Former PC 0302 Lauren Fairley

IN THE MATTER OF A POLICE MISCONDUCT HEARING

PURSUANT TO THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020

 

WILTSHIRE POLICE

Appropriate Authority (AA)

v.

(FORMER) POLICE CONSTABLE 0302 LAUREN FAIRLEY

Police Officer

DECISION

 

Panel Chair:                         Ms Julia Debenham

Independent Panel Members:         Mr Richard Young and Mr Andrew Erving

Legally Qualified Person:    Mr Mark Ruffell (Barrister)

Parties present:                     Mr Alex West    (Counsel for Appropriate Authority)

                                                DS Victoria Austin  (Federation Representative for Ms Fairley)

Hearing held:                        The hearing took place from Monday 15 June 2026 to Tuesday 16 June 2026 at Wiltshire Police Headquarters in Devizes.

Decision:                                Allegations 1-12 found proved with breaches of the standards of behaviour of Honesty and Integrity, Duties and Responsibilities, and Discreditable Conduct. Amounted to Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 13 found proved with breaches of the standards of Honesty and Integrity (Integrity only), and Orders and Instructions. Amounted to Gross Misconduct.

                                                Outcome: ‘Would have been dismissed had she still been serving’     

Introduction:

1. The Panel had been provided in advance of the hearing with a bundle from the AA (pages 1-517). At the outcome stage, the Panel was provided with a copy of Ms Fairley’s Professional Development Review file.

Preliminary matters:

2. In advance of the hearing, a Pre-Hearing took place on 1 June 2026 to determine various matters including which, if any, witnesses would be called to give live evidence.

 

Proceeding in absence:

3. Ms Fairley did not attend the hearing. Ms Austin explained that Ms Fairley was too unwell to attend. Ms Fairley was aware that she could apply for an adjournment so that she could attend when her health improved, but she did not wish to apply for an adjournment. Ms Fairley did not wish to attend via video link. Ms Austin indicated that she had full instructions. Mr West applied for the hearing to proceed in Ms Fairley’s absence. Ms Austin did not resist the application. Ms Fairley instructed Ms Austin that ‘illness aside, I no longer wish to attend’.

 

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the LQP who referred to v. Jones (Anthony William) [2003] 1 AC 1. The Panel noted that both parties wished to proceed in Ms Fairley’s absence. Ms Fairley wanted the hearing to proceed in her absence. The Panel considered the matters with care and caution. Ms Fairley had given her account in the revised Regulation 31 Notice. The Panel determined in the light of the comment by Ms Fairley that aside from illness, she did not wish to attend, Ms Fairley was voluntarily absenting herself. Accordingly, the Panel determined that it should proceed in Ms Fairley’s absence. The Panel would not draw an inference from her absence.

 

The Allegations:

5. It is alleged that your conduct has fallen below the Standards of Professional Behaviour expected of a police officer, in that:

At all material times you were a serving police officer.

Allegation 1: On 21 July 2025 between 10:28-11:27 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing multiple keys over 200,000 times, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation, you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to Gross Misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation, you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 21 July 2025.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 21 July 2025.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities.

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the police service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

           

Allegation 2: On 22 July 2025 between 0930-1211 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing multiple keys over 200,000 times, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation, you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to Gross Misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation, you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 22 July 2025.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 22 July 2025.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position,

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged,

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities.

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the Police Service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the Police Service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

 

Allegation 3: On 23 July 2025 between 1236-1326 and 1429-1551 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing multiple keys over 200,000 times, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that it could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation, you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to gross misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation, you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 23 July 2025.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 23 July 2025.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities.

