Former officer Lewis Edwards outcome summary

Misconduct hearing outcome 

Officer concerned: Former officer Lewis Edwards

Decision of the panel

1. Alleged Conduct

1)It is alleged that Former Pc Edwards has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour as set out in the notice in the following terms: -

It is alleged that he breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in that:

1.1 He commenced employment with Staffordshire Constabulary on 6th March 2023.

1.2 At all material times he was employed by Staffordshire Police as a Police Constable within the Local Policing Team based at Longton Police Station.

1.3 At all material times he was subject to Staffordshire Police’s Sexual Harassment Policy which provides examples and guidance in relation to issues of sexual harassment in particular:

1.3.1 Paragraph 6.5 which states: “Sexual harassment includes a wide range of behaviours including but not limited to:

• Sexual comments or jokes

• Displaying sexually graphic pictures, posters or photos

• Uninvited discussion of one’s sex life or inappropriate discussion of sex life

1.3.2 Paragraph 6.9 which states: “An individual can experience sexual harassment from someone of the same or different sex and the recipient of the behaviour decides whether the approach was unacceptable or undignified…”

1.3.3 Paragraph 6.10 which states: “Sexual harassment can be a one-off event and does not need to be directed at a person. It can be witnessed or overheard. Sexual conduct that has been welcomed or tolerated in the past may, over time, become unwanted and if it continues becomes harassment.”

1.4 On 19th February 2024 he attended a work-related event at the Black Lion Pub in Cheddleton, before attending a colleague’s address for further socialising with other officers who had been at the event.

1.5 Whilst at the address and in the company of other officers he:

1.5.1 Spoke loudly and unprompted about how many girls he had had sex with and/or otherwise engaged romantically with;

1.5.2 Bragged to other officers about how many girls he was speaking to on Snapchat before proceeding to show them his Snapchat inbox on his mobile phone;

1.5.3 Without warning and unprompted held his phone up in front of Pc 29250 Harry Smith’s face and showed him a photograph of a female who was naked aside from her knickers and who had her breast exposed;

1.5.4 Without warning and unprompted showed Pc 29250 Harry Smith another photograph on his phone of a female appearing to be fully nude lying on a bed and said words to the effect of “have a look at that”;

1.5.5 Without warning and unprompted showed Pc 29250 Harry Smith what appeared to be a home-made pornographic video on his phone of a male and a female clearly having penetrative sexual intercourse;

1.5.6 On each occasion at paragraphs 1.5.3 – 1.5.5 PC Harry Smith made it clear to him that he did not want to see such content on his phone, but he continued despite this;

1.5.7 Showed Pc 27864 Joshua Hollins a Snapchat picture of a female on his phone and commented “this is where I will be heading after”;

1.5.8 Unsolicited, showed Pc 27864 Joshua Hollins a Snapchat picture on his phone of the same female mentioned in paragraph 1.5.7 stood up, fully naked with her vagina exposed and said words to the effect of “I’m here when I could be having sex with her”.

2. Alleged Breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour

2.1 He breached the Authority Respect and Courtesy standard in that he failed to treat his colleagues and/or the individuals in the photos/videos with respect and courtesy;

2.2 He breached the Orders and Instructions standard in that he breached Staffordshire Police’s Sexual Harassment Policy;

2.3 He breached the Discreditable Conduct standard in that his conduct would seriously undermine public confidence in the police.

3. Alleged reasons the conduct amounts to Gross Misconduct

3.1 His conduct has been assessed as Gross Misconduct for the following reasons:

3.1.1 His conduct was deliberate and he must have known it represented a breach of the standards;

3.1.2 His conduct was sustained and involved a series of instances of inappropriate and unwanted conduct towards colleagues;

3.1.3 His conduct represents a significant lack of respect and/or courtesy towards colleagues and the females spoken about and shown in the pictures/videos;

3.1.4 His conduct has the potential to seriously undermine public confidence in the police service.

The Standards of Professional Behaviour are contained in Schedule 2 of The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and within the Home Office Guidance of 2020:

a. Authority, Respect and Courtesy

Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.

Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.

b. Orders and Instructions

Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions.

Police officers abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders.

c. Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Police officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any conditions imposed on them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice.

The Panel additionally considered the appropriate paragraphs pertaining to the Standards as set out in the Home Office Guidance and the Code of Ethics, to which the Guidance refers.

4) AA Representation and The Absence of the Officer

Throughout the hearing the Appropriate Authority (‘AA’) was represented by Ms Veale of Counsel.

The former officer was not present and was not represented.

a. Counsel for the AA applied to proceed under Regulation 37(3)(b).

b. The Panel was satisfied that the former officer was aware of the proceedings against him. He was a serving police officer when these matters came to the attention of the AA, has received both the Regulation 17 and Regulation 30 Notices and has responded to the allegations via Regulation 31. The Panel was satisfied that the former officer had been made aware of the date of this Hearing.  The former officer had made it clear that he did not intend to take part in these proceedings. The panel was satisfied that it was both in the interests of justice and in the public interest for the Hearing to proceed and conclude in the absence of the Officer.

Former Pc Edwards resigned from Staffordshire Police in advance of the hearing, on the 15th of May 2025.

The former Officer provisions apply.

5) Response to the Allegations

In his Regulation 31 Response, the former officer refers to the account within his Prepared Statement. He denies showing his colleagues images of young naked females or a video of a male and female having sexual intercourse.

6) The Panel’s Approach

a. These proceedings are brought under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020.

b. The Panel determined that it was required to consider all the allegations and facts and make findings as to whether: -

-the facts are proven on the balance of probabilities
-which standards of professional behaviour might be engaged
-whether the conduct amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct or neither.

c. The Panel reminded itself that the burden of proof is on the Appropriate Authority throughout, and that the standard of proof is the balance of probability, namely what is more likely than not.

d. The Panel also reminded itself of paragraph 11.107 from the 2020 Home Office Guidance:

It will be for the chair of the hearing to determine the course of the hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness.

The overriding concern of the proceedings is fairness – to the officer concerned and to the AA (which may be said to represent the public interest).

e. In Redgrave v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2003] EWCA Civ 4, Simon Brown LJ made clear that the “character and purpose” of professional regulatory proceedings was “entirely different” to that of criminal proceedings. Rather, the purpose of professional disciplinary proceedings is “to protect the public .... and to maintain the high standards and good reputation” of the profession. Simon Brown LJ explained that “the material before the disciplinary tribunal is likely to be different: in part because different rules of evidence are likely to apply and in part because judicial discretions may well be differently exercised – generally less strictly in the disciplinary context where at least the accused’s liberty is not at stake.

7) The Facts

In its deliberations, the Panel reviewed and considered the entirety of the facts and evidence presented to it.

It considered at length the submissions made on behalf of the AA and the Regulation 31 Response and Prepared Statement provided by Former Pc Edwards.

The Panel's findings represent its assessment of the evidence, applying the balance of probabilities to each allegation individually.

8) Findings of Fact

Background

On 19th February 2024 the former officer attended a work-related event at the Black Lion Pub in Cheddleton.

Following this, he attended a colleague’s address with other colleagues who were on the night out.

This case is about the former officer allegedly making inappropriate sexual comments and showing colleagues unsolicited sexual images and videos.

a. The Panel will outline its findings using the first three stages of the misconduct regime that relate to

-Findings of fact

-Assessment against Standards of Professional Behaviour

-Assessment of Seriousness  

b. Witnesses

The panel has considered the evidence in written statements. The panel did not feel it necessary to call for evidence in person. The panel was satisfied with the written evidence provided and had no points of clarification. The witnesses substantiate each other in key areas, including hearing the former officer talking about sex and being vocal about how many females he had on Snapchat, and multiple witnesses hearing Pc Smith ask the former officer not to show him the material.

