A former police officer unlawfully accessed confidential crime records while off duty in an effort to find and protect a vulnerable missing relative, a misconduct hearing revealed.
PC Sandall conducted unauthorized checks on the police computer system to locate the family member after they were reported missing. His intent, he said, was to safeguard his relative from potential harm. Alongside a colleague, Sandall successfully found the individual.
Two years later, Sandall again breached protocol by accessing a crime log related to a neighbour when police officers visited his home during his absence. Instead of asking a supervisor for assistance, he personally reviewed confidential information for his own benefit.
READ MORE: Exact Hour UK Snow Bomb Set to Hit England with 10cm of Snow This Week
READ MORE: Birmingham restaurant owner urges action after machete attack on children
The panel concluded that Sandall’s conduct was gross misconduct, violating professional standards of confidentiality and conduct. Had he remained with West Midlands Police, he would have faced a five-year final written warning. However, Sandall resigned before any formal disciplinary actions were taken.
Former Chief Constable Craig Guildford’s report criticized Sandall for treating sensitive data without any regard for its confidentiality, motivated solely by personal matters involving himself and his family.
Details disclosed at the hearing indicated that Sandall accessed a crime report between 12:41 a.m. and 12:44 a.m. in April 2022 relating to the incident involving his family member who was missing and deemed vulnerable. Following this, Sandall’s proactive search helped locate the person, who later threatened self-harm, escalating the seriousness of the case.
On February 14, 2024, while on duty, Sandall accessed records about a neighbour’s vehicle theft between 12:03 p.m. and 12:36 p.m. After plain clothes officers visited his home and spoke with his family alone, the family member contacted him to verify if the visit was legitimate. Concerned, Sandall checked the confidential system and found a recently reported motor vehicle crime linked to the neighbour.
Though Sandall admitted the breaches and apologized sincerely, the panel emphasized that accessing confidential data for self-interest, regardless of intention, is a serious violation. Mr. Guildford noted that Sandall should have followed proper protocol by consulting a supervisor rather than accessing the information himself.
The hearing recognized that Sandall’s initial breach involved urgent safeguarding of a vulnerable person, adding some mitigation. However, the second breach lacked any immediate threat to safety and served only personal interest.
Nine character references from colleagues, supervisors, and community partners portrayed Sandall as a valuable and committed officer, including his volunteer work as a football coach. Despite this, the panel highlighted that he consciously disregarded legal and training obligations on two separate occasions.
Ultimately, Sandall was found guilty of breaching professional standards concerning confidentiality and discreditable conduct. The panel concluded he made deliberate decisions to access sensitive data improperly, showing a disregard for privacy and protocol.