PC 70572 Tony Walsh

1
CM/0065/25
In the matter of a Police Misconduct Hearing pursuant to
The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (as amended)
Wiltshire Police
(“Appropriate Authority”)
and
PC 70572 Tony Walsh
(“Officer”)
REPORT UNDER REGULATION 43
OUTCOME OF A POLICE MISCONDUCT HEARING
2
Hearing
The hearing took place between 8-10 June 2026 in person, at Wiltshire Police HQ,
Devizes.
Panel
Chair: Craig Holden
Independent Panel Members: Debra Havill and Jane Durrant
Legal Advisor
Simon Barnes (Barrister)
Counsel for the AA
David Sapiecha
Counsel for PC Walsh
Christopher Hopkins
PC Walsh attended the hearing with his Police Federation Representatives.
No members of the media or the public were present.
Terminology
“AA” – the Appropriate Authority, namely Wiltshire Police
“Regulations” – the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (as amended)
“Outcomes Guidance” - Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings
issued by the College of Policing
“2025 Regulations” – the Police (Conduct, Performance and Complaints and
Misconduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
“PSD” – Professional Standards Department
3
Background
1. The case concerns the off-duty conduct of PC Walsh during a night out in Bristol
city centre on 3 September 2025 or the early hours of the morning of 4
September 2025. PC Walsh was celebrating his birthday with a group of other
officers from Wiltshire Police: Acting Police Sergeant (“APS”) Aaron Brownbill, PC
Toby Burton; PC Lawrence Kelly; and PC Daniel Guerreiro. All of the officers were
in the same team and worked in ‘response’ policing. They were a close friendship
group, frequently socialised together and knew each other well. They had all
been drinking and were intoxicated, apart from PC Kelly who was the designated
driver. It is alleged that during the course of the evening, PC Walsh made a
number of remarks which were offensive and derogatory of people from the
LGBTQ community and of foreign nationals present in the UK. PC Walsh denied
this.
Chair’s Directions
• Information relating to the private life of a member of PC Walsh’s family, and
evidence concerning PC Walsh’s health and private life would be taken in private
and redacted from the public report in order to protect his private and family life.
• The identity of the female colleague in Allegation 3 will not be published. There is
also some limited personal information in relation to APS Brownbill which will
not be published. In both cases, that is to protect the private lives of those
officers and their family.
• Owing to , PC Walsh required regular breaks. It was agreed that
PC Walsh could inform the Chair as and when breaks were needed and such
reasonable adjustments would be accommodated.
Allegations as set out in the Regulation 30 Notice:
Allegation 1) Inappropriate/Offensive comments
Factual Allegations:
1) At all relevant times you were a police officer
2) On and around the evening of 3rd September 2025 or the early hours of the morning
of 4th September 2025 you were off duty and in Bristol city centre, with colleagues
celebrating your birthday.
3) When enroute to the ‘Beer Emporium’ and passing in the vicinity of Queen Square you
made comments which included words or similar phrases to:
a) “That’s where the pouf’s go”
b) “ we should avoid the area otherwise we will get bummed”.
4
4) Your comments suggested that members of the LBG community would meet in that
area and that your group should avoid the area otherwise there was risk that they would
be sexually assaulted by a gay person, by virtue of going to that area.
5) Your comments were derogatory to members of the LBG community.
Breaches of Professional Standards:
Authority Respect Courtesy:
Your comments were disrespectful to member of society whose sexual orientation is
lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB).
Discreditable Conduct:
Your actions have the potential to discredit the police service and/or undermine public
confidence in it.
Level of breach:
It is alleged that your conduct in this regard amounts to Gross misconduct
Allegation 2) Inappropriate/Offensive comments
Factual Allegations:
1) At all relevant times you were a police officer.
2) On and around the evening of 3rd September 2025 or the early hours of the morning
of 4th September 2025 you were off duty and in Bristol city centre, with colleagues
celebrating your birthday.
3) One of your colleagues who was present was PC Dan Guerreiro who is a Portuguese
national.
