A Brighton detective cried as he was found guilty of misconduct for taking a blind drunk female colleague to a hotel room where she was found naked from the waist down.
DC Richard Hession was dismissed with no notice after a four-day hearing at Sussex Police headquarters in Lewes yesterday.
The hearing was told he booked a suite in The Grand Hotel in Eastbourne after the pair went on a work night out.
After the 20-something woman texted colleagues saying she felt uncomfortable, uniformed officers came to help her and found her half naked, swaying and slurring her speech.
DC Hession, who is in his 40s, was arrested at the hotel for sexual assault, and later re-arrested for rape and sexual assault by touching, but not criminally charged.
He was instead charged with gross misconduct over this incident, and another from the previous year in which the same officer said he came up behind her at Club Revenge on another work night out and kissed her on the neck.
At the conclusion of, chair of the panel Yin Jones said the woman’s evidence was consistent and credible, as was that of former PC Harry Pitman, who had found her in the room.
But she said DC Hession’s evidence had been inconsistent and implausible.
She said: “We were unpersuaded by the officer’s evidence which was inconsistent in parts.
“He failed to display any insight into the consequences of his actions.
“The woman was far more drunk than DC Hession. She didn’t seem to know where she was. He took advantage of her vulnerable state without regard to disparity in power.
“She was heavily intoxicated and there was a difference in age between them.”
The pair had drunk about 15 units each over the course of the night out in Eastbourne on 12 May 2022.
When the group left the pub and started to get taxis, the woman said DC Hession suggested they get a hotel, which she agreed to. She texted her fiance and told him she was staying in Hession’s spare room.
She texted her partner, saying first she was staying at another colleague’s house and then in DC Hession’s spare room.
Her partner’s final text said: “Can you see why I’m upset. This is exactly what you told me would stop happening.”
PC Hession is the victim. I urge the public to read the final hearing report when it is published. There was insufficient evidence towards PC Hession at the time of arrest hence why criminal proceedings were dropped. At the hearing, legal evidence that highlighted his innocence was present and strong by his defence team. On the night of the second allogation, PC Hession took Officer A to a place of safety and asked for separate hotel rooms as witnessed, to safeguarded her, which is within his policing duties. Furthermore, Officer A videoed them kissing and giggling which highlights consent from both parties. He also denied previous allogations from 2021 with no witnesses. I feel that this could highlight to the public decisions to dismiss were based on the previous allogation in 2021 as a contributing factor. Additionally, to also highlight an age difference between the two officers is discrimative under the Equality Act 2010. Two individuals of consenting age are allowed to have a relationship, which texts from Officer A’s partner at the time could suggest. Furthermore, said texts suggested upset towards Officer A’s behaviour at the time of the second incident by her partner.
PC Hession was a good officer and has good character and history as highlighted by the 26 character references. PC Hession is not the predator that he has been highlighted to be, he has shown no pattern of predatory behaviour.
It was not morally fair to dismiss this officer. If the public look at previous and recent hearings by Sussex Police, a lot of officers’ hearings were concluded with written/final warnings after for example: accessing Police National Computer (PNC) database, and sending messages of explicit sexual content to members of the public/third parties. How is that right or morally fair? In conclusion, the above raises the question of whether PC Hession was dismissed due to political pressures.
Just because it was decided that there was no crime doesn’t mean he cannot still be guilty of misconduct in his employment. Different rules, different evidence, different standard of proof.
Mr Anon, would that be 26 versions of his similar minded matey coppers ??