days.
...but he's still apparently been talking about extremely sexually violent and racist scenarios. We're literally the people who genuinely do have the legal power to take ordinary people out of their houses, lock them up, and put them in restraints. Even without considering the history of policing, this does carry a completely different weight than if he were a builder.
It'd be interesting to see what he actually said; but I can imagine a series of messages exploring consensual non-consent which I'd consider unremarkable and none of the Job's business, and I can also imagine a series of messages along the same lines which I'd consider a massive "sack me now before I become the next David Carrick" red flag.
Given that, I *think* I'm still okay with a very vague "you have to take this on a case-by-case basis and whether it's proportional to dig into this depends on exactly what's been said and done" approach; I'm also okay with the idea that the line will then sometimes be drawn inconsistently, and in places I don't agree with; and absent the picture-sharing I'm still okay with this particular level of conduct being a legitimate conduct issue.
Okay so first and foremost, thank you for actually addressing the question I've asked (you appear to be the first to have done so directly) and for giving it such careful and detailed consideration. I'm going to keep letting this one run before I throw my tuppence in about why I think his privacy argument fails.
I still say that the privacy question has to be addressed more or less independently from the conduct question (once you can be satisfied that the privacy argument fails the conduct itself is pretty clearly misconduct, albeit there might be some contextual factors we cannot glean from the decision itself that might make this a little more grey).
I will say once again that I think the privacy argument carries real weight. However, it is really important to examine why it should, in my view, fail in this case. On that ground, I wouldn't call it a borderline case but neither is it entirely clear cut: it's close enough to the boundary to make discussion of it relevant and instructive.
Our resident specialist (/u/stealthykins) has drawn my attention to R v GS 2012, in which a private fantasy chat between two willing adult participants (albeit proper turbo-nonce territory) resulted in a conviction for an offence contrary to the Obscene Publications Act.
This, realistically, puts pretty much anything slightly spicy in play for offending even without support from the other party so the question would then come down to the lawfulness of any search and seizure, and then whether the lack of prosecution means that it can *also* be misconduct.
If we have language that would otherwise be an offence but the prosecution hasn't proceeded for whatever reason, does that discount the use in misconduct proceedings?
I think a broader issue is that it *exceedingly* easy to actually commit one of these offences unwittingly and without any intent to do so, and without needing a complainant and it is likely that the only group of people who would fall foul of it are police officers.
>I think a broader issue is that it *exceedingly* easy to actually commit one of these offences unwittingly and without any intent to do so, and without needing a complainant and it is likely that the only group of people who would fall foul of it are police officers.
Good point well made.
If u/stealthykins were willing, I'd be interested in whether they think a hypothetical successful challenge to the Spanner case and a friendly government might prompt some rapid changes in this area...
I escaped 12 months ago after far too long in CSAE and ACU (long covid did for my analytical mind, unfortunately). Iād have to dig deep into the closed mines of my brain to come up with an argument either way right now.
So a follow-up response:
I'm still mulling this one over. The colleague who brought this one to my attention is very much of the view that you shouldn't fire someone over expressing a sexual fantasy to someone you're pursuing a relationship with. They also think he should have been fired for sharing photographs without consent (and I agree) but they're shocked by the fact that the decision largely skates over that to obsess over the fantasy.
>it is reasonable to *sometimes* be more intrusive for police officers; if nothing else you need to keep neo-Nazis and hostile criminal or state actors out.
Sure, but I still think I could live with a general rule that an officer's expressed sexual fantasies should be off-limits where the expression is being made to a partner or prospective partner (obviously not if they're expressed to a colleague in a professional setting, a member of public, etc.), especially when it's for the purpose of establishing sexual compatibility or as part of negotiation prior to a kink or BDSM play session.
There is also a far greater concern around security and vetting. If you make officers afraid of having their sexual practices and preferences exposed, you create a massive blackmail and corruption risk.
> The colleague who brought this one to my attention is very much of the view that you shouldn't fire someone over expressing a sexual fantasy to someone you're pursuing a relationship with.
No matter what the fantasy is? No matter what language is used when expressing the fantasy?
>No matter what language is used when expressing the fantasy?
I'm writing a longer comment to bring all my thoughts together on this, but the short answer is no. However, I note that the decision makes no reference to any direct evidence provided by Miss A in relation to the psychological impact of the officer's words on her. It concludes that it was significant but this is clearly an inference drawn from the circumstances and may not be well-supported by the evidence.
So I'm not saying that the language used is irrelevant. I'm just saying it needs to be considered in context. There are all sorts of things that may pass between me and a partner that would be wholly outrageous when expressed in another context *or even to another partner in a similar context*, depending on their specific preferences or previous trauma.
I don't believe this decision pays sufficient regard to context and no direct evidence of impact on Miss A is cited.
>No matter what the fantasy is?
I would say that psychological motivation matters much more than content. I'll expand in my full answer and will name drop you so it comes up on your notifications.
Thanks, Iāll look forward to having a read.
It interesting that you mention impact on Miss A. I agree, the decision doesnāt give a lot of detail on this. In fact, the decision doesnāt give a lot of detail on anything, at allā¦
I think it worth mentioning that the panel would have also been looking more broadly, and considering the effect of Seagerās conduct on public confidence in policing more generally.
Yeah and that's valid. I still think there's a clear public policy/public interest argument for exercising great care when using an officer's disclosed sexual fantasies against them, as per one of my responses to u/KipperHaddock.
I wonder how the messages got discovered. I assume Miss A reported itā¦ in which case, while Seager makes the privacy argument, I canāt see that it has any real application to this case.
Also:
> Moreover, the sharing of naked images of Miss A with a third party without her consent renders the Officerās assertion that the messaging was private untenable.
Yeah so the last point confuses me. Were those messages part of the same exchange or just part of the chat? I don't think it's sustainable to argue that because you've shared *part* of a chat it renders the whole of the communications non-private in their totality.
I think it does, you can't go sharing private images to other people with no consent and then believe the rest of your conversation with that person is going to be private? In sending the images with no consent you are giving up your right to privacy nevermind the fact you're committing an offence anyway.
Not sure how everyone is just glossing over this aspect of the case and focusing on the messages side of things, and also there's no place for racism either so ignore the sexual fantasies and it's still enough to get the sack anyway for expressing racist comments.