4) When inside the ‘Beer Emporium’ establishment you made comments to PC
Guerreiro including words to the effect of;
a) Calling PC Guerreiro an immigrant cunt and/or
b) Calling PC Guerreiro a foreign bastard.
5) Your comments were disrespectful to foreign nationals present in the United
Kingdom.
Breaches of Professional Standards:
Authority Respect Courtesy:
Your comments were disrespectful to member of society who are foreign nationals
present in the UK.
Discreditable Conduct:
Your actions have the potential to discredit the police service and/or undermine public
confidence in it.
Level of breach:
5
It is alleged that your conduct in this regard amounts to Gross misconduct
Allegation 3) Inappropriate/Offensive comments
Factual Allegations:
1) At all relevant times you were a police officer
2) On and around the evening of 3rd September 2025 or the early hours of the morning
of 4th September 2025 you were off duty and in Bristol city centre, with colleagues
celebrating your birthday.
3) When inside the ‘Beer Emporium establishment the topic of discussion within the
group turned to an absent female colleague and the fact, that she resided outside of her
parent’s main home so that refugees from Ukraine could be hosted within the main part
of their home.
4) You made comments including words or a similar phrase to the effect:
“We need to look after our own first”.
5) By your comments you meant to convey that British citizens should take precedence
over foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom, and that the latter were not of
equal importance to the former.
Breaches of Professional Standards:
Authority Respect Courtesy:
Your comments were disrespectful to foreign nationals present in the UK. They convey
an attitude that foreign nationals are less deserving than UK Citizens.
Discreditable Conduct:
Your actions have the potential to discredit the police service and/or undermine public
confidence in it.
Level of breach:
It is alleged that your conduct in this regard amounts to Gross misconduct
Overall level of breaches:
Your conduct is alleged to amount to Gross Misconduct both in respect of the individual
allegations and when considered cumulatively.
6
Admissibility of the witness statement of PC Guerreiro
2. PC Guerreiro is a former UK police officer, having emigrated to Australia (where
he is again a police officer). He indicated that he did not want any further
involvement in the proceedings. He had declined to give evidence via video link.
On 13 May 2026, in reply to the AA’s investigating officer, he stated in an email:
“Sorry for the delayed reply, I kept meaning to get back to you and then
temporarily forgetting. Going to the beach between work shifts has been a
bit distracting 􋆌􋆅􋆆􋅿􋆋􋆍
From the beginning, I’ve always said that I simply wanted to report what
happened and allow the police to decide what, if any, action should be
taken regarding Tony.
I understand that I provided a written account, but if I remember correctly,
I made it clear at the time that it was an account of events rather than a
formal statement.
To be honest, I’m not particularly keen to attend the hearing, especially
given I’m working night shifts here in Australia in the day of hearing.
I’m not trying to be difficult, mate, but from my perspective I’ve provided a
written account, and that’s as far as I’m comfortable taking things.
Thanks for understanding”
3. The AA applied to admit his witness statement as hearsay. This was opposed on
behalf of PC Walsh. Both parties made written and oral submissions which are
summarised as follows.
4. On behalf of the AA, Mr Sapiecha relied on the cases of R (on the application of
Shaikh) v General Pharmaceutical Council [2013] EWHC 1844 (Admin); and R (on
the application of Bonhoeffer) v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 1585
(Admin). He submitted that, with regard to Allegation 3, PC Burton heard some of
the conversation and therefore supports the evidence of PC Guerreiro. The
latter’s account is not, therefore, the sole reference to this. The case centres
around the events of a single night where there are multiple accounts adding to
the picture. PC Guerriero’s evidence is not the only evidence of those events. The
evidence as to Allegation 2 is linked by PC Guerriero to Allegation 3 as providing
circumstances and context to what was said and why for Allegation 2. They
followed very shortly after each other so logically, one should look at the incident
in the Beer Emporium in the round. The evidence of PC Guerreiro is not the sole
evidence, nor in isolation. It forms part of the overall incident along with others.
Further, if a point of difference exists in the approach between matters
amounting to Gross Misconduct and Misconduct then the Panel will have
deprived itself of dealing with a matter of Misconduct that should be dealt with.