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the Police Service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the Police Service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 4: On 24 July 2025 between 0900-0923 and 0924-0955 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing the T and 7 keys over 100,000 times, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to gross misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 24 July 2025.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 24 July 2025.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the Police Service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the police service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 5: On 29 July 2025 between 0802-0841 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing multiple keys continuously, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to gross misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 29 July 2025, save for an internal interview which took place outside the hours of 0802-0841.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 29 July 2025, save for an internal interview which took place outside the hours of 0802-0841.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the Police Service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the police service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 6: On 31 July 2025 between 0851-1000 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing multiple keys over 100,000 times, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to gross misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 31 July 2025.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 31 July 2025.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the police service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 7: On 1 August 2025 between 1326-1348 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing the Y key repeatedly, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not, and between 1442-1542 on the same date pressed multiple keys repeatedly for the same purpose and with the same intent.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to gross misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 1 August 2025.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 1 August 2025.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the Police Service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the police service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 8: On 12 August 2025 between 0851-0953 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing multiple keys over 100,000 times, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to gross misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 12 August 2025.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 12 August 2025.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the Police Service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the police service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 9: On 13 August 2025 between 1124-1220 and 1415-1426 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing multiple keys over 200,000 times, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to gross misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 13 August 2025.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 13 August 2025.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the police service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 10: On 14 August 2025 between 0807-0837 and 0843-0914 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing multiple keys over 100,000 times, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to gross misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 14 August 2025.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 14 August 2025.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the police service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 11: On 15 August 2025 between 0804-0818 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing multiple keys over 24,000 times, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to gross misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 15 August 2025, save for a medical appointment which took place outside the hours of 0804-0818.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 15 August 2025, save for a medical appointment which took place outside the hours of 0804-0818.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the police service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 12: On 19 August 2025 between 0918-0941 and during your working hours of 0800-1600 you manipulated your keyboard by pressing multiple keys over 20,000 times, to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when in fact you were not.

1) You were a serving police officer at the time a whole force email from DCC Dibdin was circulated on 2 August 2024, reminding colleagues that manipulating keyboards to appear working or present at your workstation when you are not is unacceptable. You were encouraged via that email to speak to your line manager if you needed time away from work activity so that your absence could be properly recorded or acknowledged. You were advised that manipulating your laptop to make it look like you were working when you were not, calls into question honesty and integrity which is at the heart of everything you do.

2) At the time of the allegation you knew that manipulating your keyboard to appear to be working when you were not, was a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and was so serious that it could amount to gross misconduct.

3) At the time of the allegation you were attached to the Domestic Abuse Support Team and had been authorised to work from home. Your hours of work were 0800-1600.

4) You manipulated your keyboard in the manner alleged, for the purpose stated.

5) You did not seek authorisation from your line manager to take time away from work activity on 19 August 2025.

6) You did not receive any authorisation to take time away from work activity on 19 August 2025.

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

You failed to act with honesty and integrity by manipulating your keyboard in the way alleged.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities

You failed to act with diligence in the exercise of your duties and responsibilities, by failing to work as you were rostered to do.

Discreditable Conduct

Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

Your behaviour in manipulating your keyboard to make it appear as though you were actively working on your computer when you were not is behaviour that discredits the police service and undermines confidence in it.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to: Gross Misconduct.

 

Allegation 13: On 3 July 2025 you covertly recorded the audio of a meeting with DS Emma COOK, who was your supervisor at the time, on your personal mobile telephone.

1) You did not ask DS COOK’s permission to make the recording

2) You did not tell DS COOK (either before, during or after the meeting) that you planned to record, were recording, or had recorded the meeting

3) The meeting included discussion of sensitive information relating to active police investigations, including the names of various nominals

4) The meeting included discussion of matters relating to DS COOK’s personal life

5) You retained the recording of the meeting for more than three months, either on your personal mobile telephone or on another non-force device/platform.

6) Your recording of the meeting breached the Force’s Acceptable Use Policy:

1. Section 3: “Staff must follow the Agile Working and Mobile Computing Policy” and must not use personally owned electronic devices to process the Force or OPCC information, or process force information on non-police endorsed systems or software.”

7) Your recording of the meeting breached the Force’s Agile Working and Mobile Computing Policy:

1. Personally Owned Devices: “Staff must not use personally owned (e.g. bring your own devices) electronic devices or software to process Force information.”

BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

It is alleged you have breached the following Standard of Professional Behaviour:

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

In covertly recording DS COOK without her knowledge or consent (or seeking to obtain her consent) you failed to act with honesty and/or integrity.

Orders and Instructions

Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions. Police officers abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders.

In covertly recording your conversation with DS COOK on your personal mobile telephone you failed to abide by the force policies stated above.

The level of your breaches is alleged to amount to Gross Misconduct.