The panel prefers the accounts of the witnesses to the account of former officer Edwards.  There is supportive and consistent evidence from these witnesses.

Facts that were determined:

c. Paras 1.5.1 and 1.5.2-The alleged facts are that, whilst at the address and in the company of other officers former officer Edwards:

Spoke loudly and unprompted about how many girls you had had sex with and/or otherwise engaged romantically with

Fact proved. This is witnessed by Pc Smith.

Bragged to other officers about how many girls you were speaking to on Snapchat before proceeding to show them your Snapchat inbox on your mobile phone

Fact proved. This is witnessed by Pc Graham and Pc Smith

d. The panel has considered allegations 1.5.3-1.5.6 collectively. Without warning and unprompted held your phone up in front of Pc 29250 Harry Smith’s face and showed him a photograph of a female who was naked aside from her knickers and who had her breast exposed

1.5.3 Without warning and unprompted showed Pc 29250 Harry Smith another photograph on your phone of a female appearing to be fully nude lying on a bed and said words to the effect of “have a look at that.”

1.5.4 Without warning and unprompted showed Pc 29250 Harry Smith what appeared to be a home-made pornographic video on your phone of a male and a female clearly having penetrative sexual intercourse

On each occasion at 1.5.3-1.5.5 Pc Harry Smith made it clear to you that he did not want to see such content on your phone but you continued despite this.

The panel finds these facts proved. This is witnessed by Pc Smith. The panel accepts Pc Smith’s written evidence and prefers it to the account of former officer Edwards. Pc Smith’s account was detailed and consistent, and the Panel finds it inherently improbable that he would have fabricated it.

He described not only the content of the images and videos that were shown to him but also his own reaction, repeatedly telling the former officer, "Lewis, I don't want to see", "Stop it", and "I'm not interested".

Pc Graham confirmed hearing Pc Smith repeatedly tell the former officer that he did not want to see the images and to stop showing them to him. This supports the circumstances in which the images were being shown and demonstrates that the former officer persisted despite clear indications that his conduct was unwelcome.

The Panel finds the former officer's account considerably less persuasive. He agrees that he may have bragged about a relationship but denies the other conduct that is alleged.

If, as the former officer suggests, nothing inappropriate had been shown by him to his colleagues, it is difficult to understand why Pc Smith would repeatedly and audibly tell him to stop, a fact independently confirmed by Pc Graham.

The former officer states that he handed his phone to Pc Smith and he is not sure what was looked at or whether it was passed around. However, the Panel prefers the evidence of Pcs Smith and Graham, who state that the former officer was on the arm of the sofa when he handed his phone to Pc Smith. The panel rejects any suggestion that Pcs Smith and Graham independently accessed the sexualised material or that it was passed around. The fact that Pc Smith asked him to stop showing the material contradicts the suggestion from the former officer. 

The Panel has also considered the Image Movie Report. The report does not enable the Panel to conclude that the specific images and videos viewed by Pc Smith were those recovered from the former officer's telephone. However, the report demonstrates that the former officer's device contained images of a broadly similar nature to those described by Pc Smith. Whilst the report is not determinative, it provides support for Pc Smith's account that the former officer had access to, and retained, sexually explicit images on his device.

The Panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the former officer deliberately accessed the "My Eyes Only" section of his Snapchat account and showed Pc Smith a number of sexually explicit images of young adult women, together with a video depicting of a male and female engaging in sexual intercourse.

e. Paras 1.5.7 and 1.5.8

Showed Pc 27864 Joshua Hollins a Snapchat picture of a female on your phone and commented “this is where I will be heading after”

Unsolicited, showed Pc 27864 Joshua Hollins a Snapchat picture on your phone of the same female mentioned in para 1.5.7 stood up, fully naked with her vagina exposed and said words to the effect of “I’m here when I could be having sex with her.”