5. On behalf of PC Walsh, Mr Hopkins submitted that, in respect of Allegations 1
and 2, PC Guerreiro’s accounts conflict with those provided by PC Walsh, but it
was accepted that others present on the night had given evidence in writing
7
which conflicts with PC Walsh’s accounts on those matters. Therefore, PC
Guerreiro’s relevant evidence on both those allegations is admissible but what
weight the Panel gives to it should be very limited absent the ability for PC Walsh
to cross examine and effectively challenge it.
6. However, with regard to Allegation 3, only PC Guerreiro gave written evidence to
support that the words or phrase, “We need to look after our own first" was said
by PC Walsh on the night. Mr Hopkins relied upon the cases of El Karout v
Nursing and Midwifery Council [2019] EWHC 28 (Admin); Bonhoeffer (as above);
and Nursing and Midwifery Council v Ogbonna [2010] EWCA Civ 1216. He
submitted that only PC Guerreiro gave written evidence to support that the
words or phrase were used which are the subject of Allegation 3. Absent PC
Guerreiro’s attendance for questioning on behalf of PC Walsh and by the Panel, it
would be unfair for PC Guerreiro’s evidence going to Allegation 3 to be admitted
and the relevant parts should be excluded.
7. The Panel accepted the following advice from the Legal Advisor:
• There was no dispute that the evidence of PC Guerreiro was relevant, but the
Panel could still rule that evidence was inadmissible if it would be unfair to admit
it because its probative value was clearly outweighed by its prejudicial effect
(O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26).
• Hearsay is defined in section 1 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995.
• The first consideration is whether it is fair for the hearsay evidence to be
admitted. Only if it is fair to admit the hearsay evidence does the Panel then have
to consider, as it does with all evidence, the weight which should be attached to
it. It is extremely important not to conflate the issue of weight with the issue of
admissibility. The Panel must first decide on admissibility, and that is based on
fairness. Only if the Panel admits the evidence can it then consider what weight
to give to it.
• In Bonhoeffer (cited above) the Court stated that there is no absolute rule
entitling a person facing disciplinary proceedings to cross-examine witnesses on
whose evidence the allegations against them are based. Nor does such an
entitlement arise automatically by reason of the fact that the evidence of the
witness in question is the sole or decisive basis of the evidence against them.
However, the Court also stated that the proceedings must be fair and this must
be considered in the round having regard to all relevant factors which includes
the seriousness and nature of the allegations, and the gravity of the adverse
consequences to the accused party in the event of the allegations being found to
be true. The more serious the allegation, the more astute the Panel must be to
ensure that the process is a fair one.
• In the recent case of Lee v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 3347 (Admin),
Mrs Justice Brunner summarised the relevant legal principles derived from the
8
case of Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565
(Admin).
• In making an assessment of fairness, the Panel should consider all of the
circumstances, but in particular:
o The reasons why PC Guerreiro has not attended to give oral evidence
o Whether or not his evidence is reliable
o That PC Guerreiro is the only witness who gives direct evidence about the
alleged statements in Allegation 3
o That PC Walsh would not be able to challenge PC Guerreiro’s evidence
through cross examination
o Whether there is any other evidence which supports Allegation 3. In
particular:
 PC Guerreiro’s evidence in relation to Allegation 2 which the AA
submit links to his evidence in relation to Allegation 3 as providing
circumstances and context to what was said and why for
Allegation 2
 PC Burton’s evidence
 PC Walsh’s Regulation 31 response
8. The Panel handed down the following decision orally, set out below in italics (and
including minor textual corrections):
The Panel has considered whether it would be fair to admit the hearsay evidence
of PC Guerreiro in relation to Allegation 3 (it being accepted that his evidence in
relation to Allegations 1 and 2 may be admitted).
The Panel has accepted the advice of our Legal Advisor.