Regulation 31 response:

6. In her Regulation 31 response,

Allegations 1-12

Ms Fairley accepted responsibility for her conduct in relation to the keyboard manipulation. She acknowledged that her actions breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to Duties and Responsibilities. She denied that it breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to Honesty and Integrity, and Discreditable Conduct. She stated that she was struggling significantly following repeated National Investigators’ Examination (NIE) failures, redeployment from Child Abuse Investigation Team (CAIT) and deteriorating confidence in her professional future. During this period, she had made the ‘poor decision’ to use time during the working day for study and later complete her workload during afternoons and evenings. She used an object on her keyboard to prevent her laptop showing as inactive. She maintained that she did complete her workload. She regretted her actions. She denied that her actions amounted to Gross Misconduct.

Allegation 13:

Ms Fairley did not accept that her conduct breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, namely Honesty and Integrity and Orders and Instructions.  The recording was of a conversation in which she was a participant concerning her own role, her professional development, her NIE progression and her employment. She had become concerned that conversations, decisions and information relating to her were not honestly, consistently or accurately represented or recorded. She made the recording to preserve an accurate account of the conversation should it be necessary to rely on it. She had not disseminated it to others. She denied that her actions amounted to Gross Misconduct.

 

7. Ms Austin confirmed that Ms Fairley accepted the facts of Allegations 1-13 but denied the breaches of the relevant standards. Ms Fairley did not accept that the Allegations amounted to Gross Misconduct.

 

Background to the allegations:

8. Mr West outlined the case. On 2 August 2024, an email went out to all Police Officers informing them that there were a number of live keyboard manipulation cases that were being investigated for gross misconduct, making it clear that if Officers required time away from work, then they should contact their line manager.

 

9. Ms Fairley began working with the CAIT in February 2025, on the detective pathway under the public protection umbrella. Progression along that pathway required her to sit and pass the NIE. She sat the NIE in March 2025, but failed, She retook the examination in June 2025 and again failed. Although, she asked whether she could re-sit the examination, it was never confirmed that she could. Ms Fairley decided that she would study for the examination in any event, in the hope that she would be allowed to re-sit it in September 2025. Meanwhile, a decision was made to move Ms Fairley from the Initial Crime Investigators Development Programme (ICDIP) to the Domestic Abuse Safeguarding Team (DAST). She was allowed to work from home. Her first day was 7 July 2025. Ms Fairley placed objects on her keyboard from 21 July 2025. This was done for lengthy periods of time, sometimes amounting to up to 3.5 hours. Allegations 1-12 took place in July and August 2025 on an almost daily basis, save for rest days and a period of annual leave.

 

10. It was noted by those supervising Ms Fairley in DAST, that her productivity was less than it should have been. Tasks had been allocated and had not been returned. This was brought to Ms Fairley’s attention by her supervisor DS Stride on 11 August 2025. Ms Fairley was later to claim that she had been studying in the daytime for her NIE, and then working outside of her official hours in the evenings. However, when she was interviewed on 24 October 2025, Ms Fairley confirmed that she did not seek permission and did not have permission to study during work hours. She had not asked DS Stride for permission at the meeting on 11 August 2025.

 

11. Allegation 13 preceded Allegations 1-12. It was a private and confidential meeting to discuss matters following Ms Fairley’s failing of the NIE for the second time. The recording was on Ms Fairley’s personal telephone, thereby storing data in breach of Force policy. The recording also captured sensitive material regarding individuals and investigations into suspects.

 

Submissions on facts:

12. Mr West provided oral and written submissions. He submitted that what Ms Fairley was actually doing (studying or something else), while she was putting something on her keyboard, was irrelevant. He submitted that Ms Fairley did not ask DS Stride for time to study. He submitted that she had been dishonest. Her work required her to contact people who were at risk during school hours, so she would not have been able to study during work hours. The evidence did not suggest that she had made up her hours outside of the times when she was meant to have been working. Instead, there was a shortfall of 9 hours during the 12-day period of key-pressing. He submitted that her conduct breached relevant standards on Honesty and Integrity, Duties and Responsibilities, and Discreditable Conduct.

 

13. Mr West submitted that the covert recording was dishonest and that DS Cook felt violated and was distressed when she learned of it. It caused serious concerns over the mutual trust and respect between Police Officers, given that DS Cook was Ms Fairley’s supervisor. Mr West submitted that the deceptive nature of the recording breached the standard of Honesty and Integrity. The recording itself amounted to the processing of data and was in breach of Wiltshire Police policy and therefore was a breach of the standard of Orders and Instructions.

