A former police officer in Worcester has been found guilty of gross misconduct after being photographed with his trousers down in a police station office, covering his crotch with a female colleague’s hat, during what he described as a “misplaced joke.” PC James Graysmark posed smiling for the camera while partially undressed in full uniform, an incident that took place out of public view on August 20, 2024, in Warndon.
At a disciplinary hearing, Graysmark insisted there were no sexual undertones to the photo, describing the act as a “career-defining incident” borne of stupidity rather than malice. Despite his apology, a panel ruled that his behavior was “inane, immature, and stupid,” and unequivocally “wholly unprofessional,” breaching police standards of professional conduct related to authority, respect, courtesy, and discreditable behavior.
Chief Constable Richard Cooper emphasized the seriousness of the incident, highlighting that police officers must maintain professionalism to preserve public confidence. He noted the potential harm to victims seeking police support, specifically warning that women’s confidence could be undermined by such conduct.
READ MORE: Birmingham Eid al-Adha 2026 LIVE Updates: Small Heath Park Timings, Traffic, and Parking
READ MORE: ‘We Are Not NIMBYs’ – Wall Heath and Kingswinford Residents Speak Out Against Housing Developments
The hearing revealed that although the photo was never publicly shared, it created an intimidating and offensive environment, meeting the criteria for sexual harassment under West Mercia Police’s policies. However, due to the incident being isolated and lacking malice, misogyny, or abuse of position, the panel deemed it a lower-end gross misconduct event.
Graysmark, described as a mature officer with many years of service, was determined to have caused foreseeable harm by failing to treat his colleagues with respect and bringing discredit to himself and the police service. Had he remained employed by West Mercia Police, he would have received a three-year final written warning for the incident.
The panel expressed disappointment with the delay in reporting, noting a female colleague who took the photo saw it but did not report it for nearly a year. The identity of the photographer remains unclear, though the incident happened within a small team. There is no evidence that Graysmark intended to cause distress, but his actions nonetheless compromised professional standards and public trust.