With regard to the reasons for PC Guerreiro’s non-attendance, the Panel does not
find that PC Guerreiro’s non-attendance casts doubt on the reliability of his
evidence in terms of any reluctance to be cross examined. Rather, the Panel’s
view is that PC Guerreiro doesn’t want to be involved because he has moved to
Australia, has started a new life and career over there and wishes to move on. It
may also be that he is reluctant to give evidence against PC Walsh who was his
friend. However, in the Panel’s view, none of that casts any doubt on the reliability
of his evidence. There is no evidence that PC Guerreiro has any motive to lie or
fabricate his evidence relating to Allegation 3.
At the point he gave his witness statement, the Panel is satisfied that PC
Guerreiro was aware that he was giving a formal statement which would be used
in subsequent misconduct proceedings.
9
There is some degree of corroboration between the evidence of PC Burton and
PC Guerreiro in that a conversation about immigration took place that night.
PC Walsh admits having discussions about immigration on a different date. PC
Walsh does not assert that PC Guerreiro is making up the statements in
Allegation 3, his case is that he does not recall making the statement. It is not
disputed that there is a background of jokes and banter about PC Guerreiro’s
Portuguese nationality between PC Guerreiro and PC Walsh.
The Panel therefore concludes that it is fair to admit PC Guerreiro’s hearsay
evidence in relation to Allegation 3 because:
o PC Guerreiro gave a formal account which he knew would be used in
misconduct proceedings and that he is likely to be called to give evidence.
o He made the statement in November 2025, nearly 8 months ago. Given that
he now has a new life in Australia, it is understandable that he might choose
not to give evidence. However, that does not mean that his evidence is not
truthful and or reliable.
o There is no suggestion that there is animosity or that PC Guerreiro has an axe
to grind against PC Walsh.
o PC Guerreiro’s evidence is supported by the evidence on Allegation 2 in terms
of the context and circumstances of the alleged statements. As such, it is not
the only evidence.
o In his Regulation 31 response, PC Walsh does not deny that the comments in
Allegation 3 were made – just that he cannot recall.
o The Panel accepts that PC Walsh cannot cross examine PC Guerreiro.
o However, the Panel has concluded that in all the circumstances it is fair to
admit PC Guerreiro’s evidence.
Evidence before the Panel
9. The Panel received witness statements and oral evidence from three witnesses
called by the AA: APS Aaron Brownbill, PC Toby Burton; and PC Lawrence Kelly.
The AA also relied upon the witness statement of PC Guerreiro.
10. PC Walsh submitted written responses pursuant to Regulations 18 and 31; and
written evidence from two character witnesses. He also gave oral evidence.
The AA’s evidence
APS Aaron Brownbill
11. In his witness statement, APS Brownbill stated that at the time of the incident he
was a temporary sergeant in PC Walsh’s team. His recollection of the incident
was triggered by a conversation he had subsequently at work on 6 September
10
when PC Kelly asked him if he recalled PC Walsh calling PC Guerrero an
“immigrant cunt”. This jogged his memory and he recalled PC Walsh using either
that phrase or “foreign bastard” or similar. APS Brownbill also recalled that at the
start of the evening, having travelled to Bristol with PC Walsh, they were walking
to Za Za Bazaar and PC Walsh pointed out Queen Square and said “that's where
the gays go”. APS Brownbill recalled challenging PC Walsh about this comment
and stating that to which PC Walsh replied “
”. APS Brownbill had the impression that PC Walsh felt validated by
which entitled him to make such comments.
12. In his oral evidence, APS Brownbill confirmed that his witness statement was
true and accurate. He stated that he did not recall PC Walsh using the terms
“poofs” or “getting bummed”. He did not recall any comments from PC Walsh
about refugees, nor hear him say “we need to look after our own first”. He stated
that the evening was good natured, no one fell out, and he did not recall PC
Walsh being confrontational or difficult with anyone. In answer to questions from
the Panel, he accepted that, in retrospect, he should have challenged PC Walsh.
His level of intoxication was high and his memory of the evening was patchy.