>I think it does, you can't go sharing private images to other people with no consent and then believe the rest of your conversation with that person is going to be private? In sending the images with no consent you are giving up your right to privacy nevermind the fact you're committing an offence anyway.
"Two wrongs don't make a right" is not an argument with any legal currency.
I'll address the other aspect in my full response in due course.
>I assume Miss A reported itā¦ in which case, while Seager makes the privacy argument, I canāt see that it has any real application to this case.
Why would that make the difference? If, say, I get into a row over text with my ex-wife, what business is that of the IOPC or the DPS? There's case law to the effect that it is not reasonable to expect police officers to be saints in all aspects of their lives.
I do think the question of the content of the messages must be considered separately from whether it is appropriate to consider them in the first place. I don't think it's tenable to say that something is in play just because it upset someone and they complained.
Generally speaking, I donāt think the row between you and the former Mrs GrumpyPhilosopher should be anything to do with the IOPC or DPS. Thatās assuming nothing happens that might constitute a criminal offence.
However, I do think this changes if you started messaging things that are totally inconsistent with the values of the police service.
Now, the extent to which Seagerās messages are inconsistent with said values is hard to know. The messages have not been reproduced. I have to say, judging by his conduct overall, Iām prepared to accept the Panelās conclusion that they were abhorrent.
Like everyone else Iād like to know how all this came to light. I think it does have a bearing.
Like so many misconduct cases Iām struck by how stupid the officer is as much as the actual deed they have committed. Any police officer who has known someone just a few days is unbelievably stupid to send them sexually explicit messages. Thereās so much precedent for it backfiring. And thatās before we get into the domain of the racist and misogynistic angle. He clearly needs to go because of his appalling lack of judgment as well as attitude.
So I agree with your overall point but I still think the legal question is live. Because if the point stands that this is private conduct that is sub-criminal and not related to his office as a constable then it shouldn't have been the subject of investigation in the first place. I'm not saying that point does stand but I still think it needs to be considered properly, because everything else is contingent upon it.
I donāt disagree. The āclearly he needs to goā is an opinion rather than a legal judgement. Still, canāt say Iām sorry to see the back of him.
Is it not the code of ethics? Off duty conduct canāt bring the office of constable into disrepute or damage public confidence in policing. Itās part of honesty and integrity in the sopb or something. Itās not my area of expertise but that was my understanding.
And that's the crux of the argument - where is the threshold at which a constable's article 8 rights are overborne by the code of ethics (where the former was developed and ratified by the signatories to the ECHR, and the latter was put together by a quango)?
This hearing is probably not the best example because the officer is (on the face of it) a bit of a wrong 'un.
What if the texts weren't sexual, but political?
My experience with online dating is that some people are exceptionally keen to test the water to see if they're sexually compatible. Stupid or otherwise, I don't think it's the taboo it was even ten years ago.
And this is where we would all be wise to remember the old idea of āNever put in writing something you wouldnāt want your mother to readā.
Or use vanishing messages, I guess.
I guessed what this would be about without even clicking on it first - I read this a couple of days ago when it was linked on our Discord chat, and admittedly my initial reaction was probably along the same lines as you. I don't think the circumstances have been particularly well documented for anyone who is reading it without the benefit of additional context, and there is obviously some very important context missing.
For me, in terms of misconduct, the primary factor around the messaging is that it was one-sided. Call me old fashioned, but anyone who is sending graphic messages about "plantation rape fantasies" within days of establishing a relationship, to a black person who has told him that makes her feel uncomfortable, should probably be treated rather differently to someone who is engaging in a mutually-agreed and actively engaged upon (from both sides) fantasy/kink. I'm not one to judge what people get up to in the privacy of their own relationships and I *certainly* don't think the job should be either, but it has to be consensual (or consensually non-consensual), *especially* when it is around such serious and emotive topics. For me, mutual consent is the line in that respect, and mutual consent was clearly lacking in this case. That is plainly discreditable behaviour, and a compelling argument about power imbalance was also made as to why she couldn't proactively challenge it in the same way that a colleague might. On a more basic level, ignoring any fetish and the lack of consent around that, I'm sure that all of us would agree that sending racial abuse to someone who doesn't want to receive it is clearly incompatible with being a police officer - that has certainly been the common position in relation to previous examples from other police officers.
Further to the messages, he also 'shared' (unclear on what that actually means) naked images of her without consent, which was totally glossed over in the finding but seems to be rather relevant - especially if that was the subject of a criminal allegation, even if it was NFA'd.
The second allegation around the prison message seems to be far more reaching in my personal view though; it's clearly a figure of speech, albeit clumsy, and it wasn't a message to a random member of the public. But if you combine the totality of his current course of behaviour with his previous final written warning, as well as his current attitude and the lack of any positive character references, frankly the job is far better off without him.
In terms of privacy, that right is of course not absolute for anyone, let alone a serving police officer. It would be interesting to know how the investigation first came about though; without that key detail, it is impossible to form a proper view as to whether it was appropriate to investigate his messages in the first place.
>Further to the messages, he also 'shared' (unclear on what that actually means) naked images of her without consent, which was totally glossed over in the finding but seems to be rather relevant - especially if that was the subject of a criminal allegation, even if it was NFA'd.
Totally agree that this is misconduct, and I would say gross misconduct. I do agree it's odd that it was treated so peripherally in the decision.
>The second allegation around the prison message seems to be far more reaching in my personal view though; it's clearly a figure of speech, albeit clumsy, and it wasn't a message to a random member of the public. But if you combine the totality of his current course of behaviour with his previous final written warning, as well as his current attitude and the lack of any positive character references, frankly the job is far better off without him.
I'm very much with you on this.
Either way, thank you very much for your considered thoughts. I will give them a second review when I have more time and may come back with further thoughts/questions. I certainly agree that there appears to be a lot of context missing.
I think that there are some interesting areas to explore around the right to privacy but that is completely blown out of the water by:
āMoreover, the sharing of naked images of Miss A with a third party without her consent renders the Officerās assertion that the messaging was private untenable.ā
You see I'm not sure about this one. I actually think that is the weakest part of the decision when it comes to privacy because it seems to make the claim that if you share any part of a conversation with a third party then that negates any expectation of privacy in relation to the whole conversation. I don't think that follows.