The panel has considered allegations 1.5.7 and 1.5.8 together. The panel finds the facts proved. The panel accepts Pc Hollins’ written evidence and prefers it to the account of former officer Edwards. Pc Hollins gives a detailed and coherent account of the interaction. His evidence is not merely that he saw an indecent image but he describes the circumstances in which it occurred, the sequence in which the two photographs were shown, the appearance of the female, and the comments made by the former officer ("this is where I will be heading after" and "I'm here when I could be having sex with her"). The Panel finds it inherently improbable that he would have fabricated such a detailed account on the totality of the circumstances.

The Panel accepts that Pc Hollins felt uncomfortable, attempted to end the conversation by appearing disinterested and deliberately moved away from the former officer. This is a plausible and proportionate reaction to the unsolicited display of intimate images.

The Panel preferred the evidence of Pc Hollins and was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the former officer showed him the images and made the comments alleged.

Sexual Harassment Policy

a. The former officer was subject to Staffordshire Police’s Sexual Harassment Policy which makes clear that sexual harassment encompasses a wide range of behaviours including displaying sexually graphic pictures, posters or photos and uninvited discussion of one’s sex life or inappropriate discussion of sex life

Paragraph 6.9 provides that an individual can experience sexual harassment from someone of the same or different sex and the recipient of the behaviour decides whether the approach was unacceptable or undignified…”

Paragraph 6.10 which states: “Sexual harassment can be a one-off event and does not need to be directed at a person. It can be witnessed or overheard. Sexual conduct that has been welcomed or tolerated in the past may, over time, become unwanted and if it continues becomes harassment.”

b. It is clear from the policy that it is a matter for the recipient of the behaviour to determine whether it was unacceptable or undignified, rather than this being determined by the intentions of the person exhibiting the behaviour. The witnesses in this case clearly found the Former Officer’s actions to be unacceptable. The Panel is satisfied that the former officer's conduct amounted to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature. He repeatedly showed Pc Smith sexually explicit images and a video despite Pc Smith making it clear on several occasions that he did not wish to see them. The former officer showed Pc Smith nude images of women and explicit videos of sexual intercourse and persisted after Pc Smith repeatedly said, "I don't want to see”, “Stop it" and "I'm not interested." Pc Graham independently corroborated hearing him repeatedly ask the former officer to stop. The former officer showed Pc Hollins sexualised images which made him feel uncomfortable so that he moved away.

c. The Panel is satisfied that the former officer's conduct was wholly inconsistent with the standards set out in Staffordshire Police's Sexual Harassment Policy. He deliberately displayed sexually explicit images and videos to colleagues, despite that colleague repeatedly making it clear that the conduct was unwanted.

The panel has considered Pc Smith and Pc Hollins’ perception and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have the effect that it did on them. The panel is satisfied that it is entirely reasonable for officers unexpectedly shown such images by a colleague in these circumstances to feel uncomfortable.

Such behaviour failed to respect personal boundaries, created an offensive and uncomfortable environment, and was capable of violating the dignity of a fellow officer. The conduct was neither consensual nor mutually participated in, but it continued after clear objections had been expressed.

The Panel is therefore satisfied that the former officer’s behaviour towards Pcs Smith and Hollins amounted to sexual harassment and was a breach of the Sexual Harassment Policy.

9) Breaches of the Standards of Professional behaviour

Having made findings of fact, we moved on to consider whether former Pc Edwards has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour as alleged.

a. Authority, Respect and Courtesy

On the balance of probabilities, the panel find that the former officer has breached this standard.

He breached the Standard of Professional Behaviour concerning Authority, Respect and Courtesy because:

-His conduct towards Pcs Smith and Hollins constituted sexual harassment.

-Police officers are expected to treat colleagues with respect and maintain professional boundaries, both on and off duty.

Displaying intimate images to colleagues without invitation risks making colleagues feel uncomfortable, as it did and undermining confidence that the workplace is respectful and inclusive.

