More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
A detective who sent flirty Facebook messages and two topless photos to a victim of attempted rape has been found to have committed gross misconduct.
Det Sgt Jonathan Pearce denied the allegations and is now facing dismissal from Kent Police following a hearing in Maidstone this week.
The officer was found to have breached standards by attempting to start a "sexual or emotional relationship" with someone he knew to be a "vulnerable person".
The hearing held at Kent Police headquarters was told Det Sgt Pearce sent "sexually suggestive" messages to the younger woman including the topless pictures and discussing sugar daddies after learning she had been a victim of an alleged attack.
He admitted failing to report the crime when she told him, which is a breach of police rules.
Giving evidence at his hearing on Monday, Det Sgt Pearce - who joined Kent Police in 2012 as a specialist officer trained in investigating sexual offences and working with victims - said not reporting the incident was the "worst decision of his professional life".
He had admitted misconduct but denied his actions amounted to gross misconduct. This afternoon, a panel found him guilty of gross misconduct.
The panel had heard, Det Sgt Pearce and the woman started messaging in September 2019 after he commented on one of her posts in a Facebook group.
The officer told the hearing he later noticed a friend suggestion pop up while scrolling through the site. He said he initially thought it was a friend of his daughter's and started talking to her.
Counsel for Kent Police, David Mesling, told the panel Det Sgt Pearce told her he was a police officer.
They had been messaging for about a month when on October 11 she told him she had been a victim of an attempted rape. She shared messages with her alleged attacker and a picture of shorts which had been ejaculated on.
Det Sgt Pearce said the woman had "begged" him not to report it after telling him as a friend. He told her to bag the shorts up and keep them.
Giving evidence, he said in the days which followed, he repeatedly tried to convince her to go to the police but promised he would not report it.
He conceded a sense of "misguided loyalty" to not betray her trust stopped him from acting on the information himself which the panel concluded impeded any future investigation taking place.
Kent Police and Home Office policing policies state any sexual offences disclosed to a police officer must be reported and to refer victims to safeguarding teams.
Det Sgt Pearce said: "I should've reported it and it was my duty to report it. I didn't have my police hat on. I wasn't thinking as a detective. I've let everyone down and I'm so sorry."
But the hearing was told "sexual suggestive" messages sent by Det Sgt Pearce to the woman continued after he learnt she was a victim of sexual assault.
Questioning Det Sgt Pearce, Mr Mesling said the messages appeared more "flirtatious" when the officer said she looked "lovely". On another occasion that he would have asked her out if he was "20 years younger" when she told him she felt like nobody liked her.
A later message read to the hearing revealed when she asked if the officer "wanted" her, Det Sgt Pearce replied: "Maybe a little bit."
Days after learning about the attack on her, the pair discussed sugar daddies after the woman shared a link to an online news article.
In his reply, Det Sgt Pearce asked what he "would get from it" but in evidence said he never suggested anything explicit.
The officer denied the messages had a sexual context and that he had no intention to enter a sexual relationship with her.
The officer's counsel Alisa Williamson told the panel Det Sgt Pearce fully admitted he should have "changed the nature" of the conversation and that was "his mistake".
Chairman of the panel Chiew Yin Jones also said they were concerned that Det Sgt Pearce had deleted the messages when she had reported the matter to police herself which came about following an alleged domestic abuse incident.
They rejected his argument he accidentally deleted them from his phone – including screenshots of messages between the alleged victim and her attacker which would have been critical evidence – after the incident had been reported.
The hearing was also told Det Sgt Pearce asked the woman if police had taken her phone as evidence and if their previous messages had been "too flirty".
"I didn't have my police hat on. I wasn't thinking as a detective. I've let everyone down and I'm so sorry."
She later told investigators from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) she had not found the messages "too flirty". But she did say she had been concerned about multiple messages which said he wanted to hug and cuddle her.
The panel decided the officer had asked this in a bid to try to cover his tracks knowing policing rules meant it was a breach of conduct to not create a crime report himself after he had been informed of the incident.
Ms Jones added it was the panel's finding the content of the messages, deleting them after learning of the police involvement and failing to report the incident meant Det Sgt Pearce was attempting to enter into "an emotional and sexual relationship" with the woman.
She said they found Det Sgt Pearce to be an "unreliable witness" who had been "combative" during questioning at the hearing on Monday.
Mitigating for her client, Ms Williamson argued for Det Sgt Pearce to be given a final written warning was a serious enough punishment to serve as a warning to other members of the police.
She said other than this incident, Det Sgt Pearce had an unblemished record, leaving his superior officers "shocked" when questioned about him in relation to the investigation.
Mr Mesling argued the grounds were "so serious" that dismissal was an appropriate sanction in order to "maintain public confidence in Kent Police" and ensure the safety of the public.
The hearing continues.
