Sussex PC sacked after using police databases to snoop on his ex-wife A copper from Sussex has been kicked off the force after using his police privileges to snoop on his estranged, and subsequently divorced, wife. PC Forrest Knight, 48, was dismissed from Sussex Police without notice after a gross misconduct panel found on Wednesday that he had accessed computer systems “without good reason and …
Nice to know that their database searches are audited. However one has to wonder if it came to light due to his ex-wife complaining (as I assume she did when he acted like a stalker and let her know that he was 'watching') or as part of an actual audit review. I wonder if the supervisor is also being reprimanded for letting him get away with running the first search?
And what kind of muppet thinks that using police systems to stalk your estranged wife is legitimate police business? Seriously?
Way back in the early days of all this data protection act a senior plod used the PNC for the same thing.
And he beat the other guy up. And he got off.
On the brilliant interpretation that he hadn't used the computer, because he didn't know how, he got his secretary to look up the details.
having dealt with the Met's "finest" when I witnessed one assault a friend, i think you are being unfair to muppets here. They investigated themselves and found that no evidence from non-police witnesses was needed, and surprise surprise the officers in question all saw, heard and then said nothing.
Not so much muppets, as the three monkeys.
Never understimate how dodgy,cliquey and dumb the Police can be.
Brother managed 5 years as a copper before he jacked it in as he did not like his work mates. Before you ask, his wife made him leave the army and this was all he could think of.
Constant dodgy and idiotic behaviour, topped off by an entire heating system - boiler, pipes, radiators - going missing from the evidence room.
Thats over a ton of metal and would need a couple of people and a lot of time to move. esp. as the room was a fair distance from the entrance.
Just disappeared. Nobody saw anything!
I feel a bit uneasy about this. Sure, he looks banged to rights etc., but I can't help feeling that he deserves a proper trial in a fair Court before having his private life exposed in the papers. Those pesky human rights and all.
Same for paramedics, teachers and doctors struck off for refusing to work whilst too exhausted to make safe decisions, for having an interesting sex life or for pointing out unsafe practices.
By the way, Ms May wants to introduce a professional body for the police, so that they too can be struck off for being politically incorrect.
A nice theory, but unfortunately inaccurate. There is no appeal through employment tribunals, well not one with any chance of success, because these are decisions by professional bodies not employers. Police Officers are Crown servants not employees, and most Doctors and increasingly paramedics aren't employed by the NHS or trust, they're self-employed or agency employeed.
There is appeal via the High Court, not a cheap option expect it to cost a minimum of £40,000 which is a lot for someone not working.
But that ignores the main point - private employment disputes should not be public news. If this case had been prosecuted as a crime then it should be public, but it wasn't because the evidence wasn't good enough. This is a way to punish without a trial or any of the safeguards that come with a fair trial.
No - the argument is that the details of a gross misconduct hearing should not be made public unless they form part of a trial. Sacking is one thing, prosecution is another. And yes, I do think this guy should be prosecuted - no-one else would get off so lightly for this type of action if they were caught.
@ Kernel
Be fair though. I the case of NZ Police being let off it's not because of corruption, it's because the Independent Police Complaints Commission is so underfunded it cannot do any investigations...
I'm not sure what I was arguing just now.
Can't be as bad as the USA's Secret Service or the US Marshals . Is fairly routine for agents to look at the records for girlfriends, family, random women they met at a bar, etc... And they have access to an immense amount of data about every American and a pretty large number of foreigners.
That is so true. Last year I sat and listened to a retired agent (I don't remember which force) reveal (under the influence of alcohol) the linking extent of their probing powers. I now genuinely fear that if you pay for your smokes with a credit card, at a franchise chain store, which has another store nearby in the same district with a franchisee of middle eastern origin, that YOU stand a good chance of being put on a watch list. Paranoid? You bet.
You don't need to commit a crime to be discharged from employment for gross misconduct. You can be dismissed under the terms of most contracts for turning up to work over the drink-drive limit (or some other specified amount), which is perfectly legal...
... or were you commenting on the fact that the copper in question has somehow gotten away with *ONLY* being discharged from his employment, rather than being *ADDITIONALLY* charged with a crime?
What's that? Yet *MORE* evidence that the police and other such bodies can't be trusted with personal information that is - apparently - only accessed when necessary and in pursuit of the prosecution of criminals and terrorists?
I hope people are going to make a point of emailing this story to their various MPs pointing this fact out, especially if said MP happens to be in favour of the Snooper's Charter (Mk 2), or is in fact the FIrst Lady of Darkness herself?
(I would, but as my MP has recently passed away, there isn't a lot of point!)
So, the gov, police force etc... want to introduce legislation to legalise the force, the gov, local councils, foreign law enforcement etc... to access anyone's personal data, whenever they want, wholesale and for any reason they want, yet they get uppity that one copper used the system already in place to access one persons data.
I'm sure there's logic in there somewhere. This seems less like them following their own code of conduct, and more like them trying to convince us they can be trusted with our lives at their fingertips. This officer did nothing that they wouldn't be legally allowed to do if May gets her way.
Another day and another person in emotional meltdown does something stupid.
In an ideal world, as soon as management knew he was being divorced, he should have been assessed to see if he was a risk, reminded of the rules and the consequences, perhaps given time off work and counselling, and blocked from access to the system or his wife's records as deemed appropriate.
If I was being divorced, I'd like to think I would resist the temptation to abuse my powers. But maybe I'm not quite the morally upstanding person I imagine myself to be. I hope I'm never put in a situation where I find out. And what a pitty we've designed such a crap system that this guy had to see himself for who he truly was.
(And my sympathy to the wife, too, I'm sure being stalked like that was scary.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