-Further, it is apparent on the balance of probabilities that the images and videos being shown to the witnesses in this case were never intended by the senders to be viewed by anybody other than the Former Officer. By flagrantly persisting in showing the images/videos to others the Former Officer has demonstrated a significant lack of respect and courtesy towards the individuals depicted therein.

b. Orders and Instructions

The Panel is satisfied that the former officer breached the Standard of Professional Behaviour relating to Orders and Instructions.

He breached the Staffordshire Police Sexual Harassment Policy

Police officers are required to comply with force policies governing professional conduct, dignity at work and sexual harassment. Those policies prohibit unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and place an obligation upon officers to maintain appropriate professional boundaries within the workplace and in work-related settings.

The Panel has found that the former officer engaged in unsolicited sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Pcs Smith and Hollins by exposing colleagues to unwanted sexual conduct and explicit sexual comments. Such behaviour was wholly inconsistent with the requirements of the Force's policies and training relating to sexual harassment and workplace conduct. The conduct was deliberate and represented a clear failure to comply with those lawful instructions.

c. Discreditable Conduct

On the balance of probabilities, the Panel find that the officer has breached this standard.

The Panel recognises that public confidence in policing depends on officers' interactions with members of the public and also upon how they treat one another. The public are entitled to expect that police officers will foster a workplace in which colleagues are treated with dignity and respect and are free from sexualised or inappropriate conduct. Behaviour of the nature found proved undermines that expectation.

The public would not expect an officer to share intimate photographs of women in the way that has been described. They might find it degrading towards women and this would bring discredit to the service.

A reasonable member of the public, informed of the facts, would be likely to regard such behaviour as falling below the standards expected of a police officer and as being liable to damage the reputation of the police service.

10. Assessing Seriousness - Misconduct or Gross Misconduct or neither

The panel is satisfied that the facts are proven on the balance of probabilities and that each of the breaches of the Professional Standards in relation to Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Orders and Instructions and Discreditable Conduct individually and/or collectively amount to Gross Misconduct for the following reasons: -

-The Panel has found that the former officer engaged in repeated sexually inappropriate conduct towards police colleagues during a work-related social event. It involved separate acts directed towards two different colleagues, demonstrating a pattern of conduct.

-In relation to Pc Smith, the Panel has found that the former officer’s behaviour amounted to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and represented a serious failure to respect the dignity and personal boundaries of a colleague.

-In relation to Pc Hollins, the Panel has found that the former officer showed an unsolicited image of a naked female whilst making explicit comments about anticipated sexual activity. The conduct was plainly sexual in nature, was wholly uninvited and caused Pc Hollins to feel uncomfortable to the extent that he sought to disengage from the conversation and physically distance himself from the former officer.

-Police officers are expected to treat colleagues and members of the public with dignity, respect and professionalism. Those expectations do not cease at work-related social events. Indeed, officers are expected to maintain professional standards whenever their conduct has the potential to affect public confidence in policing.

- The Panel considers that the repeated nature of the conduct and the fact that the former officer continued his behaviour when repeatedly asked to stop aggravates its seriousness.

- Members of the public are entitled to expect that police officers will not subject colleagues to unwanted sexual behaviour or create an environment in which such conduct is tolerated. The Panel is satisfied that a reasonable member of the public, informed of the facts found proved, would regard this behaviour as falling far below the standards expected of a police officer.

11) Outcome

Following the conclusion of evidence presented to the misconduct hearing on 5th August 2026, the panel has found former Pc Edwards has breached the standards of professional behaviour in relation to Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Orders and Instructions and Discreditable Conduct.   

The panel has found the seriousness of that breach to be at the level of Gross Misconduct.

In determining the appropriate outcome to impose, the panel is guided by the College of Policing “Guidance on Outcomes in police misconduct proceedings” to remember the purpose of the police misconduct regime which is threefold:

1.1. To maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service

1.2. To uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct

1.3. To protect the public

The panel has considered submissions made by the Appropriate Authority.  