PC Toby Burton
13. In his witness statement, PC Burton stated that he had travelled to Bristol with
PC Kelly. As the group was walking to the Beer Emporium, he was walking with
PC Walsh and when they passed Queen Square, PC Walsh stated that it was a
place where the poofs go and should he attend he’d just get bummed. PC Burton
recalled challenging PC Walsh but could not remember what he said. He
recalled that in reply, PC Walsh said that so he could make
these comments. Whilst they were at the Beer Emporium, PC Burton recalled a
conversation about a female colleague living in a lodge in her parents’ garden. He
was not really paying attention to the conversation which was primarily between
PC Walsh and PC Guerreiro. However, he did hear PC Walsh refer to PC Guerreiro
as a “foreign bastard” or “immigrant cunt” or similar. He recalled subsequently
discussing the evening with PC Kelly and PC Guerreiro when they were at work on
6 September and it was clear that it had caused concern to all of them.
14. In his oral evidence, he confirmed that his witness statement was true and
accurate. He was drunk and this had affected his memory of events. He could
now recall little of the incident including PC Walsh’s comments about “poofs”
and “getting bummed”. However, he did not resile from what he had said in his
witness statement.
PC Lawrence Kelly
15. PC Kelly was the designated driver that evening and so had not been drinking
alcohol. In his witness statement he recalled, as they passed Queen Square,
hearing PC Walsh state words along the lines of “that’s where the poofs go” and
“we need to avoid the area or run the risk of being bummed should we go there”.
He recalled PC Burton challenging PC Walsh stating that PC Walsh cannot make
comments like that and to shut up. PC Walsh was dismissive and stated that
so he could say that (or similar) as if trying to validate himself for
making the comments.
16. When they were in the Beer Emporium, PC Kelly recalled PC Walsh calling PC
Guerreiro an “immigrant cunt” or a “foreign bastard”. He stated that PC Walsh
was intoxicated and in an argumentative mood. PC Kelly recalled PC Walsh being
very confrontational and not responsive to challenges about his behaviour.
17. In his oral evidence, PC Kelly confirmed that his witness statement was true and
correct. With regard to the comments “immigrant cunt” or “foreign bastard”, he
could recall both comments being said. He recalls that one comment was in
their general conversation and the other was directed towards PC Guerreiro,
although he couldn’t recall which was which. In cross examination, he recalled
PC Walsh stating words to the effect of “that’s the gay area of Bristol” when they
passed Queen Square. PC Kelly agreed that was a statement of fact and did not
cause him concern on its own. He was clear that he had heard PC Walsh make
the statement about “poofs” and “getting bummed” because PC Walsh is from
the north of England, has a distinctive accent within the group, and PC Kelly
knows what PC Walsh sounds like, especially from that distance. He was also
clear that he heard PC Burton challenging PC Walsh, telling him to shut up. PC
Kelly stated that he did not also challenge PC Walsh because he felt it had been
dealt with by PC Burton - they were a group of friends and he did not want to “dog
pile” on to PC Walsh (meaning that everyone joined in). He stated that he heard
PC Walsh’s statement that as clearly as he heard the rest of it.
18. At the Beer Emporium, he recalled a discussion about the female colleague’s
living situation alongside Ukrainian refugees. When it was pointed out that it was
not in his witness statement, he stated it had just come to him. He did not hear
PC Walsh say “we need to look after our own first” but he did hear him say
“immigrant cunt” and “foreign bastard”. He said that after that, the mood within
the group deteriorated.
PC Daniel Guerreiro
19. In his witness statement, PC Guerreiro stated that on the way to the Beer
Emporium, he heard PC Walsh making comments that PC Guerreiro perceived
as being homophobic. He understood that PC Walsh was referring to Queen
Square and made comments to the effect that ‘that was where all the gays went,
and we shouldn’t go there’. PC Guerreiro could not hear all of the conversation
that took place as he was walking slightly ahead of PC Burton and PC Walsh. He
heard PC Walsh say ‘ so I can make those comments’ or
something very similar when he was challenged by PC Burton.