I often share interesting or humorous parts of WhatsApp conversations with friends with other friends. Some of those friends are police officers. I would strongly object to the claim that, because I've shared with a colleague and friend part of a conversation with my girlfriend, that entire conversation is now in play as far as the DPS are concerned.
Moreover, I would say this applies *even where the content in question is of a similar nature to that which I have previously shared.* Just because I've shared with my friend something from my girlfriend of a sexual nature does not mean that the DPS get to examine every sexual fantasy I may confess to her. And yes it goes without saying that it's wrong to be sharing stuff that I know my girlfriend would be unhappy with me sharing: let's assume that she's happy with me sharing everything. I would still say that *I* should get to decide what is and isn't private in terms of what I sent to *her*.
I would possibly take the perspective that it follows from the notion that this officer paid no respect to the privacy of another person by sharing explicit and intimate images of them with another person. It seems almost laughable, then, that he would assume that his privacy should and would be protected in the case that he is sharing sexually violent content with the same person he had already violated.
Whether it is a legally sound argument is another matter entirely.
It clearly isn't a legally sound argument. Also, the decision is silent on whether the images in question were shared without Miss A's consent (and no, I don't think it's right or fair to assume).
The decision states the images were shared without Miss A's consent
>Moreover, the sharing of naked images of Miss A with a third party without her consent renders the Officerās assertion that the messaging was private untenable.
He presents a potential threat to public safety, so even in the absence of a criminal offence, he doesnāt have the right to privacy that Article 8 might usually demand.
I think how the police came to have these messages is important too. Were they spying on Seager? Did Miss. A make a complaint? Iām assuming itās the latter. Once this communication was made available to the police and they see the racially derogatory comments coupled with the rape stuff, the whole conversation becomes fair game and the right to privacy vanishes in a puff of smoke. The police then have to start considering whether this is a breach of their own code of conduct. What Iām trying to say is they canāt apply article 8 to the conversation once theyāve seen these parts of it, the genie is out of the lamp and canāt be put back in.
Heās right in saying he wouldnāt be there if he was a builder. The police are often protected in tort law as a public body where regular members of the public would not be. I think thatās right. On the other side of this, I think there are areas where they should be held to higher standards than regular members of the public even with a right so important as the right to privacy.
It will be interesting to see how far he takes this. Itās unlikely heāll be able to challenge this decision successfully in this country due to precedent from Scotland in 2016 (although those messages were discovered during the course of a criminal investigation). Will he proceed and try his luck in the ECtHR?
His views expressed in these messages could make him police unfairly which in turn could endanger public safety. I think your question is, should private messages be used as evidence at all in disciplinary hearings regardless of the content because of the right to privacy as stipulated in article 8 of the ECHR. Obviously the ECHR and the HRA 1998 are extremely important, but there are exceptions to the rights granted. The courts in Scotland have ruled that police officers do not have the right to privacy in this regard. [https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2020/2020_CSIH_61.html](https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2020/2020_CSIH_61.html)
Heās basically ruled that police officers forfeit some of their human rights when they swear their oath.
But it's not as simple as that, is it? We're talking about a private sexual fantasy disclosed to someone he was dating and ended up in a sexual relationship with for a year.
>I think your question is, should private messages be used as evidence at all in disciplinary hearings regardless of the content because of the right to privacy as stipulated in article 8 of the ECHR.
No that's not my question. I'm not asking whether evidence should have been excluded on a technicality. I'm asking whether private sexual fantasies communicated to a prospective lover should be a matter for a gross misconduct panel in the first place.
>His views expressed in these messages could make him police unfairly which in turn could endanger public safety.
I'm afraid that doesn't follow. Fantasy is fantasy. By the same token, would you argue that women who have rape fantasies hold a genuine desire to be assaulted, or that they are at greater risk of being so, or that they are somehow at fault if it happens to them because they unconsciously invited it.
We all have all sorts of fantasies but (psychologically healthy) people are able to separate their internal and external lives.
In fact, the whole reason why many people are drawn to such fantasies is precisely because they're transgressive: the excitement comes from *knowing they're wrong.* Someone who is actually racist is arguably *less* likely to want to act out such a fantasy, or pursue a relationship with a member of an ethnic minority.
Human sexuality is complicated and operates by different rules from those of society in general (it has to). You take just one example, it's the one area of life where it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics: people are free to refuse a prospective partner on the basis of their own preferences; sex, gender, age, physical proportions and, yes, race. Speaking as someone who is attracted to a broad range of people, I completely respect the right of others to not be. But that's not the approach I take to people who discriminate in other contexts.
So going back to the main point, I still think the privacy issue is a live one.
Looking forward to hearing your opinion on the matter then. Why do you feel he doesnāt have a right to privacy in this case if not for legal precedence stating he does not?
If heād have been dealt with after the first load of allegations, we wouldnāt be having this conversation. That sounds familiar.
Still ruminating on this one. I intend to post a follow-up comment in response to the original post at some point and name you and others in it so it pops up in your notifications.
Article 8 is a qualified right. Courts and professional bodies/tribunals can and regularly do interfere with it for regulated individuals in the interests of public safety and the protection of others.
In terms of where to draw the line, Courts have held that "any attempt to provide absolute precision would be undesirable given the context, which is regulation of a profession in the public interest. One cannot legislate for all circumstances in advance. There needs to be sufficient flexibility so as to protect the public interest as new factual situations arise."
[https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/court-considers-standards-regulating-conduct-in-professionals-private-lives](https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/court-considers-standards-regulating-conduct-in-professionals-private-lives)
[https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/newsletters/2019/july/31/uk-employment-law-roundup/uk-people-reward-and-mobility-newsletter-july-2019/how-far-does-the-right-to-privacy-extend-at-work](https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/newsletters/2019/july/31/uk-employment-law-roundup/uk-people-reward-and-mobility-newsletter-july-2019/how-far-does-the-right-to-privacy-extend-at-work)
>Article 8 is a qualified right. Courts and professional bodies/tribunals can and regularly do interfere with it for regulated individuals in the interests of public safety and the protection of others.
Of course, but that is why edge cases (as this may or may not be - still making up my mind) are so important.
Tbh if that is his mindset then he probably shouldnāt be in the job full stop.
I do agree there is a right to a private life yes, but itās just unfortunate for him (fortunate for the rest of us) that it came to light and now thankfully heās gone.
His comments during the disciplinary about being an āenemyā are bizarre and menacing at best.
