A police officer carried out improper searches on police computer systems, a misconduct hearing was told.
Sussex Police said: “Misconduct has been proven against a former Sussex police officer for conducting searches of police systems without a policing purpose.
“A misconduct hearing was held at Sussex Police headquarters on Wednesday 23 July and Thursday 24 July in front of a panel chaired by Surrey Police Assistant Chief Constable Peter Gardner.
“It was alleged that between Monday 26 July 2021 and Saturday 7 October 2023, former PC Steven Hargrave, 56, who was based at Sussex Police HQ, conducted searches of police systems and accessed records for no policing purpose.
“Prior to the hearing, former PC Hargrave had admitted that he did not have a lawful policing purpose for these searches.
“It was further alleged that on Sunday 20 August 2023, he tasked another officer to attempt to stop a member of the public known to PC Hargrave for drink driving when there was no police information available to suggest he was driving while drunk.
“The panel found this allegation was not proven.
“The panel therefore found the officer had breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of confidentiality, orders and instructions and discreditable conduct but there was no breach of honesty and integrity.
“This amounted to misconduct.
“However, as the officer had retired from the force and was no longer serving, there would be no further action.”
Detective Superintendent Andy Wolstenholme, deputy head of the force Professional Standards Department, said: “Police officers must behave in a manner that does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence, whether on or off duty.
“Police information is treated confidentially and must never be accessed without a legitimate policing purpose.
“This officer’s actions and behaviour were out of keeping with their role that others uphold with integrity and with the trust of the public whom they serve.”
It’s strange that in years gone by officers were encouraged to be “professionally curious”, often able to add local or personal knowledge to enquiries or investigations that they weren’t directly involved in. Now we have a situation where officers are being dismissed for the very same thing.
Had officers in London been professionally curious around Stephen Port, perfect fewer young men would have died.
Interest in other cases is ok, but it should be limited because of sensitive information on file, he could have asked the officers involved, or maybe he had other motives which is why info is restricted to those involved and his motives were never clear.. Safety concerns, corruption, leaking info and more or how about he sticks to the rules and plays safe like a good copper should.