The PSNI have refused to answer questions on why a senior officer was not subject to disciplinary proceedings or prosecution after removing a vacuum cleaner from a station and attempting to implicate lower-rank officers in its theft when it was reported missing by a contracted cleaning company.
Dubbed ‘Hoovergate’, the officer – whose identity and rank are known but aren’t being disclosed at this time – continues to serve with enhanced security clearance, despite admitting taking and retaining the vacuum cleaner, later quietly returning it.
The device was taken around Christmas 2020 and reported missing by contracted cleaning staff on January 6, 2021.
A supervisor with the cleaning company raised concerns after being contacted by his staff.
Despite the obvious conflict of interest, the officer sent an assurance the device would be returned, suggesting one of the officers in the station had probably taken it.
Disturbed by the situation, another senior officer set out to establish what had occurred, issuing emails to all staff making then aware of the missing device.
The offending officer would later deny knowledge of these emails, despite being specifically copied into them.
However, one email sent on January 23, 2021, warning CCTV footage would be checked, seemed to have an impact as the officer returned the cleaner the next day, inside a cardboard box.
The return was captured on CCTV footage and the device itself was found by an officer in an area which had been searched multiple times beforehand.
It was also the area in which the investigating officer and his team were housed, leaving them angered and upset by the implication that one of them was responsible.
Notably, the dust bag had been removed.
Efforts to contact the officer took some time, and it would be February 5, 2021, before he was confronted and admitted the theft.
Such was the level of discontent among the lower ranks officers, who were suggested as responsible for the missing equipment, they refused his offer of an apology.
Despite this being escalated to senior management at PSNI Headquarters, the officer in question was not sanctioned, and continues to serve with enhanced status.
Documentation shows prolonged efforts by several individuals to have this addressed to what they say is the appropriate level, appears to show nothing was done, causing disappointment and demoralisation, especially among lower ranks who feel officers above a certain level are protected from sanction.
Recent figures showed that as of the end of 2022, no PSNI officer above the rank of Chief Inspector was disciplined for misconduct in the preceding five years.
This was in contrast to 174 officers of Chief Inspector rank and below receiving formal sanction over the same duration.
A legal expert aware of ‘Hoovergate’ believes an officer of a lower rank would very likely have faced at least misconduct charges, but possibly gross misconduct for breaches of the Code of Ethics relating to integrity or dishonesty.
The PSNI were asked a series of questions including why no statements were recorded or interviews held with injured parties or witnesses, as would be the case, in a normal investigation?
Also asked was how has the officer retained his security clearance having admitted being untruthful, and having allegedly obstructed an investigation in clear breach of the Code of Ethics while suspected of a serious criminal offence and breach of public trust/confidence?
In addition, as a member of senior management advised, the officer would have been subject to a robust investigation and considered the matter closed, but colleagues remained concerned, causing the senior management officer to reverse the stated position and directed that a review be carried out – so does that indicate the matter was not in fact subject to robust investigation after all?
The PSNI were further asked if a Regulation 16 Notice (formal notice to advise an officer they are under investigation) was ever served on the offending officer, and if not, to explain why – given that this would be standard procedure – and who took/authorised the decision not to serve such a notice?
In addition, the PSNI were asked if a policy or accepted practice exists not to sanction officers above the rank of Chief Inspector, or are such matters subject to senior management discretion, and is there a specific procedure in such instances or is it on a case-by-case basis?
It was pointed out an officer was recently dismissed for taking a lost bicycle being held in storage during a night shift, which the Police Ombudsman deemed was a “seized opportunity to take the bike for his personal use”.
Procedures in this instance appear to fully align with PSD criteria and the Code of Ethics, so the PSNI were asked why the same was not applied in ‘Hoovergate’, in which the officer allegedly not only took the vacuum cleaner, but deflected suspicion to others as potentially culpable, in the knowledge he was responsible.
In any instance that would be perverting the course of justice and within the PSNI amounts to misconduct in public office, so comment was requested on this also.
However, the request was not acknowledged and the deadline slipped, requiring two reminders to be sent to the PSNI.
Two days after the cut-off point for a response, the PSNI provided a single-line response: “We have no comment to make at this time.”
They were informed that the questions and the PSNI’s refusal to answer them would be published – but there has been no further communication by the time of publishing.
Most read today
Operator’s Licence Notice