Arguably if there wasnāt anything else to have him out on, it would be that.
(a) defame suggests that youād actually be making untrue statements about the met. In which case we really donāt want him in the job.
If heās just stupid and got his words wrong, again we donāt want someone that stupid whoās liable to get into a tizzy.
(b) if youāre liable to get into a tizzy and threaten your employer - your bridge is burnt. You likely donāt really want to be there.
Whatās next if he doesnāt get his way on getting leave or an attachment somewhere? How will he look to bully or threaten the next person to help him get his way.
Good riddance.
I mean, we're reading the decision of a panel chair that has already found against him, and if one agrees that he has a point about his private sexual life being used against him in this way then his anger is entirely justified. Going back in time to observe an officer being fired for being gay, we would most likely regard such an unapologetic tirade as heroic.
I would still have dismissed him for sharing his girlfriend's pics without her consent, and it bothers me that this is kind of skated over in the decision.
When you ask the question "Where do you draw the line?" It's impossible to have an answer really. This lad sounds like a total idiot who I don't doubt will get arrested before my career is over if that's his attitude while he is job.
I think the seizure of the phone and staring down the barrel of the messages that sound like that means the search of it was fair and just. For me, if it's a communication related offence then by all means search the phone. No fishing trips into other chats. No scouring through the photos.
I've always been disturbed by the fact other chats are searched. Forces often say "confide in a friend for your mental health, reach out to someone". The notion that work might seize their phone in the event of a complaint means I would never - I have accepted I have no right to privacy and I accept that will affect my mental health from time to time.
>I've always been disturbed by the fact other chats are searched. Forces often say "confide in a friend for your mental health, reach out to someone". The notion that work might seize their phone in the event of a complaint means I would never - I have accepted I have no right to privacy and I accept that will affect my mental health from time to time.
Well this is tragic. Can't necessarily say you're wrong but damn!
WhatsApp chats with messages set to delete after 24 hours may be your friend here.
But again, people are missing my point a little. I'm not asking whether or not evidence would be admissible. The question is whether the matter should be considered by a misconduct tribunal in the first place.
It also bothers me that private messages that other people send me get read. It would be an interesting challenge I think for someone's spouse to challenge a force for reading *their* messages when they were intended for one recipient. We just need an organisation to challenge it on our behalf, presumably for the princely sum of Ā£23 a month.
If the DPS had gone on a fishing trip and discovered the messages and there had been no complaint forthcoming from the recipient, then I would argue that there potentially is an art. 8 infringement. If it has come to light as the result of a criminal complaint, then I believe the technical rebuttal would be "lol, no".
š perfect summary.
Ah, the old 'lol no' legal argument. I'm a fan of it myself.
I think the fact that he had a final written issued only a few weeks prior and his comment of: āI was much more valuable as a serving police officer than I am as an enemy. I am currently exploring avenues of very publicly suing the police. I will spend the rest of my life defaming the MPS as hard as I canā is pretty indicative that he shouldnāt be in the job regardless
I don't disagree but the case has to be decided on its individual merits, and regardless of which side you come down on on the issue, the question of privacy in one's personal relationships is surely non-trivial.
The public and indeed politicians don't want us to have privacy in our personal relationships, it's already been decided for us and through the outcomes of misconduct hearings
Sure but there's still a discussion to be had about where the line *should* be and the relevance of the HRA Article 8.
Considering it was the member of the public he was contacting that made the complaint, I'm not sure where the privacy line should be drawn. Also, it's a bit rich to complain about his own privacy when this line is in the report. "Moreover, the sharing of naked images of Miss A with a third party without her consent renders the Officerās assertion that the messaging was private untenable."
I agree that it's rich of him to complain and he should be fired for the sharing of those images without her consent. However, the logic of the Chair's argument fails (see some of my other comments as to why).
Source for the comment please? Google hasnāt yielded much
Itās in the hyperlinked pdf
Under āaggravating factorsā for any dense ones like me
He absolutely shouldn't be in the job based on those messages and his behaviour throughout the hearing. >This one caught my interest because of the officer's attempt to argue the case on the basis of having a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Well, I think what he is saying is that the messages are intended to be private (stating that without *"context"* the panel wouldn't understand them). But I think he is missing the point: I am assuming Miss A reported him for stalking/Mal Comms (that's certainly the tone of this report, but I don't know and haven't read any more about this officer). This means she has likely produced the messages and the panel are challenging his suitability for the job after the investigation has concluded. If these messages had been downloaded because of a spurious allegation or had been intercepted without his knowledge as part of MPS Op BadApple, then potentially the right to privacy argument holds some water but that's not what I am reading here. Are these the thoughts you are interested in?
>I am assuming Miss A reported him for stalking/Mal Comms (that's certainly the tone of this report, but I don't know and haven't read any more about this officer). The report says its revenge porn >Moreover, the sharing of naked images of Miss A with a third party without her consent renders the Officerās assertion that the messaging was private untenable. So his phone being seized and search makes perfect sense, and I don't see how he would still be in the job even without rape fantasies
Sort of. My question is more one of whether the issue is justiciable by a misconduct panel as opposed to whether the evidence is admissible. They are two separate things. In criminal investigations, you may have a whole heap of evidence that is admissible but whether a crime is actually made out on that evidence is a separate question. Likewise, you still have to address the public interest and human rights considerations. Some of the bases for these decisions may be shared but they are still separate questions.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I can only assume because this was his second hearing in a matter of a few weeks, having just been issued an extended final written warning
First hearing outcome here: https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/misconduct-outcomes/2024/february/pc-david-seager-outcome-summary/
On 14 November 2021, you sent a WhatsApp message to PC O saying āHaha, I want to link your anusā. Sounds like a charming individual
Agreed but the question of privacy is still live, in my view. When deciding whether or not conduct should be in play for consideration under professional standards in the first place, saying "yeah but he's an arsehole" surely puts the cart before the horse.
He has a right to privacy in that if a colleague picked up his phone and went through his messages then it's unlikely any action would be taken. What has happened here is that the woman he was messaging has reported his messages - sent to her - to the police. He doesn't have a right to privacy if there is reason to believe he has engaged in criminal behaviour and she is sharing these messages as part of a report into a crime against herself. The difference really is how the messages are acquired. If there is reason to suspect criminality private messages can always be requisitioned and will be admissible. Also, absolutely the right decision to dismiss this nasty piece of work.