The panel is mindful that the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes directs us to consider the least severe sanction in the first instance before moving to a more severe outcome. 

Culpability

In terms of culpability, the panel has found that the former officer’s actions were intentional and deliberate.

The behaviour was repeated during that evening.

The officer was asked to stop but continued.

The former officer knew, or ought to have known, that such behaviour was wholly inappropriate. As a serving police officer, he was subject to, amongst other things, the Force's policies concerning sexual harassment.

The conduct amounted to sexual impropriety which is always especially serious

In conclusion, the panel finds former Pc Edward’s culpability to be high.

Harm

The panel finds harm has been caused to the officers who viewed the material.

The panel finds that the sharing of those intimate images causes harm to the women who were within the images and video. 

Were the public aware of this behaviour, this would undermine confidence in policing. Maintaining public confidence requires the police service to demonstrate that sexually inappropriate behaviour, whether directed towards members of the public or colleagues, is not tolerated. Conduct of this nature risks undermining confidence that officers can be trusted to uphold the standards they are expected to enforce.

The panel finds harm to be high. 

Aggravating factors

The panel has been careful not to double count but considers the following to be aggravating factors:

-Significant deviation from instructions, whether an order, force policy or national guidance, namely Staffordshire Polices Sexual Harassment Policy.

-National concern around sexual impropriety and police officers.

-Multiple breaches of the standards of professional behaviour

Mitigating factors

The Panel has not been presented with any mitigating factors and we have not identified any mitigating factors.

Overall, the panel concludes that the matters remain serious and amount to Gross Misconduct.

Personal Mitigation

The CoP Guidance addresses personal mitigation.

The Panel has had regard to former Pc Edwards record of service and his personal mitigation

Regulation 42(14) of the Conduct Regulations requires the Panel to take account of the officer’s personal mitigation, but the weight to be accorded to that mitigation: a) is less than it would be in a criminal trial; and b) is dependent upon the extent to which the officer’s misconduct threatens the public confidence.

The Panel has noted the previously unblemished but short service history of former Pc Edwards. Due to the seriousness of the proven conduct, personal mitigation carries minimal weight.

The panel reminds itself that this is a former officer and that we can decide whether to take disciplinary action or whether to take no disciplinary action.

Outcome

As the Panel has found the allegation proven to the level of Gross Misconduct, we consider it appropriate and proportionate to impose disciplinary action.

The Panel is also satisfied that the breaches of the standards, as we have found, would have been incompatible with his role as a Police Officer if he had still been in service and that the need to protect public confidence in and the reputation of the police service, the need to maintain high professional standards and the need to protect the public and officers and staff by preventing similar misconduct in the future is appropriately served by the imposition of disciplinary action.

In respect of former Pc Edwards we find that the appropriate sanction had he still been a member of the Police Force would have been that of dismissal without notice.

As a consequence of this outcome former Pc Edwards will be placed on the College of Policing Barred List.

12) Right of Appeal 

The Panel is required to notify former Pc Edwards that he has a right of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal.

To former Pc Edwards:

“You have a right of appeal against the finding and/or the outcome imposed at a misconduct hearing. You may only appeal on the grounds that: - a) The finding or disciplinary action imposed was unreasonable. b) There is evidence that could not reasonably have been considered at the misconduct meeting which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action; or c) There was a serious breach of the procedures set out in the regulations or other unfairness which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action.

Should you wish to appeal you must do so in writing to the appropriate authority, clearly setting out the grounds for the appeal within 10 working days beginning with the first working day after the receipt of the notification of the outcome of the misconduct meeting (unless this period is extended by the appropriate authority for exceptional circumstances)

The Appropriate Authority will provide you with a notice as to the procedure to be followed in that regard”.

Julia Debenham
Chair
07/08/26