20. At the Beer Emporium he recalled a conversation about their female colleague
living in some sort of wooden lodge or similar in the back garden of her parent’s
home, whilst her parents were hosting refugees from Ukraine using what was her
bedroom. As the conversation progressed, PC Walsh appeared to become
increasingly irate about this and said words to the effect of ‘we need to look after
12
our own first’. PC Guerreiro thought that PC Walsh was abnormally irate about a
situation which in fact had no impact on him. PC Guerreiro pointed out that he
thought that hosting refugees was a good thing to do. PC Walsh disagreed and
his reaction annoyed PC Guerreiro so he wound up PC Walsh by saying that
foreigners take priority and if he (PC Guerreiro) wished to move into PC Walsh’s
home then PC Walsh would have to leave. He stated that PC Walsh responded by
calling him an “immigrant cunt” and “foreign bastard” or very similar. PC
Guerreiro stated that he did not believe that PC Walsh was being malicious in
that he didn’t think that PC Walsh understood that he went too far in terms of
joking or ‘banter’. However, it did concern PC Guerreiro that PC Walsh might treat
a victim of crime of a refugee in a similar manner. However, at the time, PC
Guerreiro laughed it off and continued the conversation as what PC Walsh had
said did not particularly offend him personally.
PC Walsh’s evidence
21. In his Regulation 31 response, PC Walsh denied that he had breached the
standards of professional behaviour and that his conduct was Gross
Misconduct. He stated that:
“Whilst I have made comments similar to those in the allegations (see
below), these were only ever made in jest and with light-hearted humour.
Those comments I have made are not reflective of how I really think let
alone how I would treat victims of crime, colleagues or members of the
public.”
[…]
“Looking back, I accept that an outsider may have a different perspective
on the comments although that does not change the meaning I intended
in saying them. That said, the perception of others is important and I do
not seek to minimise that. This is something that I will take on board more
consciously in future. I have since reflected on the language I use and can
see that I hadn't seen things from the perspective of others, or fully
appreciated the impact of how my words may have been received,
regardless of the intention behind my delivery. I have previously
apologised in my Regulation 18 to anyone offended by my actions and I
repeat that apology again here.”
22. With regard to Allegation 1, he denied making the comments alleged. He
explained that:
“I would not make comments that are disrespectful to any members of
society whose sexual orientation is lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB).
23. With regard to Allegation 2, his position was that he did not now recall saying the
alleged comments to PC Guerreiro. However, he accepted that he had in the past
called PC Guerreiro a "foreign fucker", but this was said in jest, in a friendly way,
and always in the context of their friendship. Given that he had have called PC
Guerreiro a "foreign fucker" in the past, he cannot be certain now that he did not
call him that (or similar) on the Bristol night out, but it would have been said in
the same light hearted way. He did not recall ever calling PC Guerreiro (or others)
an “immigrant cunt” and denied using that language on the evening.
24. With regard to Allegation 3, he did not remember the female officer or her
situation coming up in conversation on the Bristol night out. However, he did
remember on a previous date being told about this whilst the female officer
concerned was present and they were all having food together in Monkton Park
Police Station. The female officer explained her circumstances in so far as her
parents had taken in Ukrainian refugees and that she was sleeping in an
outbuilding. PC Walsh remembers jokingly saying "does it not annoy you that
your parents would rather have refugees in the house rather than their own
daughter?" to which everyone present including the female officer concerned
laughed. PC Walsh stated that his comment was intended to focus on the fact
she was living in an outbuilding rather than focusing on the nationality or refugee
status of the people in the house. He was with his team who knew him and have
worked with him for a long time, and the nature of the way his comment was
delivered appeared to be clear to those present. On reflection the comment was
insensitive, but it was not meant to convey that British citizens should take
precedence over foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom, and that the
latter were not of equal importance.
25. He did not now recall saying on the Bristol night out that "we need to look after
our own first" (or similar) in respect of the female officer’s situation or otherwise.
There was a conversation about immigration on the night, but it was light hearted
and nothing he said was intended to be inappropriate or offensive, or to convey
that British citizens should take precedence over foreign nationals present in the
United Kingdom, and that the latter were not of equal importance.
26. In his oral evidence in chief, PC Walsh stated that what he said in his Regulation
18 and Regulation 31 responses remained true.
27. When asked why he had made a comment about the ‘gay area of Bristol’ he said
the only reason he could think of was that he used go there and it was an
observation about the area. He was not implying the group should not go there.