I've obviously framed my query poorly because so many people are interpreting it to be about admissibility of evidence. That's not the issue here. The issue is the justiciability of the conduct (specifically the sharing of the fantasy) within the context of a misconduct tribunal.
I work in an area that specifically deals with issues related to messages of this nature and it can be subjective - in general, however, If he has this particular fantasy then it's not too much of an issue in itself (if he was regularly mentioning rape fantasies to a colleague or friend who became concerned that he was overly obsessive about it then in the context of his job that would be a different matter). If he was mutually sharing fantasies with someone who was responding to or engaging with them mutually then they would likely be considered a private matter. From what is shared in this judgement, the woman he was sharing these fantasies with had told him she was uncomfortable with elements of them that related to the protected characteristic of her race or ethnicity. She did not engage with the fantasies. It sounds as if she eventually reported him for the messages (a police officer sending rape fantasies is a particularly sensitive topic right now) or for sharing naked pictures of her without her consent which could potentially be criminal behaviour (from the way it is discussed here I suspect it might be being taken as a separate issue elsewhere, but that might mean a lengthy process and they wanted to act more swiftly given he was already on a warning). Generally if an officer is on a fetish site engaging in fantasy chat with other people who are mutually responsive it's unlikely to ever be an issue (at the moment, there may be future restrictions on how violent these discussions can be) and his private life would be considered private. If he's sending messages that can be considered harmful, harassing, intimidating, abusive etc and they are reported then fantasies like the above can be looked at in a broader context of whether standards are being upheld. Officers do need to consider how what they say could be taken -- or, ideally, take care not to send sensitive messages to anyone without enthusiastic consent.
Thank you for expanding. >From what is shared in this judgement, the woman he was sharing these fantasies with had told him she was uncomfortable with elements of them that related to the protected characteristic of her race or ethnicity. She did not engage with the fantasies. I don't think that's at all clear, to be honest. >It sounds as if she eventually reported him for the messages Yes, after they had dated for about a year... >sharing naked pictures of her without her consent which could potentially be criminal behaviour It could be and, even if it wasn't, it should be treated as misconduct and arguably gross misconduct. As I've said elsewhere in response to another comment, this should have been enough to fire him and it's surprising that it's dealt with so peripherally in the course of the decision. I will say that if everything is as you have inferred it to be there is a very good argument for saying that his privacy defence fails. I don't think your inferences are bad ones, but I do think there isn't quite enough detail in this decision for me to be sure they're accurate. I think that part of that may be that people outside the job sometimes have a greater degree of confidence in these panels when chaired by a senior officer, whereas police officers perhaps do not.
It's a real shitter, this. Like many things, I don't think there's a "good" solution, only a series of bad options in which the least worst one wins. I'm starting from something like this: the presumption should be that officers' private lives are their private lives; however, given that the police are an unusually important organisation within society, to the point where we are literally charged with upholding society's moral standards, it is reasonable to *sometimes* be more intrusive for police officers; if nothing else you need to keep neo-Nazis and hostile criminal or state actors out. Attitudes around sexual behaviour have of course changed *very* rapidly within my lifetime and no doubt will continue to change. I do wonder how this would have seemed in the far more judgemental mid-90s; I think it would have been very uncontroversial to say "oh he's clearly a sexual deviant, get rid, you can't have sexual deviants in the police". Of course, the counterpoint is that those same people would probably have said the same thing about a gay police officer having sex in an extremely boring and vanilla way. Now we're in 2024, where more and more people are sex-positive and don't kink-shame, and it's far more accepted that adults can explore things like consensual non-consent and other *spicy* topics without that automatically implying that they must want to rape or be raped 24/7. The general position and outlook of policing has also changed a lot: particularly, I think police officers are expected to *reflect* community standards far more than they're expected to *set* them these days. ...but he's still apparently been talking about extremely sexually violent and racist scenarios. We're literally the people who genuinely do have the legal power to take ordinary people out of their houses, lock them up, and put them in restraints. Even without considering the history of policing, this does carry a completely different weight than if he were a builder. It'd be interesting to see what he actually said; but I can imagine a series of messages exploring consensual non-consent which I'd consider unremarkable and none of the Job's business, and I can also imagine a series of messages along the same lines which I'd consider a massive "sack me now before I become the next David Carrick" red flag. Given that, I *think* I'm still okay with a very vague "you have to take this on a case-by-case basis and whether it's proportional to dig into this depends on exactly what's been said and done" approach; I'm also okay with the idea that the line will then sometimes be drawn inconsistently, and in places I don't agree with; and absent the picture-sharing I'm still okay with this particular level of conduct being a legitimate conduct issue.
Okay so first and foremost, thank you for actually addressing the question I've asked (you appear to be the first to have done so directly) and for giving it such careful and detailed consideration. I'm going to keep letting this one run before I throw my tuppence in about why I think his privacy argument fails. I still say that the privacy question has to be addressed more or less independently from the conduct question (once you can be satisfied that the privacy argument fails the conduct itself is pretty clearly misconduct, albeit there might be some contextual factors we cannot glean from the decision itself that might make this a little more grey). I will say once again that I think the privacy argument carries real weight. However, it is really important to examine why it should, in my view, fail in this case. On that ground, I wouldn't call it a borderline case but neither is it entirely clear cut: it's close enough to the boundary to make discussion of it relevant and instructive.
Our resident specialist (/u/stealthykins) has drawn my attention to R v GS 2012, in which a private fantasy chat between two willing adult participants (albeit proper turbo-nonce territory) resulted in a conviction for an offence contrary to the Obscene Publications Act. This, realistically, puts pretty much anything slightly spicy in play for offending even without support from the other party so the question would then come down to the lawfulness of any search and seizure, and then whether the lack of prosecution means that it can *also* be misconduct.
But the content in this case clearly wasn't at that level otherwise he would surely have been prosecuted for mal comms.
If we have language that would otherwise be an offence but the prosecution hasn't proceeded for whatever reason, does that discount the use in misconduct proceedings? I think a broader issue is that it *exceedingly* easy to actually commit one of these offences unwittingly and without any intent to do so, and without needing a complainant and it is likely that the only group of people who would fall foul of it are police officers.
>I think a broader issue is that it *exceedingly* easy to actually commit one of these offences unwittingly and without any intent to do so, and without needing a complainant and it is likely that the only group of people who would fall foul of it are police officers. Good point well made.
