During a work “wellness weekend” away, a police officer in charge of protecting sexually harassed a junior female colleague by entering her hotel room, taking off his socks, and rubbing her thigh

During a work “wellness weekend” away, a police officer in charge of protecting sexually harassed a junior female colleague by entering her hotel room, taking off his socks, and rubbing her thigh.

In September 2021, Detective Constable Simon Spellman, 36, was fired from his position after entering the woman’s room to borrow toothpaste as part of a rouse to “test the waters” for a potential sexual relationship.

After asking front desk employees for her room number and unexpectedly showing up, the safeguarding detective constable made himself comfortable on her bed by taking off his socks and shoes, it was reported.

His “pathetic” sexual harassment took place following a night out with Durham Constabulary employees at the Harrogate Police Treatment Center, according to evidence presented during misconduct proceedings at the Old Houghton Magistrates’ Court.

The complainant, Ms. F., who had only met the detective a few hours earlier, locked herself in the restroom during the encounter and froze, breaking down in tears.

According to testimony given to the tribunal, the 36-year-old father laid on Ms F’s bed after brushing his teeth and stroked her upper thigh and back. He had previously spoken about cheating on his partner.

He acknowledged making tiny circles with his index finger on her thigh before touching her back between her shoulder blades and asking his more junior coworker how she was doing.

The complainant, who was over ten years younger than the 6’5″ officer, had fled to the bathroom and called her partner in a panic because she was upset and “horrified” by his actions.

After the man touched her, she started crying and said, “I don’t know what to do.”

Her partner said in a statement to the misconduct hearing, “She is usually a calm and laid-back person. She was in a panic because she was unsure of how to handle the situation.

She should have felt secure, especially when leaving with police, he continued. This young man going to her room and obviously expecting something from her seemed completely out of character to me.

Following the sexual harassment, the officer, who worked in safeguarding, has now been fired without cause and added to the prohibited list.

The former DC defended himself by saying, “I didn’t think she didn’t want me there at that point.” She seemed to be fine with my presence, and we were still chit-chatting and getting along.

She wasn’t objecting to my presence, so I started stroking her because I felt we were getting along well. It was the sole explanation.

He denied making love to her, getting out of his socks, or coming into her room with anything other than toothpaste in mind.

Despite Ms. F. frequently spoke about her boyfriend and her intention to buy a house with him, the panel judged that the Darlington-born father entered Ms. F.’s bedroom having already determined that she was interested in him.

After chatting with the complaint for about 30 minutes, Mr. Spellman eventually left after she informed him that she had gotten some unfavorable news.

DC Spellman sent three Facebook messages to three different people after he left the room to check on them. Don’t worry about kicking me out, it seems like something awful happened.

When the woman didn’t reply, he sent a single question mark instead.

The victim stated in an interview that was shown during the misconduct hearing, “I felt so much relief that he had gone. I still had to spend the entire weekend with him, and I wasn’t sure why he was in my room.

“I’m positive he was trying it on with me,” she said. I had mentioned my boyfriend and our plans to get married, have kids, and purchase a home. I was genuinely terrified since I had no idea what he would do. I had never heard of him.

The following morning, after Ms F told her coworkers what had transpired, DC Spellman went back to her room to apologize for making her feel uncomfortable after being confronted by another sergeant.

Although Mr. Spellman acknowledged his actions constituted dishonourable conduct and a violation of the professional principles of authority, respect, and civility, he said they did not constitute gross misconduct.

The panel accepts that the police did remove his socks before entering Ms. F’s bedroom and that Ms. F. lifted her leg rather than the officer ceasing to touch her, according to panel chairman Simon Mallet.

The fact that he took off his socks does indicate that the cop intended to remain in her bedroom longer. The judges did concede that the officer wasn’t sure if she had felt the touch on her thigh.

The officer’s primary argument, according to Mr. Mallet, is that he only went to Ms. F.’s bedroom once she sat on the bed with him rather than going there with the intention of starting a relationship.

Overall, we conclude that the officer entered Ms F’s bedroom with the intention of having a sexual encounter with her.

He knew Ms F was interested in him because she complimented his youthful appearance and welcomed him right away on Facebook. None of these things could possibly be construed as signals that Ms F was considering him.

“The officer mistakenly and really believed they did.” The scenario was that he had unjustifiably misinterpreted it, probably in part because of the booze he had just consumed.

The panel believes he has expressed sincere regret for his conduct and has drawn a lesson from them.

In addition, they claimed that because of his position as a safeguarding officer, he “should have had a higher awareness of inappropriate conduct than other officers given his function” and that he should have known about the harm that resulted since “it should have been evident to him.”

“This is severe and has hurt Ms F. and would bring serious injury to the general public and the reputation of the force and colleagues,” said Oliver Williamson, representing the appropriate authorities.

DC Spellman acknowledged during his testimony on Tuesday that the public’s trust will be “impaired,” particularly given his role in safeguarding.

To demonstrate the seriousness of the situation without jeopardizing the father-of-“entire, one’s immaculate 14-year career because of a one dumb mistake,” Mr. Mansell argued that a last written warning should be issued instead of dismissal.

However, the panel concluded that any action short of firing would undermine public faith in the force.

Sexual harassment is always a very severe issue, Mr. Mallet continued.

Even in these circumstances and with his personal atonement, the public and the police would not anticipate an officer who has committed such an act to continue serving as an officer.

A final written warning in this case cannot, in the panel’s opinion, sustain public confidence in law enforcement.

“The only proper consequence in this scenario is termination without cause,” it states.

To determine whether DC Spellman’s acts constituted gross misconduct, a panel has since adjourned.