 

14. Mr West submitted that what took place was high culpability. Ms Fairley knew that she should not have been doing what she was doing. She knew what the correct procedure was, when she needed time to do other things, but she did not ask for time. There was harm caused, in that victims were not spoken to in a timely manner. There was also harm caused to the reputation of the Force. Harm was caused by the recording to the Force, due to its effect on the trust of fellow Officers. He submitted that the breaches individually and collectively amounted to Gross Misconduct.

 

15. DS Austin made oral submissions and relied on the updated written Regulation 31 response. Ms Fairley had accepted that placing an object on her keyboard would create a misleading impression. It occurred during a period of examination failures, and a change of job role. She was given tasks that were already delayed. She had misunderstood some of the process. She felt that she had been given a ‘punishment post’ and it was embarrassing. DS Austin explained that Ms Fairley accepted that there was 9 hours and 36 minutes of keyboard jamming activity that was not made up for by Ms Fairley out of hours. Ms Fairley had offered at an early point in the investigation to have the missing hours deducted from her annual leave or her salary. Ms Fairley considered that the conduct had arisen due to a miscalculation by Ms Fairley which amounted to poor judgment when under pressure.

 

16. DS Austin submitted in relation to Allegation 13 that Ms Fairley did not trust those who were supervising her. She felt that she was not being treated fairly within CAIT. She felt that recording was the only way to capture what was said to her. She had not shared the recording with anyone. The recording had occurred at a spontaneous one-to-one meeting. DS Austin submitted that facts of Allegation 13 did not amount to gross misconduct as the recording was not used for a harmful purpose. Ms Fairley had subsequently resigned from Wiltshire Police in January 2026. DS Austin submitted that the recording could not amount to misconduct as Ms Fairley was one half of the conversation that was recorded. There was little or no harm caused by its creation, and there was some justification for its creation. even if it unwise to do so. It was to Ms Fairley’s credit that she had disclosed it to the investigators.

 

Decision on Allegations:

17. The Panel accepted the advice of the LQP. The Panel adopted a three-stage process in relation to the allegations, reminding itself that the burden of proving the allegations was upon the AA, and that the standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities. The Panel first made findings of fact in relation to the allegations. Then the Panel considered whether any of the allegations, if made out, breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour. Finally, the Panel considered whether the facts and breached found proved amounted to Misconduct or Gross Misconduct.

 

18. Allegation 1-12:
    • The Panel found the facts proved by way of admission.

The Panel then went on to consider whether in the light of Allegations 1-12 being proved, there had been breaches of Professional Standards:

• Honesty and Integrity

Ms Fairley did not accept breaching this standard of professional behaviour. The Panel noted the content of DCC Dibdin’s email dated 2 August 2024 which was very clear that the manipulation of keyboards in this manner calls into question an Officer’s Honesty and Integrity. That email was sent to all Officers and Staff. The panel found that Ms Fairley knew that she was acting against Wiltshire Police policy in manipulating the keyboard in this manner and in undertaking studies in work time. When she met her supervisor on 11 August 2025, she was given an opportunity to account for her low level of productivity. She was given the opportunity to raise any issues. She failed to take advantage of that opportunity. She also carried on manipulating the keyboard. The pattern of keyboard-jamming did not amount to an isolated incident but was carried out over a sustained period of time. The Panel determined that Ms Fairley manipulated her keyboard in order to make it look like she was working when she was not. This act was intended to deceive and to give a false impression of work-related busy-ness. The Panel found that this was a dishonest act and that she breached the standard of professional behaviour of Honesty and Integrity.

• Duties and Responsibilities

The Panel noted that Ms Fairley accepted that she had breached this standard of professional behaviour. The Panel found that Ms Fairley was not diligent in the exercise of her duties. She was not working when she was meant to be working. In Ms Fairley’s initial meeting with DS Stride, it was made clear that her working hours were 8am until 4pm. This was partly so that the DAST team could contact victims during school hours when they might be in a better position to speak, particularly as they were often vulnerable individuals. Ms Fairley manipulated her keyboard during these periods in order to pursue her own study, along with other activities. Ms Fairley maintained that she had completed her duties outside the core hours. However, the evidence showed a very low productivity rate with very few tasks completed in her first three weeks and her account was not convincing. Ms Fairley’s supervisor, DS Stride, raised with her low standard of productivity. Furthermore, on an occasion (1 August 2025) where her supervisor asked her to complete an email, Ms Fairley had replied “I’ll draft an email now”. However, she did not do so, and manipulated her computer keys instead for an hour, before logging off. There was further evidence from 19 August 2025 where a high-risk face-to-face meeting had gone overdue with no attempt to contact having been made. The Panel found that Ms Fairley’s lack of diligence in the exercise of her duties undermined the quality of service that was provided to the public. 