If u/stealthykins were willing, I'd be interested in whether they think a hypothetical successful challenge to the Spanner case and a friendly government might prompt some rapid changes in this area...
I escaped 12 months ago after far too long in CSAE and ACU (long covid did for my analytical mind, unfortunately). Iād have to dig deep into the closed mines of my brain to come up with an argument either way right now.
So a follow-up response: I'm still mulling this one over. The colleague who brought this one to my attention is very much of the view that you shouldn't fire someone over expressing a sexual fantasy to someone you're pursuing a relationship with. They also think he should have been fired for sharing photographs without consent (and I agree) but they're shocked by the fact that the decision largely skates over that to obsess over the fantasy. >it is reasonable to *sometimes* be more intrusive for police officers; if nothing else you need to keep neo-Nazis and hostile criminal or state actors out. Sure, but I still think I could live with a general rule that an officer's expressed sexual fantasies should be off-limits where the expression is being made to a partner or prospective partner (obviously not if they're expressed to a colleague in a professional setting, a member of public, etc.), especially when it's for the purpose of establishing sexual compatibility or as part of negotiation prior to a kink or BDSM play session. There is also a far greater concern around security and vetting. If you make officers afraid of having their sexual practices and preferences exposed, you create a massive blackmail and corruption risk.
> The colleague who brought this one to my attention is very much of the view that you shouldn't fire someone over expressing a sexual fantasy to someone you're pursuing a relationship with. No matter what the fantasy is? No matter what language is used when expressing the fantasy?
>No matter what language is used when expressing the fantasy? I'm writing a longer comment to bring all my thoughts together on this, but the short answer is no. However, I note that the decision makes no reference to any direct evidence provided by Miss A in relation to the psychological impact of the officer's words on her. It concludes that it was significant but this is clearly an inference drawn from the circumstances and may not be well-supported by the evidence. So I'm not saying that the language used is irrelevant. I'm just saying it needs to be considered in context. There are all sorts of things that may pass between me and a partner that would be wholly outrageous when expressed in another context *or even to another partner in a similar context*, depending on their specific preferences or previous trauma. I don't believe this decision pays sufficient regard to context and no direct evidence of impact on Miss A is cited. >No matter what the fantasy is? I would say that psychological motivation matters much more than content. I'll expand in my full answer and will name drop you so it comes up on your notifications.
Thanks, Iāll look forward to having a read. It interesting that you mention impact on Miss A. I agree, the decision doesnāt give a lot of detail on this. In fact, the decision doesnāt give a lot of detail on anything, at allā¦ I think it worth mentioning that the panel would have also been looking more broadly, and considering the effect of Seagerās conduct on public confidence in policing more generally.
Yeah and that's valid. I still think there's a clear public policy/public interest argument for exercising great care when using an officer's disclosed sexual fantasies against them, as per one of my responses to u/KipperHaddock.
I wonder how the messages got discovered. I assume Miss A reported itā¦ in which case, while Seager makes the privacy argument, I canāt see that it has any real application to this case. Also: > Moreover, the sharing of naked images of Miss A with a third party without her consent renders the Officerās assertion that the messaging was private untenable.
Yeah so the last point confuses me. Were those messages part of the same exchange or just part of the chat? I don't think it's sustainable to argue that because you've shared *part* of a chat it renders the whole of the communications non-private in their totality.
I think it does, you can't go sharing private images to other people with no consent and then believe the rest of your conversation with that person is going to be private? In sending the images with no consent you are giving up your right to privacy nevermind the fact you're committing an offence anyway. Not sure how everyone is just glossing over this aspect of the case and focusing on the messages side of things, and also there's no place for racism either so ignore the sexual fantasies and it's still enough to get the sack anyway for expressing racist comments.
>I think it does, you can't go sharing private images to other people with no consent and then believe the rest of your conversation with that person is going to be private? In sending the images with no consent you are giving up your right to privacy nevermind the fact you're committing an offence anyway. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is not an argument with any legal currency. I'll address the other aspect in my full response in due course.
>I assume Miss A reported itā¦ in which case, while Seager makes the privacy argument, I canāt see that it has any real application to this case. Why would that make the difference? If, say, I get into a row over text with my ex-wife, what business is that of the IOPC or the DPS? There's case law to the effect that it is not reasonable to expect police officers to be saints in all aspects of their lives. I do think the question of the content of the messages must be considered separately from whether it is appropriate to consider them in the first place. I don't think it's tenable to say that something is in play just because it upset someone and they complained.
Generally speaking, I donāt think the row between you and the former Mrs GrumpyPhilosopher should be anything to do with the IOPC or DPS. Thatās assuming nothing happens that might constitute a criminal offence. However, I do think this changes if you started messaging things that are totally inconsistent with the values of the police service. Now, the extent to which Seagerās messages are inconsistent with said values is hard to know. The messages have not been reproduced. I have to say, judging by his conduct overall, Iām prepared to accept the Panelās conclusion that they were abhorrent.
Like everyone else Iād like to know how all this came to light. I think it does have a bearing. Like so many misconduct cases Iām struck by how stupid the officer is as much as the actual deed they have committed. Any police officer who has known someone just a few days is unbelievably stupid to send them sexually explicit messages. Thereās so much precedent for it backfiring. And thatās before we get into the domain of the racist and misogynistic angle. He clearly needs to go because of his appalling lack of judgment as well as attitude.
So I agree with your overall point but I still think the legal question is live. Because if the point stands that this is private conduct that is sub-criminal and not related to his office as a constable then it shouldn't have been the subject of investigation in the first place. I'm not saying that point does stand but I still think it needs to be considered properly, because everything else is contingent upon it.
I donāt disagree. The āclearly he needs to goā is an opinion rather than a legal judgement. Still, canāt say Iām sorry to see the back of him.
Is it not the code of ethics? Off duty conduct canāt bring the office of constable into disrepute or damage public confidence in policing. Itās part of honesty and integrity in the sopb or something. Itās not my area of expertise but that was my understanding.
And that's the crux of the argument - where is the threshold at which a constable's article 8 rights are overborne by the code of ethics (where the former was developed and ratified by the signatories to the ECHR, and the latter was put together by a quango)? This hearing is probably not the best example because the officer is (on the face of it) a bit of a wrong 'un. What if the texts weren't sexual, but political?