He could not recall being challenged by any member of the group. He accepted
he had called PC Guerreiro a “foreign fucker” in the past, but he perceived it like
PC Guerreiro would call him a “northern monkey” because PC Walsh was from
the north of England. He did not believe it carried any aggression or was
14
offensive to PC Guerreiro. He continued to deny the comments in Allegation 1.
28. With regard to Allegation 2, he stated that “immigrant cunt” was not terminology
he would use, nor would he have said “foreign bastard”.
29. With regard to Allegation 3, there were conversations about immigration on the
night, both at the Beer Emporium, and at the last premises they went to –
Mothers’ Ruin. However, it was more of a conversation about PC Guerreiro
moving to Australia and the emigration process for him getting a visa. There was
no heated argument, they were just chatting. He did not recall the female
colleague’s living situation being discussed that night. He did not say “we need
to look after our own first” – that was not a view or opinion he would ever express.
30. In cross examination, he stated that he did not feel he did anything wrong that
evening.
31. With regard to Allegation 1, he stated that he did not make, or hear anyone else
make, the alleged comments about gay men and he did not remember being
challenged about it by PC Burton. He had made a comment about Queen Square
being the gay area of Bristol, but that was merely an observation because it was
an area he knew of.
32. With regard to Allegation 2, he stated that PC Guerreiro was part of the friendship
group. He denied using the terms “immigrant cunt” and “foreign bastard’ but he
could have called PC Guerreiro a “foreign fucker” in the past in the context of
their friendship. On the night, they were having a general conversation about
immigration focused on PC Guerreiro’s move to Australia. PC Walsh agreed that
“immigrant cunt” was highly offensive and stated it was not a phrase he would
use. However, he said that within the group, the word “cunt” was a term of
endearment and was not meant to be offensive. All of them used the word
“cunt”, however, he would never say “immigrant cunt”. He did not see PC
Guerreiro as an immigrant. He had called PC Guerreiro “foreign” in the same way
that PC Guerreiro made comments about him being northern. He agreed that,
with regard to the phase “immigrant cunt”, it was just the word “immigrant” that
he would not use.
33. With regard to the phrase “foreign bastard”, he did not use the word “bastard”.
He had never called anyone a “foreign fucker” other than PC Guerreiro. In reexamination
he explained that the context was that he (PC Walsh) was from the
north and when PC Guerreiro joked with him about this, PC Walsh would
respond by saying “you are as much of a foreign fucker as I am”. That was the
only time he used the phrase, and it was never outside of the group. In answer to
questions from the Panel, he stated that it was only a handful of times.
34. With regard to Allegation 3, he was aware of the female colleague’s living
arrangements and on a separate occasion at Monkton Park he had made a
comment about her living in a shed in the garden because he found it amusing.
15
He did not say “we need to look after our own”. He initially stated that he did not
recall the female colleague’s living situation coming up that night. However, he
later stated that he did not fully recall a conversation about the female colleague
and immigrants but that was not to say it did not happen, but he may not
remember that conversation.
Submissions on Facts, Standards of Professional Behaviour and Gross Misconduct
35. On behalf of the AA, Mr Sapiecha reminded the Panel about the burden and
standard of proof and summarised the evidence. He submitted that the AA’s
witnesses had heard whole phrases and questioned why they would be wrong.
36. He submitted that the test for Gross Misconduct was not changed as a result of
the amendments made by the 2025 Regulations because parliament had not
changed it. He drew the Panel’s attention to various passages in the Outcomes
Guidance.
37. On behalf of PC Walsh, Mr Hopkins submitted that APS Brownbill and PC Burton
were both intoxicated. APS Brownbill had accepted that his memory was hazy
from the point of the first premises the group had gone to, Za Za Bazaar. With
regard to PC Kelly, he submitted that it was striking that PC Kelly could recall fine
detail from the night itself, but not about events on 6 September when they
discussed the evening at work. He questioned how much evidence in the written
statements were remembered, and how much had been picked up from
discussions with PC Kelly on 6 September. He submitted that these subsequent
discussions diluted the quality of the evidence. With regard to the evidence of PC
Guerreiro, he submitted that PC Guerreiro was also intoxicated and the Panel
should treat his evidence with caution because PC Guerreiro had not given oral
evidence. Mr Hopkins submitted that the Panel should give it little if any weight.
