AS NEW guidance is brought in to bring tougher sanctions against police officers who damage public confidence in the force, a hearing into the actions of three senior Gwent Police officers more than three years ago is yet to be completed.

The hearing into the conduct of chief superintendent Marc Budden, chief superintendent Mark Warrender and chief inspector Paul Staniforth began in April.

The three officers face allegations of gross misconduct, which they all deny.

Chief superintendent Budden and chief superintendent Warrender were suspended following an alleged incident at a retirement party held in Cardiff in June 2019 for former Gwent Police chief constable Julian Williams, while chief Inspector Staniforth also faces charges.

The misconduct hearing is being held behind closed doors, meaning that - 38 months after the alleged offences took place - the public are still none the wiser over their fates.

The misconduct panel said that the decision was made to exclude the press and public because the hearing involved allegations of a sexual offence and to protect the rights of witnesses.

This decision was criticised by two Senedd members, who said it was important for the public to have confidence in the police, and the Argus was among the media organisations to call for the decision to be reversed.

Only a brief summary will be released afterwards.

Earlier this year, Gwent Police confirmed the hearing would run well into the summer due to “the availability of the legal representatives in this complex case”.

And in July, a Gwent Police spokesperson confirmed an outcome would be “available by mid-September”.

“The LQC (legally qualified chair) has confirmed that the findings in respect of the standards of professional behaviour and outcomes will be available by mid-September,” they said.

This week, police misconduct guidance was updated in a bid to bring tougher sanctions against officers who damage public confidence in the profession.

The College of Policing, the national standards body, said any undermining of trust should be at the heart of decision-making in disciplinary proceedings.

The college called for a misconduct system that is “transparent, timely, and isn’t afraid to show the door to shoe who betray our values” as it published the new guidance on Wednesday.

Some 30 per cent of recordable conduct allegations against police officers that went to a misconduct hearing chaired by legally qualified chairs resulted in dismissal in the year ending March 31, 2021, according to Home Office figures.

In announcing the guidance, College of Policing chief executive, chief constable Andy Marsh, said: “There is no place in policing for anyone who behaves in a way that damages the public’s trust in us to keep them safe.

“We need a misconduct system which is transparent, timely and isn’t afraid to show the door to officers who betray our values.”

And the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for complaints and misconduct, chief constable Craig Guildford, said: “Police chiefs are committed to rooting out those officers who betray our professional standards and the public we serve.

“This new guidance gives misconduct panels unequivocal direction that policing wants to see behaviour driven by misogyny, racism or any other form of discrimination treated with the highest gravity.

“It shows the public that we are determined to eliminate toxic behaviour and damaging culture.”

The allegations in full against the three officers are as follows:

  • Inappropriate conversation with a more junior member of police staff at a police social event (all three officers);
  • Failing to challenge and report the improper behaviour of the others who were engaging in the conversation set out above (all three officers);
  • Inappropriate touching (chief superintendent Warrender only);
  • Failing to challenge or report the conduct of chief superintendent Warrender as set out at point three (chief superintendent Budden);
  • Failing to disclose relevant evidence and or a conflict of interest in relation to point three (chief superintendent Budden only);
  • Attempting to improperly influence the misconduct and criminal investigation into point three (chief superintendent only);
  • Inappropriately disclosing information in relation to the misconduct and criminal investigation into point three above to the victim (chief superintendent Budden only);
  • Providing various dishonest accounts about his conduct (chief superintendent Budden only);
  • Engaging in inappropriate behaviour whilst on duty (chief superintendent Budden only).