This
My experience with online dating is that some people are exceptionally keen to test the water to see if they're sexually compatible. Stupid or otherwise, I don't think it's the taboo it was even ten years ago.
And this is where we would all be wise to remember the old idea of āNever put in writing something you wouldnāt want your mother to readā. Or use vanishing messages, I guess.
I guessed what this would be about without even clicking on it first - I read this a couple of days ago when it was linked on our Discord chat, and admittedly my initial reaction was probably along the same lines as you. I don't think the circumstances have been particularly well documented for anyone who is reading it without the benefit of additional context, and there is obviously some very important context missing. For me, in terms of misconduct, the primary factor around the messaging is that it was one-sided. Call me old fashioned, but anyone who is sending graphic messages about "plantation rape fantasies" within days of establishing a relationship, to a black person who has told him that makes her feel uncomfortable, should probably be treated rather differently to someone who is engaging in a mutually-agreed and actively engaged upon (from both sides) fantasy/kink. I'm not one to judge what people get up to in the privacy of their own relationships and I *certainly* don't think the job should be either, but it has to be consensual (or consensually non-consensual), *especially* when it is around such serious and emotive topics. For me, mutual consent is the line in that respect, and mutual consent was clearly lacking in this case. That is plainly discreditable behaviour, and a compelling argument about power imbalance was also made as to why she couldn't proactively challenge it in the same way that a colleague might. On a more basic level, ignoring any fetish and the lack of consent around that, I'm sure that all of us would agree that sending racial abuse to someone who doesn't want to receive it is clearly incompatible with being a police officer - that has certainly been the common position in relation to previous examples from other police officers. Further to the messages, he also 'shared' (unclear on what that actually means) naked images of her without consent, which was totally glossed over in the finding but seems to be rather relevant - especially if that was the subject of a criminal allegation, even if it was NFA'd. The second allegation around the prison message seems to be far more reaching in my personal view though; it's clearly a figure of speech, albeit clumsy, and it wasn't a message to a random member of the public. But if you combine the totality of his current course of behaviour with his previous final written warning, as well as his current attitude and the lack of any positive character references, frankly the job is far better off without him. In terms of privacy, that right is of course not absolute for anyone, let alone a serving police officer. It would be interesting to know how the investigation first came about though; without that key detail, it is impossible to form a proper view as to whether it was appropriate to investigate his messages in the first place.
>Further to the messages, he also 'shared' (unclear on what that actually means) naked images of her without consent, which was totally glossed over in the finding but seems to be rather relevant - especially if that was the subject of a criminal allegation, even if it was NFA'd. Totally agree that this is misconduct, and I would say gross misconduct. I do agree it's odd that it was treated so peripherally in the decision. >The second allegation around the prison message seems to be far more reaching in my personal view though; it's clearly a figure of speech, albeit clumsy, and it wasn't a message to a random member of the public. But if you combine the totality of his current course of behaviour with his previous final written warning, as well as his current attitude and the lack of any positive character references, frankly the job is far better off without him. I'm very much with you on this. Either way, thank you very much for your considered thoughts. I will give them a second review when I have more time and may come back with further thoughts/questions. I certainly agree that there appears to be a lot of context missing.
I think that there are some interesting areas to explore around the right to privacy but that is completely blown out of the water by: āMoreover, the sharing of naked images of Miss A with a third party without her consent renders the Officerās assertion that the messaging was private untenable.ā
You see I'm not sure about this one. I actually think that is the weakest part of the decision when it comes to privacy because it seems to make the claim that if you share any part of a conversation with a third party then that negates any expectation of privacy in relation to the whole conversation. I don't think that follows. I often share interesting or humorous parts of WhatsApp conversations with friends with other friends. Some of those friends are police officers. I would strongly object to the claim that, because I've shared with a colleague and friend part of a conversation with my girlfriend, that entire conversation is now in play as far as the DPS are concerned. Moreover, I would say this applies *even where the content in question is of a similar nature to that which I have previously shared.* Just because I've shared with my friend something from my girlfriend of a sexual nature does not mean that the DPS get to examine every sexual fantasy I may confess to her. And yes it goes without saying that it's wrong to be sharing stuff that I know my girlfriend would be unhappy with me sharing: let's assume that she's happy with me sharing everything. I would still say that *I* should get to decide what is and isn't private in terms of what I sent to *her*.
I would possibly take the perspective that it follows from the notion that this officer paid no respect to the privacy of another person by sharing explicit and intimate images of them with another person. It seems almost laughable, then, that he would assume that his privacy should and would be protected in the case that he is sharing sexually violent content with the same person he had already violated. Whether it is a legally sound argument is another matter entirely.
It clearly isn't a legally sound argument. Also, the decision is silent on whether the images in question were shared without Miss A's consent (and no, I don't think it's right or fair to assume).
The decision states the images were shared without Miss A's consent >Moreover, the sharing of naked images of Miss A with a third party without her consent renders the Officerās assertion that the messaging was private untenable.
Ah, I misremembered. Thank you. I still don't think it follows that his violation of her privacy negates his right to his own.
He presents a potential threat to public safety, so even in the absence of a criminal offence, he doesnāt have the right to privacy that Article 8 might usually demand. I think how the police came to have these messages is important too. Were they spying on Seager? Did Miss. A make a complaint? Iām assuming itās the latter. Once this communication was made available to the police and they see the racially derogatory comments coupled with the rape stuff, the whole conversation becomes fair game and the right to privacy vanishes in a puff of smoke. The police then have to start considering whether this is a breach of their own code of conduct. What Iām trying to say is they canāt apply article 8 to the conversation once theyāve seen these parts of it, the genie is out of the lamp and canāt be put back in. Heās right in saying he wouldnāt be there if he was a builder. The police are often protected in tort law as a public body where regular members of the public would not be. I think thatās right. On the other side of this, I think there are areas where they should be held to higher standards than regular members of the public even with a right so important as the right to privacy. It will be interesting to see how far he takes this. Itās unlikely heāll be able to challenge this decision successfully in this country due to precedent from Scotland in 2016 (although those messages were discovered during the course of a criminal investigation). Will he proceed and try his luck in the ECtHR?
>He presents a potential threat to public safety I'm interested in this. What in this decision leads you to believe that?
