Home London News Officer Hill ‘shared classified information to prove he was not cheating’

Officer Hill ‘shared classified information to prove he was not cheating’

by
Roland Hill

PC Roland Hill, a discredited Met Police officer, gave his partner classified material in an effort to prove that he was not in an illicit relationship. This data consisted of details about people who had been stopped and searched, plus crime reference numbers and dates of birth.

Additionally, he shared a snapshot of confidential officers alongside what looked to be a Romani Gypsy camp and a twenty-five-second video from a body-cam of police officers struggling with a member of the public.

The transfer of this information was only intended for members of the police force and should never have been sent to a 3rd party. In August 2021, his ex-partner only being referred to as Ms H, made a complaint after her relationship with Hill ended. She claimed that the files had been forwarded to her during the days between July 1 and 9.

PC Hill accepted responsibility for the offences without delay, claiming he had done it to appease an overbearing Ms H and prove that he was doing what he had claimed. The panel judged that this conduct was a violation of professional standards, exploiting his authority for personal reasons – rather than for police work.

They noted there was a danger that the materials could have been seen or misused by Ms H, or someone else. Their report said: “He was regularly challenged for lying about his whereabouts and work commitments. This ultimately led him to send the material to Ms H as evidence he was at work.”

“It was sent from his personal mobile phone. We are satisfied that the strain of the relationship with Ms H played a significant part in his decision-making. He probably gave no thought to the implications of what he was doing or the potential to be in breach of MPS (Met Police) policies.

“By July 2021 the relationship appears to have been in its last days. PC Hill appeared to be trying to pacify Ms H, tensions were high as was pressure upon PC Hill. There is no evidence that at any point when Ms H received any of the material, she had at that time raised any concerns or objections.

“It is abundantly clear that Ms H’s complaint followed the end of her relationship with the officer. Our finding is that the complaint was malicious and motivated by the desire to make trouble for the officer.”

The panel heard no operation had been compromised and PC Hill was trusted and respected by colleagues. The report added: “The panel is satisfied that PC Hill was acting out of character.” The finding was of misconduct – not gross misconduct – and he received a written warning on his file for 18 months.

More from Dagenham Chronicle

About Us

Dagenham Chronicle

Dagenham Chronicle is a brand of Transparency, a registered company in England & Wales. We are not regulated by the IPSO, but we largely accept their Code of Practice.

© 2023 Transparency Group Media. All Rights Reserved. Registered in England & Wales: 14774961