A Kent police officer has been sacked for groping a colleague at a work Christmas party - but his identity has been kept a secret.

The constable was hauled before a disciplinary hearing after the woman complained he had fondled her breast during the bash at the Kent Showground in Maidstone.

A panel led by an independent chair ruled the officer’s behaviour amounted to gross misconduct and dismissed him without notice.

But KentOnline cannot name the PC as it was agreed to anonymise his identity in a 93-page report to protect the mental health of his mother, who was said to be on suicide watch.

The decision has allowed the officer to escape having his name on the public record for what the panel said “constituted a sexual assault”.

The incident

The hearing was told that in 2021 the officer - referred to only as PC M - attended a festive party with a number of other colleagues, including the victim, who was named as Ms A and senior to him.

The pair worked together and had previously exchanged friendly texts, but not of a sexual nature, when they were both single.

Five months before the Christmas party, Ms A had also invited PC M to her house for a cup of tea when he was working an evening shift, but he declined.

On the night of the Christmas get-together, “unlimited alcohol” was put on for the group, with PC M at one point heard saying to colleagues: “I want to see [Ms A] drunk.”

Later in the evening the pair, who were both now in relationships, found themselves standing at the bar together in a marquee filled with other police officers and members of the public.

Ms A says she was unsettled by PC M’s proximity to her and was made to “feel even more uncomfortable” when he placed his hand on her hip.

She said she felt PC M, who says they discussed her previous text inviting him to her home, “was trying to almost have an intimate moment with her but she was not feeling the same way towards him”.

She started talking about their new partners in an attempt to create a boundary, but PC M seemed to lean closer to her, the panel heard.

Ms A says she then lent forward and gave PC M a “peck” on the lips “so she could then pull away and create more space between them”

“I don’t expect my partner to treat me like that in a public place, let alone a colleague or anyone else..."

At this point PC M raised his hand up the side of her body and onto a part of her torso exposed by a cut-out in her dress.

Ms A says he put his hand beneath her dress and onto her breast, brushing her nipple with his thumb “for a few seconds”.

PC M would later give his version of events in a statement, claiming: "During this time our faces were close together and we were looking into each other’s eyes.

“We then briefly kissed. I had moved my hand up higher on her side and I am relatively certain my thumb did caress her breast through an opening in the dress, although I cannot be sure that I touched her nipple.”

Following the incident, Ms A made a further comment about their new partners, before returning to the dance floor.

She was later picked up by her boyfriend, and told him about the incident, as well as reporting it to a senior officer on the same night.

The investigation

PC M was placed on restricted duties and removed from public-facing jobs while a criminal investigation was carried out by the force’s Professional Standards Department.

In March 2022, the probe concluded that the evidential threshold for a criminal prosecution had not been met.

But internal misconduct proceedings continued, culminating in a two-day hearing held at Kent Police’s Northfleet HQ on January 31.

Responding to the allegation, PC M admitted that the touching had taken place, but that at the time he had a "reasonably held belief" Ms A had consented to it.

He said once she reminded him about their respective partners, he stopped immediately and did not pursue the matter.

"The only fallout I might have considered conceivable at the time was some form of entirely legitimate chastisement for both of us from our respective partners," he added.

“Regardless of any actions I made, he had absolutely no right to do what he did..."

Ms A asserted that "there was nothing that I did that told [PC M] that what he did would be okay".

"Regardless of the peck I gave him that is not a signal or authorisation to be groped…the peck wasn’t romantic and passionate and it wasn’t a snog or an intimate kiss," she added.

“Regardless of any actions I made, he had absolutely no right to do what he did.

“I don’t expect my partner to treat me like that in a public place, let alone a colleague or anyone else. I would never go down somebody’s trousers so why did he think he could go inside my dress?

"I consent to my partner touching me, but I would not consent to my partner touching me like [PC M] did in public.

“Even if it was a more secluded public place, it would still not be appropriate, and this was in a huge marquee with hundreds of people including members of the public, which makes it even more unacceptable."

The ruling

When interviewed under caution in February 2022, PC M set out that it was “never his intention to make Ms A feel uncomfortable whatsoever and he did at all times, believe that any contact between them was entirely consensual”.

He added he understood the incident to have been “simply a romantic interaction between two consenting adults”.

But considering the evidence, the panel ruled that there was nothing to suggest Ms A had consented to being touched, and further added that while the message she had sent PC M several months prior had been "ill-judged", it "could not reconcile" while he chose the party, months later and with so many people around in a public venue, to discuss "such a private matter".

After considering all of the evidence, the panel concluded that "PC M did not have a reasonable belief in Ms A’s consent to the sexual touching that took place".

Justifying the ruling, it made reference to the fact there had been no prior sexual relationship or dating, with both parties in separate relationships with other partners.

It also added that the kiss "was neither romantic nor passionate", and "did not justify PC M reaching with his thumb into Ms A’s dress and underneath her bikini inserts to touch her breasts and rub her nipple in a public bar”.

"The panel is therefore satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Ms A did not consent to PC M touching her breast and rubbing her nipple and that PC M did not reasonably believe that she was consenting. This touching constitutes a sexual assault," it added in a statement.

PC M, who has previously been commended by the Chief Constable, was found guilty of gross misconduct, with the panel ruling he should be dismissed without notice.

Report redacted

The day after the hearing concluded, PC M’s sister requested he be granted anonymity in the publication of the outcome of the misconduct proceedings “on the basis that their mother is very high risk and is currently on suicide watch”.

The panel’s legally qualified chair, Ogheneruona Iguyovwe OBE, “did not oppose the request on the grounds of the health and welfare of PC M's mother”.

The report added that she was “applying Home Office guidance” and “taking into account human rights Article 2 – Right to life”.

She did, however, request that PC M’s legal team provide medical evidence to support the claims about his mother's health. The report does not state if this was forthcoming.

KentOnline was told it is not possible to challenge the decision of the independent chair.

Responding to PC M’s dismissal, Detective Chief Superintendent Jon Armory, the head of professional standards at Kent Police, said: “Tackling violence against women and girls in all its forms is of vital importance to Kent Police and an issue we take extremely seriously.

“Even in cases where there is insufficient evidence to prosecute criminally, we will still do everything we can to ensure that appropriate action is taken to safeguard the public and remove those officers from Kent Police whose behaviour demonstrates they are not fit to serve.

“Whilst the vast majority of Kent Police officers uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism on a daily basis, those whose behaviour falls short of what is expected of them can expect to be subject to disciplinary proceedings and/or criminal prosecution based on the evidence available.

“The actions of the officer in this case fell far short of what the force and public expects of its police service and he was quite rightly dismissed.”