The Panel found that Ms Fairley’s explanation that she was studying for her NIE during the periods of key manipulation was not an acceptable explanation. Whilst the Panel accepted that there may have been some ambiguity around whether she would be able to sit the next examination in September, there was no ambiguity around the fact that she would not be allowed to study in work time. She had indeed stated that she would study and that it would have no impact on her duties. The Panel noted that there was no challenge to Ms Fairley’s account that she was revising during these periods. However, the Panel also noted that Ms Fairley spent periods of time looking at non-work-related websites, including job websites, googling how to raise a grievance at work and looking at news articles. The Panel found that Ms Fairley breached the standard of professional behaviour of Duties and Responsibilities.

• Discreditable Conduct

The Panel noted that Ms Fairley had not admitted breaching this standard of professional behaviour. The Panel considered that it was essential that Police Officers attended to their duties. This included ensuring that they were undertaking their duties within the hours that they should be doing so. The Panel found that the public would regard the keyboard manipulation as discreditable, particularly when Officers and Staff had been told not to do it.  The public would be alarmed to know that this important work associated with domestic abuse was not being completed appropriately or in a timely manner.  The public would be equally concerned to learn that a Police Officer was attaching greater importance to her preparation for an examination and her own career, than to undertaking her duties for which she was being paid. The public had a right to expect that Police Officers will provide value for money.   The Panel found that the standard of Conduct had been breached and her actions amounted to Discreditable Behaviour.

 

19. Allegation 13:
    • The Panel found the facts proved by way of admission.

The Panel then went on to consider whether, in the light of Allegations 13 being proved, there had been breaches of professional standards.

• Honesty and Integrity

The Panel noted that Ms Fairley denied breaching this standard of professional behaviour. The Panel found that Ms Fairley had an impromptu meeting with her line manager and she recorded this on her mobile telephone. The Panel found this behaviour to be highly unusual and underhand.  The Panel had not been provided with a clear reason to explain why Ms Fairley took the decision to act in the way that she did. The Panel did not find the act of recording this conversation dishonest, but found that it lacked integrity. A supervisor would not expect a colleague to covertly record a private and confidential conversation without their knowledge or consent. This damaged the trust between them and the wider trust between supervisors and those that they manage. The panel found that this amounted to a breach of the standard of professional behaviour of Dishonesty and Integrity (Integrity only).  

• Orders and Instructions

The Panel noted that Ms Fairley denied breaching this standard of professional behaviour. Ms Fairley stated that this was a conversation that she was party to. The recording was not shared or used. She stated that she recorded the conversation for her own protection. The Panel found that Ms Fairley should not have made this recording on her own telephone and she should not have retained the recording which contained sensitive police information relating to named individuals as well as ongoing police investigations. The Panel found that recording the conversation in this way was a breach of the force’s Agile Working and Computing Policy. The Panel found that Ms Fairley breached the standard of professional behaviour of Orders and Instructions.

 

Decision on misconduct:

20. The Panel considered that the breaches of the standards of behaviour in relation to Allegations 1-12 were serious and amounted to Misconduct. The fact that Ms Fairley had done it so many times and the fact that she had fallen behind with her work and had been pulled up on it, yet she continued, made it very serious. In addition, victims were potentially placed at risk of being harmed and the public would be shocked at what she had done. The Panel considered that Allegation 13 and the associated breaches of the standards of behaviour, by covertly recording a conversation with a supervisor and the storage of sensitive information linked to ongoing investigations amounted to misconduct and again was very serious. The Panel considered that the seriousness of Allegations 1-13 amounted to Gross Misconduct.

