Number of police officers convicted of a criminal offence since 2000 and related data (FOI)Number of police officers convicted of a criminal offence since 2000 and related data (FOI)
Produced by the Freedom of Information officeAuthored by States of Jersey and published on
27 January 2015.Prepared internally, no external costs.
Request
I would be grateful to receive the following information, pursuant to the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 and the Public Records (Jersey) Law 2002, as applicable.
Please note that the information requested is from the 1st January 2000 to the present day. I would be grateful if the information requested could include all officers, whether serving or who have since left the Force for whatever reason.
A.
The number of police officers, who have been convicted of a criminal offence.
B.
The number of officers with criminal convictions who are still serving officers.
C.
The number of officers with criminal convictions for offences of violence.
D.
The number of police officers, since 1st January 2000, who were disciplined as a result of having a criminal conviction, pursuant to the Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999 and the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Order 2000.
E.
Of those officers with criminal convictions who were disciplined, the number of officers who were disciplined for a breach of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Order 2000 only.
F.
Of those officers who were disciplined for a breach of paragraph 9, what was the disciplinary punishment imposed in each case.
G.
Of those officers with criminal convictions who were disciplined, the number of officers who were disciplined for a breach of Schedule 1 of the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Order 2000, other than paragraph 9.
H.
Of those officers with criminal convictions who were disciplined for a breach of Schedule 1 other than paragraph 9, what was the disciplinary punishment imposed.
I.
Of those officers with criminal convictions who were disciplined, the number of officers who were disciplined for a breach of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 and other breaches of Schedule 1.
J.
Of those officers with criminal convictions who were disciplined, for a breach of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 and other breaches of Schedule 1, what was the disciplinary punishment imposed.
K.
Of those officers who were either required to resign or dismissed at a disciplinary hearing, how many appealed to the Jurats. Please advise, if possible, how many of the appeals concerned a breach of paragraph 9 either alone or with other breaches.
L.
Of those officers who appealed to the Jurats, how many successfully challenged the disciplinary decision. Please advise, if possible, how many of these successful appeals concerned a breach of paragraph 9 either alone or with other breaches.
M.
Of those officers who appealed to the Jurats, how many successfully challenged the punishment imposed. Please advise, if possible, how many of these successful appeals concerned a breach of paragraph 9 either alone or with other breaches.
N.
Of those officers who successfully challenged the punishment imposed, what, if any, alternative punishment was imposed by the Jurats. Please advise, if possible, how many of these successful appeals concerned a breach of paragraph 9 either alone or with other breaches.
Response
The States of Jersey Police is only able give figures from the year 2000 as its PSD recording systems were changed at that time.
The number of police officers, who have been convicted of a criminal offence | 9 |
The number of officers with criminal convictions who are still serving officers | 3 |
The number of officers with criminal convictions for offences of violence | 1 |
The number of police officers, since 1 January 2000, who were disciplined as a result of having a criminal conviction | 8 |
Of those officers with criminal convictions who were disciplined, the number of officers who were disciplined for a breach of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Order 2000 only | 6 |
Of those officers who were disciplined for a breach of paragraph 9, what was the disciplinary punishment imposed in each case | WOA x 1, Required to Resign x 1, Dismissal x 4 |
Of those officers with criminal convictions who were disciplined, the number of officers who were disciplined for a breach of Schedule 1 of the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Order 2000, other than paragraph 9 | 0 |
Of those officers with criminal convictions who were disciplined for a breach of Schedule 1 other than paragraph 9, what was the disciplinary punishment imposed | 0 |
Of those officers with criminal convictions who were disciplined, the number of officers who were disciplined for a breach of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 and other breaches of Schedule 1 | 1 |
Of those officers with criminal convictions who were disciplined, for a breach of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 and other breaches of Schedule 1, what was the disciplinary punishment imposed | Dismissal |
Of those officers who were either required to resign or dismissed at a disciplinary hearing, how many appealed to the Jurats. Please advise, if possible, how many of the appeals concerned a breach of paragraph 9 either alone or with other breaches | 3 / 3 |
Of those officers who appealed to the Jurats, how many successfully challenged the disciplinary decision. Please advise, if possible, how many of these successful appeals concerned a breach of paragraph 9 either alone or with other breaches | 0 |
Of those officers who appealed to the Jurats, how many successfully challenged the punishment imposed. Please advise, if possible, how many of these successful appeals concerned a breach of paragraph 9 either alone or with other breaches | 3 |
Of those officers who successfully challenged the punishment imposed, what, if any, alternative punishment was imposed by the Jurats. Please advise, if possible, how many of these successful appeals concerned a breach of paragraph 9 either alone or with other breaches | All 3 case had sanction amended to a decrease in payment by two increments |