Warwickshire Police

SANCTION

Before discussing the sanction directly I once again wish to make it clear on behalf of the panel that at no point in these proceedings has it ever been suggested that these officers were responsible for the death of Colette Lynch.

In determining the sanction we have taken account of the following:

Turning to PC HALL first. PC HALL has accepted the breaches alleged. She has shown remorse, apparently learned the lessons of her mistakes and apologised to the family, in addition we have taken note of several character references submitted on her behalf which all indicate that she is a committed and dedicated officer. She has had to wait nearly three years for the outcome of this case which must have been stressful. With these factors in mind she has been given credit by the panel.

On the other hand the panel takes the view that at the time of these events both organisationally and culturally there was a reasonable expectation that PC HALL should have adopted the role of officer in charge, because this incident was on her area. We therefore find that she bears greater responsibility for some of the failures that relate to this incident than PC COTTINGHAM.

Turning to PC COTTINGHAM. The panel note that for nearly three years this case has been hanging over her and she has continued to work effectively. The panel has also paid particular regard to the character evidence submitted on her behalf which shows that she is a committed, hardworking and decent officer. We also feel that in this incident PC COTTINGHAM may have perceived that because she was working on PC HALLS area then there was a reasonable expectation from her perspective that PC HALL would be the officer in charge and this has been taken into account by the panel.

On the other hand PC COTTINGHAM has never accepted that she was at fault in relation to the events of the 1st February 2005 and when giving evidence she continued to show reluctance to accept responsibility. This causes the panel concern about her insight into her actions.

Taking all these factors into account the panel are of the view that the appropriate sanctions are as follows:

PC HALL fined 5 days pay.
PC COTTINGHAM fined 5 days pay.