Police officers across the North East are entrusted with significant authority, and with that comes an expectation of conduct well beyond the ordinary. In 2025, a series of misconduct cases tested that trust, leading to dismissals, resignations under pressure, and disciplinary rulings that offer a stark look at how standards are enforced behind the scenes.
Records from disciplinary hearings show that officers from both Northumbria Police and Durham Constabulary were removed from their roles, or would have been dismissed had they not already retired or resigned, following findings of gross misconduct.
Why misconduct hearings matter to public trust
Misconduct proceedings rarely attract attention unless they end in dismissal. But they are central to maintaining confidence in policing, especially at a time when scrutiny of officer behaviour is intense.
Hearings typically assess whether an officer’s actions breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, which cover honesty, integrity, authority, respect, and personal conduct both on and off duty.
In 2025, several cases crossed the threshold of seriousness where dismissal was deemed unavoidable.
Some involved abuse of position. Others revealed deeply inappropriate personal behaviour. All raised uncomfortable questions.
PC Michael Perry: inappropriate conduct during counselling
One of the most disturbing cases involved PC Michael Perry of Northumbria Police.
A misconduct hearing heard that Perry made sexually explicit comments to a female counsellor during a therapy session, telling her he wanted “angry sex right now.” The sessions were arranged through the Police Federation and took place between November 2023 and January 2024 in Annitsford, North Tyneside.
The hearing found that his behaviour was entirely incompatible with the role of a police officer. The imbalance of power, the setting, and the nature of the remarks were all aggravating factors.
The panel concluded that public confidence would be undermined if Perry were allowed to remain in policing. He was dismissed without notice.
When retirement doesn’t erase misconduct
Several officers avoided formal dismissal only because they retired or resigned before proceedings concluded. That distinction matters legally, but not ethically.
In these cases, disciplinary panels recorded that the officers would have been sacked had they still been serving. Their names remain on record, along with findings of gross misconduct.
This approach aims to prevent officers from quietly exiting and later re-entering policing elsewhere.
Patterns seen across 2025 cases
While each case turned on its own facts, internal records show recurring themes:
-
Abuse of position for personal or sexual purposes
-
Inappropriate communications, including messages sent while on duty
-
Dishonesty during internal investigations
-
Behaviour bringing the service into disrepute
Some incidents occurred off duty but were still judged relevant because they damaged public confidence in policing.
Others happened within professional settings, which significantly worsened their impact.
Durham Constabulary cases and disciplinary outcomes
Durham Constabulary also dealt with multiple misconduct cases in 2025, though fewer reached public attention.
In one case, an officer was found to have breached confidentiality rules by accessing police systems without a legitimate purpose. In another, inappropriate communications with members of the public led to findings of gross misconduct.
As with Northumbria Police, panels emphasized that misuse of police systems and authority strikes at the core of public trust.
Dismissal, they said, was necessary not just as punishment, but as reassurance to the public.
What happens after an officer is sacked
Dismissal from a UK police force usually means being placed on the barred list, preventing future employment in policing.
Officers lose their warrant cards immediately. Pensions can also be affected, depending on length of service and circumstances.
Misconduct findings are recorded nationally, ensuring transparency between forces.
In serious cases, criminal investigations may follow, though not all misconduct reaches the criminal threshold.
A difficult but necessary process
Police leaders often stress that the vast majority of officers serve with integrity. That remains true.
Still, each dismissal carries weight, especially in communities where relationships between police and the public are already strained.
Publishing the outcomes of misconduct hearings is part of a broader effort to show accountability, even when the details are uncomfortable.
As one senior policing figure noted in a previous statement, confidence isn’t built by pretending problems don’t exist. It’s built by confronting them openly.
Looking ahead
Misconduct cases in 2025 have reinforced the message that professional standards are not optional. Behaviour that undermines trust, exploits vulnerability, or abuses authority will end careers.
For the public, these cases are unsettling. For policing, they are a reminder of the responsibility carried by every officer, every day.
The process is far from perfect. But transparency, even when it’s messy, remains one of the few tools capable of restoring faith.
