More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
A PC who used Kent Police premises as a base to conduct his sexual trysts and affairs committed gross misconduct, a panel has ruled.
Former PC James Empett had a relationship with a student officer he was training and booked a dorm room to have sex with a member of the public, a misconduct hearing was told yesterday.
He had served for 15 years and taught student officers at Kent Police College, in Coverdale Avenue, Maidstone for four, but resigned after the allegations arose.
However a misconduct panel ruled today that PC Empett would have been dismissed if he was still with the force, as he was found to have breached numerous standards of professional behaviour.
He also received a lifetime ban from working in the police.
After listening to evidence yesterday, the panel said PC Empett had encouraged the student officer, who enrolled at the college in January 2019, and who was referred to throughout as PC N to lie about the nature of their relationship when questioned by investigating officers in April that year.
He had also messaged a student officer who he taught, who had been told by PC N about the affair, emphasizing she should not tell anyone about it.
Another pupil who found out about the relationship after a night out at the pub was asked to keep it "on absolute lockdown", by PC N, who was passing on the message from PC Empett.
PC Empett also attempted to pursue a relationship with another officer he was training but was rebuffed.
Presenting evidence yesterday, Matthew Chidley said it appeared the relationship had lasted for several months and PC N had been booking a room at "the hostel block", in order for the pair to have sex.
The pair had sex in the accommodation block at the college twice in April, panel chair Claire Harrington said today.
Ms Harrington said that PC Empett "sought out" PC N within the first weeks of them meeting, and "engaged with her in a way" that went beyond the relationship between trainer and student.
When first questioned about their relationship, PC Empett said he was aware of PC N's feelings towards him but denied anything sexual.
The panel heard yesterday that PC Empett had persuaded PC N to delete incriminating evidence from her phone, but it ruled that actually PC N was likely to have deleted the messages of her own accord, without instruction from him.
There was also no evidence of specific instructions for PC N to lie about the nature of their relationship, but rather, Ms Harrington said, he encouraged her to do.
Ms Harrington said PC Empett's "total and utter abuse of his role as trainer and role model" was "particularly distressing".
The panel also heard yesterday that in October 2017, PC Empett had booked a college room to have "sexual liasons" with a member of the public, referred to as Matthew.
If challenged, Matthew should lie about why he was in the college, PC Empett instructed.
Another meeting had been arranged at the college for December that year but Matthew had to cancel.
Ms Harrington said this alone would have resulted in PC Empett committing gross misconduct and it went against force guidelines, as well posing potential security problems.
In December 2019, PC Empett was asked again about his relationship with PC N and was also quizzed on his use of Kent Police premises for sex, to which he responded no comment.
He was aware of this week's hearing but did not wish to take part in the proceedings.
Miss Harrington said: "We conclude that this case is extremely serious. This was not a case of mistaken conduct or a momentary lapse of judgement, rather PC Empett engaged in premeditated conduct in 2019."
She said he "persuaded others to lie for his own protection" and planned his misconduct for his "own personal, sexual pleasure."
Supt John Phillips, from Kent Police’s Professional Standards Department, said: "Mr Empett’s behaviour was a wholly unacceptable breach of the trust that had been placed in him.
"He compromised his integrity by pursuing improper relationships with officers whom he had an obligation to train and assess objectively. Subsequently PC Empett encouraged others to lie to cover up his own misconduct, behaviour which is wholly incompatible with a constable’s oath of office.
"He also demonstrated a flagrant disregard for basic security precautions.
"We expect all officers and staff to adhere to the highest standards of professionalism and PC Empett’s behaviour was in clear breach of these expectations.
"It is completely appropriate that he has been held to account and banned from working in any role in policing."
