More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
A police sergeant caught naked near a children’s play park was spared a criminal conviction after prosecutors rejected appeals for him to face more serious charges, KentOnline can reveal.
Pervert Simon Ince escaped with just a caution after he was spotted by shocked dog walkers loitering with no clothes on in woodland off Vale Drive in Chatham.
Officers also found photos on his phone showing him masturbating while naked in the same area about five months before.
But despite Kent Police – which later sacked Sgt Ince – wanting to throw the book at the 51-year-old, its appeals for him to face more severe charges were dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Kent’s police and crime commissioner has described the outcome as “disappointing”, while the MP for the area says he will be taking the case up with the Attorney General to ensure “the public interest has been served and public confidence upheld”.
The investigations into Sgt Ince’s disturbing behaviour began on February 2 last year when he was arrested by colleagues following reports of a naked man in Vale Drive.
Pictures taken by a member of the public showed him without any clothes on in an area close to a children’s play park.
After being spotted, Sgt Ince quickly dressed into “keep-fit clothing” and started jogging around the park, but officers soon arrived and he was led away in handcuffs.
He was questioned on suspicion of indecent exposure and outraging public decency – offences which carry potential prison sentences.
His phone was also examined, revealing images of previous “similar incidents” in the same wooded area, including of Sgt Ince masturbating while naked.
Police passed their case file to the CPS, which ruled the more historic offences could not be prosecuted as there was no evidence of criminality – understood to be because no one had seen Sgt Ince engaging in his lewd behaviour.
Meanwhile, it advised police to consider only a caution for the incident that led to his arrest, but did give authorisation to charge Sgt Ince with a public order offence for behaviour likely to cause alarm or distress, for which the maximum sentence is a £1,000 fine.
Kent Police challenged the decision, hoping to secure a charge of either indecent exposure or outraging public decency, but its appeal was dismissed by the CPS following a “detailed internal review”.
Sgt Ince was charged with the public order offence, but at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on September 17 his solicitor requested he be given a conditional caution – a punishment that avoids prosecution but requires someone to admit their offending and abide by specific conditions for a specific time.
After receiving the advice of the CPS, Kent Police representatives in court agreed to this outcome, although KentOnline understands that had more serious charges been authorised previously such a request would have been rejected by the force.
Two weeks later Ince admitted the offence in a police interview, and on October 11 the conditions of his caution were read out at the same court, including that he attend a “thinking skills” online course and stay away from the Vale Drive park area.
At the same hearing, District Judge Amanda Kelly outlined the events of February 2, revealing how Sgt Ince had been seen naked “in close proximity to a children’s play park” by dog walkers, “causing them distress”.
“It looks like a witness zoomed in on their mobile phone to take photographs,” she added.
The CPS discontinued the case against Ince on January 29 this year, with the decision confirmed at a court hearing in Brighton the following day.
Prosecutor Charlotte Frost told magistrates: "He has now complied with the conditions of his conditional caution. He has never entered a plea so [the charges] have been withdrawn."
By this time Ince, who worked at Maidstone police station, had already been sacked by Kent Police without notice following a fast-track misconduct hearing.
Despite the CPS ruling the historic incidents uncovered on Ince’s phone could not be prosecuted, the force felt they had enough evidence to pursue internal proceedings.
A hearing on September 19 was told Sgt Ince had filmed himself masturbating after crawling into a wooded area in Vale Drive in September 2023.
He admitted pleasuring himself in public but, in an email sent ahead of the hearing, attempted to mitigate his behaviour by saying he was hidden from public view at the time.
But he was dismissed without notice after his actions were ruled to have breached the threshold for gross misconduct.
Chief Constable Tim Smith concluded the officer had acted as he did to “seek sexual gratification, through masturbating in public”, dismissing any suggestion it was a “private” act.
“I do not accept taking steps to hide from view is sufficient to justify such behaviour,” he wrote in a report setting out his decision.
“It is conceivable children playing in the park could have easily entered the same area and seen PS Ince naked and masturbating, this could have caused very direct harm to those children. This seems to be a risk that PS Ince has ignored.”
If Ince had been charged with indecent exposure and convicted he would have been placed on the sex offenders’ register.
To have secured such a conviction the CPS would have needed to prove he exposed his genitals with the intent that someone would see them and be caused alarm or distress. The maximum sentence for the offence is two years in prison.
An alternative charge of outraging public decency would have required them to show that Ince had committed “any act of a lewd, obscene, or disgusting nature” that “outraged public decency” in the presence of at least two members of the public. The maximum penalty is an unlimited prison sentence.
The CPS ruled there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Ince for either of these offences, instead charging him under Section 5 of the Public Order Act with behaviour likely to cause alarm or distress.
A person is guilty of this if they use “threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” in view of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress”.
Having accepted a conditional caution for this offence, Ince avoided a criminal conviction, meaning he will only have to declare the caution when applying for certain types of employment.
Kent’s Police and Crime Commissioner, Matthew Scott, says it is “disappointing” the CPS did not authorise more serious charges against Ince and that the outcome at court was a caution.
“It is evident from the investigation and his fast-track dismissal that Kent Police took this matter seriously,” he added.
“No stone must be left unturned in the fight against officers and staff who commit criminal offences and I will continue to support and hold the force to account to make sure this is the case.”
Chatham and Aylesford MP Tris Osborne has described the case as “concerning to many” and one that “damages the good work of the large majority of officers who protect and serve us all”.
“It is welcome that Kent Police acted immediately to dismiss the officer in question for gross misconduct and I applaud the work of their teams internally in challenging this type of conduct robustly. The police are rightly held to a higher level of public standards and this falls woefully short of this,” he said.
“It is for the Crown Prosecution Service to engage in any court proceedings and I was not party to all the evidence being presented in this situation. However, I am concerned about this case and I will be making representations on this, and other such cases, to the Attorney General to understand whether the public interest has been served and public confidence upheld.”
Trevor Clarke – the Medway councillor for the ward covering Vale Drive – says Ince’s behaviour caused concern locally.
“Given what has appeared in the public domain, this decision is surprising and one wonders if other offenders would have been treated in the same seemingly light touch way,” the Conservative said.
“The guy obviously needs help but the proximity to the children’s park adds a much more disturbing element to the offending from which one would have expected a more serious sentencing.”
The CPS says it makes all charging decisions “based on the evidence” it is presented with.
“In this case, we authorised a charge under the Public Order Act,” a spokesperson said.
“There was not sufficient evidence to charge more serious offences – a decision which was upheld by a detailed internal review.”
Kent Police says it “explored all available criminal and misconduct options” after Ince’s arrest and subsequent suspension from duties.
“Kent Police, and the public it serves, expect police officers’ behaviour to be of the highest standard and the force took fast and appropriate action to end Ince’s employment with the force as soon as it was legally allowed to do so, using a fast-track dismissal process,” a spokesman added.
