West Mercia Police officer sacked

A Shropshire police officer who accessed records about himself and his family over a period of 10 years has been sacked without notice.

Tom Lauder, who served in Donnington, Malinsgate and Bridgnorth for West Mercia Police, admitted that, on several occasions, he found out information about himself and various relatives in police systems between 2012 and 2022, some of which was after receiving confidentiality training. 

This included:

• Finding out information after he had been the victim of an assault that had left him with tendon injuries and resulted in him being placed on restricted duties
• Checking the crime reports after his sister-in-law was a victim of a robbery, and gave her a crime log number
• Viewing logs related to his sister after threats to kill her were allegedly made
• Accessing details about his wife after her vehicle had been broken into
• Looking into a crime report related to his father
• Clicking into the profile of his brother-in-law

Fiona Wise, barrister for the ‘appropriate authority’, told the hearing that the 42-year-old, who became a police officer when he was 24, admitted six breaches and two breaches in part of standards of professional behaviour after facing 19 counts in total.

She said the force also believed the officer had breached standards in the other cases, and this amounted to gross misconduct.

However, Francesca Perera, representing Mr Lauder, argued that the offences should be classed as “misconduct” and the most appropriate sanction would be for him to receive a final warning.

“He’s of previous good character, and has many people who speak highly of him, not just in a professional capacity, but also in a more personal capacity in terms of the type of person he is,” said Ms Perera, who confirmed that Mr Lauder was a police constable, and not a detective as was listed on the force’s records.

“While at West Midlands Police, he also received a Superintendent’s commendation for work he completed in 2010.

“He is a man who is married with two children. If this officer were to be dismissed, his wife, on her salary, wouldn’t be able to commit to their financial obligatgions on her own.

“He doesn’t have a degree, and doesn’t know anything else. A dismissal would mean he would have to effectively start from scratch again.

“He has accepted where he’s got things wrong, and has reflected on his behaviour since then. It’s not a case where data has gone into the wrong hands.”

Ms Perera added that, even though it’s accepted the allegations were carried out over a period of 10 years, there were gaps of offences being committed.

However, the panel of three decided that the officer’s conduct was deliberate in the majority of cases, and was proven over an extended period.

“It was targeted towards family members and their associates, and in cases where the officer was the complainant,” said Rachel Hartland-Lane, who was chairing the hearing.

“While some of the accesses were initially inadvertent, on several occasions the initial access was followed up with further searches despite the clear data protection policies in place.

“The misuse of police computer systems or information generally is a particular concern to the police service. They hold a significant amount of information about members of the public, most of which are sensitive, and it’s the public’s expectation and a legal requirement that information obtained should be treated in the strictest confidence, properly protected, and used only for legitimate policing purposes.

“Under no circumstances should anyone access or use police information for personal benefit. If a police officer is obtaining information not available to the general public, there should always be a specific and proper purpose in doing so. Accessing information without a legitimate policing purpose is an abuse of an officer’s position and may merit dismissal in serious cases.

“The panel has sympathy for officers experiencing difficulties with their family or personal life and some officers may be tempted to access confidential information. However, wishing to provide information and a high level of service for a family member does not constitute a legitimate policing purpose.”

As well as being dismissed, Mr Lauder will also be on the College of Policing barred list. Mr Lauder has a right of appeal, which should be done in in writing within 10 working days.