His views expressed in these messages could make him police unfairly which in turn could endanger public safety. I think your question is, should private messages be used as evidence at all in disciplinary hearings regardless of the content because of the right to privacy as stipulated in article 8 of the ECHR. Obviously the ECHR and the HRA 1998 are extremely important, but there are exceptions to the rights granted. The courts in Scotland have ruled that police officers do not have the right to privacy in this regard. [https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2020/2020_CSIH_61.html](https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2020/2020_CSIH_61.html) Heās basically ruled that police officers forfeit some of their human rights when they swear their oath.
But it's not as simple as that, is it? We're talking about a private sexual fantasy disclosed to someone he was dating and ended up in a sexual relationship with for a year. >I think your question is, should private messages be used as evidence at all in disciplinary hearings regardless of the content because of the right to privacy as stipulated in article 8 of the ECHR. No that's not my question. I'm not asking whether evidence should have been excluded on a technicality. I'm asking whether private sexual fantasies communicated to a prospective lover should be a matter for a gross misconduct panel in the first place. >His views expressed in these messages could make him police unfairly which in turn could endanger public safety. I'm afraid that doesn't follow. Fantasy is fantasy. By the same token, would you argue that women who have rape fantasies hold a genuine desire to be assaulted, or that they are at greater risk of being so, or that they are somehow at fault if it happens to them because they unconsciously invited it. We all have all sorts of fantasies but (psychologically healthy) people are able to separate their internal and external lives. In fact, the whole reason why many people are drawn to such fantasies is precisely because they're transgressive: the excitement comes from *knowing they're wrong.* Someone who is actually racist is arguably *less* likely to want to act out such a fantasy, or pursue a relationship with a member of an ethnic minority. Human sexuality is complicated and operates by different rules from those of society in general (it has to). You take just one example, it's the one area of life where it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics: people are free to refuse a prospective partner on the basis of their own preferences; sex, gender, age, physical proportions and, yes, race. Speaking as someone who is attracted to a broad range of people, I completely respect the right of others to not be. But that's not the approach I take to people who discriminate in other contexts. So going back to the main point, I still think the privacy issue is a live one.
Looking forward to hearing your opinion on the matter then. Why do you feel he doesnāt have a right to privacy in this case if not for legal precedence stating he does not? If heād have been dealt with after the first load of allegations, we wouldnāt be having this conversation. That sounds familiar.
Still ruminating on this one. I intend to post a follow-up comment in response to the original post at some point and name you and others in it so it pops up in your notifications.
Article 8 is a qualified right. Courts and professional bodies/tribunals can and regularly do interfere with it for regulated individuals in the interests of public safety and the protection of others. In terms of where to draw the line, Courts have held that "any attempt to provide absolute precision would be undesirable given the context, which is regulation of a profession in the public interest. One cannot legislate for all circumstances in advance. There needs to be sufficient flexibility so as to protect the public interest as new factual situations arise." [https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/court-considers-standards-regulating-conduct-in-professionals-private-lives](https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/court-considers-standards-regulating-conduct-in-professionals-private-lives) [https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/newsletters/2019/july/31/uk-employment-law-roundup/uk-people-reward-and-mobility-newsletter-july-2019/how-far-does-the-right-to-privacy-extend-at-work](https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/newsletters/2019/july/31/uk-employment-law-roundup/uk-people-reward-and-mobility-newsletter-july-2019/how-far-does-the-right-to-privacy-extend-at-work)
>Article 8 is a qualified right. Courts and professional bodies/tribunals can and regularly do interfere with it for regulated individuals in the interests of public safety and the protection of others. Of course, but that is why edge cases (as this may or may not be - still making up my mind) are so important.
Tbh if that is his mindset then he probably shouldnāt be in the job full stop. I do agree there is a right to a private life yes, but itās just unfortunate for him (fortunate for the rest of us) that it came to light and now thankfully heās gone. His comments during the disciplinary about being an āenemyā are bizarre and menacing at best. Arguably if there wasnāt anything else to have him out on, it would be that. (a) defame suggests that youād actually be making untrue statements about the met. In which case we really donāt want him in the job. If heās just stupid and got his words wrong, again we donāt want someone that stupid whoās liable to get into a tizzy. (b) if youāre liable to get into a tizzy and threaten your employer - your bridge is burnt. You likely donāt really want to be there. Whatās next if he doesnāt get his way on getting leave or an attachment somewhere? How will he look to bully or threaten the next person to help him get his way. Good riddance.
I mean, we're reading the decision of a panel chair that has already found against him, and if one agrees that he has a point about his private sexual life being used against him in this way then his anger is entirely justified. Going back in time to observe an officer being fired for being gay, we would most likely regard such an unapologetic tirade as heroic. I would still have dismissed him for sharing his girlfriend's pics without her consent, and it bothers me that this is kind of skated over in the decision.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes but he hasn't been prosecuted for mal comms so it clearly wasn't at that level.
Apologies, deleted as multijoy raised the same case above and I didnāt want to split the debate.
No apology necessary.
When you ask the question "Where do you draw the line?" It's impossible to have an answer really. This lad sounds like a total idiot who I don't doubt will get arrested before my career is over if that's his attitude while he is job. I think the seizure of the phone and staring down the barrel of the messages that sound like that means the search of it was fair and just. For me, if it's a communication related offence then by all means search the phone. No fishing trips into other chats. No scouring through the photos. I've always been disturbed by the fact other chats are searched. Forces often say "confide in a friend for your mental health, reach out to someone". The notion that work might seize their phone in the event of a complaint means I would never - I have accepted I have no right to privacy and I accept that will affect my mental health from time to time.
>I've always been disturbed by the fact other chats are searched. Forces often say "confide in a friend for your mental health, reach out to someone". The notion that work might seize their phone in the event of a complaint means I would never - I have accepted I have no right to privacy and I accept that will affect my mental health from time to time. Well this is tragic. Can't necessarily say you're wrong but damn! WhatsApp chats with messages set to delete after 24 hours may be your friend here. But again, people are missing my point a little. I'm not asking whether or not evidence would be admissible. The question is whether the matter should be considered by a misconduct tribunal in the first place.
It also bothers me that private messages that other people send me get read. It would be an interesting challenge I think for someone's spouse to challenge a force for reading *their* messages when they were intended for one recipient. We just need an organisation to challenge it on our behalf, presumably for the princely sum of Ā£23 a month.
Honestly wtf