 

Submissions on outcome:

21. Mr West submitted that in the light of the Panel’s finding of Gross Misconduct, there were only two outcomes: ‘no disciplinary action’ or ‘disciplinary action’ where the only outcome was that ‘that the former officer would have been dismissed if they had still been a member of a police force.’ He submitted that the Panel had to consider the importance of maintaining public confidence in the profession, upholding high standards, and protecting the public. He submitted that an outcome of ‘no disciplinary action’ would be an insufficient outcome, given the seriousness of the facts and the breaches of the standards of professional behaviour.

 

22. DS Austin submitted that Ms Fairley had admitted the facts of both allegations. She had not acted dishonestly in Allegation 13. She submitted that there had been genuine issues concerning the communication by supervisors with Ms Fairley. Ms Fairley had a good conduct record. She had been awarded an ACC commendation. She had been passionate about policing. The allegations could be summed up as a lack of judgment and a lack of confidence. She urged the Panel to take ‘no disciplinary action’.

Decision on outcome:

23. The Panel had regard to the advice from the Legally Qualified Person and had regard to the College of Policing’s ‘Guidance on outcomes in Police misconduct proceedings’ which stated that the purpose of the police misconduct regime was threefold:

• To maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service;
• To uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct; and
• To protect the public.

 

Culpability:

24. In terms of culpability, the Panel had found that Ms Fairley had dishonestly manipulated her keyboard on 12 separate days to make it appear that she was working when she was not. She also deliberately and covertly recorded a one-to-one meeting with her supervisor, at which sensitive information was discussed around individuals and ongoing investigations. All of these acts were intentional and deliberate. In relation to the keyboard manipulation, the Panel considered that Ms Fairley knew what she was doing and chose to try to deceive. Ms Fairley was trusted to work with minimal supervision and abused that trust.  In relation to the recorded conversation, Ms Fairley retained information on her own telephone relating to sensitive police data. She had failed in her duties and responsibilities in her tasks that included providing information to people who may have been vulnerable to domestic abuse. Overall, the panel found her culpability to be high. 

 

Harm:

25. The Panel found that there was harm caused to the public where tasks were not actioned by Ms Fairley in a timely manner. The Panel found that there was harm caused to DS Cook whose trust and confidence as a supervisor was eroded. In addition, the Panel was mindful of the significant harm to public confidence should these behaviours become known. This may be of particular concern to those who are victims of domestic abuse and who are awaiting responses to their disclosure requests. The Panel noted that there is ongoing national concern around confidence in policing and anything that undermines it is potentially damaging, impacting on the relationship between the Police and the public, as well as damaging the reputation of the profession as a whole. The Panel found the harm caused by Ms Fairley’s actions to be moderate.

 

Aggravating factors:

26. The Panel was careful not to double-count factors that had already been listed. Further factors that the Panel considered as aggravating elements include:

• Regular and repeated behaviour.
• Concealing wrongdoing.
• Continuing the behaviour after she had an opportunity to stop, then failing to seek. advice from her Sergeant.
• Multiple proven allegations and multiple breaches of the standards.
• The behaviours deviated from Wiltshire Police policy.

 

Mitigating factors:

27. In terms of mitigating factors, the panel noted that:

• Ms Fairley made early admissions.
• Ms Fairley made early apologies.
• Ms Fairley had failed her NIE exam for the second time and was very keen to remain on a detective pathway.
• Ms Fairley offered to repay the organisation in time or money for lost hours that she had not made up.

 

28. Overall, the Panel concluded that the seriousness of these matters remained High and amounted to Gross Misconduct.

 

Personal Mitigation:

29. The Panel considered Ms Fairley’s service record and positive Professional Development Review comments that were included in the case papers. The Panel took all Ms Fairley’s personal mitigation into consideration but recognised that this had limited weight, due to the need to uphold public confidence in the profession and the need to uphold proper professional standards, when considering the appropriate outcome.

 

Outcome:

30. The Panel carefully considered the outcomes available, namely ‘would have dismissed if still serving’ or ‘no disciplinary action’. The Panel reminded itself of the threefold purpose of the misconduct regime. The Panel determined that the only outcome that would achieve the threefold purpose of the misconduct regime in this case was that the Officer would have been dismissed had she still been serving.

 

31. This decision will be published in the normal way and Ms Fairley’s name will be placed on the barred list.

JULIA DEBENHAM

Julia Debenham

Chair

18^th June 2026