A POLICE officer who used police systems to access confidential information about someone he knew who had been arrested has been sacked.
West Mercia PC Ryan Clarke was called before a police misconduct hearing at West Mercia Police’s headquarters in Hindlip, near Worcester, following allegations he had accessed police systems multiple times while unauthorised to.
It was alleged that Clarke, who had joined the force in September 2021, first accessed police records relating to a man, whose name was not disclosed by the report, on July 28, 2022.
Clarke had seen the man’s surname on the police’s intranet and clicked on the record to see if it was him. He then viewed records including the fact the man was in police custody, his roles, and his addresses.
He then failed to declare his connection with the man or make any record of accessing the information.
Several months later, in February 2023, Clarke once again accessed the man’s records, including his custody record, his custody image, and his detention log.
The system showed he had looked at the information nine times between February 21 and 22, and he once again failed to tell anyone of his connection to the man or that he had accessed the records.
The panel heard that Clarke had accessed the records because he was concerned about the man, who he believed had gone ‘on the straight and narrow’.
The authority which had investigated Clarke’s misconduct described his actions as akin to a criminal offence under the Data Protection Act, something the panel accepted to be true.
The panel also accepted that Clarke had broken breach the integrity and confidentiality standards set by the police, and those breaches amounted to gross misconduct, meaning he could face a final written warning or a dismissal.
The report stated: “The panel found that, given the aims of the misconduct regime, public confidence in the police’s ability to handle private and sensitive information securely is paramount. It is vital for public trust.
“The panel found that a final written warning would not meet the aims of the regime and would not be sufficient to maintain public confidence, particularly in relation to handling of personal data.
“Nor would it act as a sufficient deterrent to others who may be tempted to access private information simply to satisfy their curiosity.
“The only appropriate action is dismissal without notice.”