He drew the Panel's attention to PC Walsh’s candour in making the various
admissions which he had.
38. Mr Hopkins summarised PC Walsh’s final position as follows:
39. Allegation 1 – PC Walsh denied all the alleged comments.
40. Allegation 2 – PC Walsh denied using both alleged terms. Mr Hopkins submitted
that this was not a case about racism, but about nationality because PC
Guerreiro identified as a white man. PC Walsh may have called PC Guerreiro a
“foreign fucker” on the night, but that is not the allegation. He did not accept the
use of the word “bastard”. It was accepted that they used the word “cunt” within
the group, but PC Walsh drew a line with using it with the word “immigrant”. He
did not use the two words in conjunction.
41. Allegation 3 – PC Walsh did not recall saying “we need to look after our own first”.
The home situation of the female colleague may have been discussed, but that
was not the allegation. The only evidence that the comment was made was from
16
PC Guerreiro – it could not be proved.
42. Mr Hopkins invited the Panel to consider PC Walsh’s good character when
considering his credibility and propensity to act as alleged. He pointed out that
PC Kelly’s evidence was that the alleged behaviour was out of character for PC
Walsh.
43. With regard to Gross Misconduct, Mr Hopkins submitted that, whilst the
definition of Gross Misconduct was unchanged, the presumption of dismissal for
Gross Misconduct imported by the 2025 Regulations meant that, in practice,
there was now a higher bar for a finding of Gross Misconduct. It now meant
conduct that was so serious that dismissal must follow unless there were
exceptional circumstances. He submitted that this was the practical reality of
the change in the law.
44. In conclusion, he submitted that there were no breaches of the professional
standards, but if there were, then they amounted to Misconduct only.
Legal Advice
45. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Advisor and approached its decision
making in the following way:
• The burden of proof is on the AA and the standard of proof is the balance of
probabilities. The balance of probabilities is a single unvarying standard - there is
no sliding scale.
• The Panel should look for corroboration in the evidence.
• The Panel should avoid judging the truthfulness of a witness's oral evidence
through observing their 'demeanour' whilst giving evidence (R (Dutta) v General
Medical Council [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin)).
• Having decided it is admissible, it is for the Panel to decide what weight to give to
PC Guerreiro’s evidence, bearing in mind in particular that it was not tested
through cross examination.
• The Panel should not evaluate and assess the evidence in separate
compartments. Rather, regard must be had to the relevance of each piece of
evidence to other evidence. That might include drawing inferences from the
evidence.
• PC Walsh’s good character should be taken into account when the Panel is
assessing the credibility of his account; and the propensity for PC Walsh to
behave as alleged.
• Given the presumption of dismissal for Gross Misconduct introduced by the
2025 Regulations, the Panel may find it helpful to adopt the approach in the
17
Outcomes Guidance for assessing seriousness, namely undertaking a structured
assessment of culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors and coming
to an overall conclusion as to the level of seriousness.
• There has been no amendment to the test for Gross Misconduct - Parliament did
not change it. The Panel should therefore apply the test as set out in the
Regulations, namely, that (so far as relevant here) “Gross Misconduct” means a
breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify
dismissal.
The Panel’s decision on Facts, Standards of Professional Behaviour and Gross
Misconduct
46. The Panel began by assessing the general credibility of the AA’s witnesses who
had given oral evidence. In the Panel’s view, all of them were reluctant witnesses
who were feeling embarrassed about their drinking (other than PC Kelly who was
not drinking) and concerned about the effect of the proceedings on their friend
PC Walsh. The Panel found no evidence of animosity between any of the
witnesses and PC Walsh. It was clear they had been a close friendship group.
They all felt positively about PC Walsh before the incident and this was out of
character for him. None of their recollections were as strong as the Panel hoped
they might be, but the Panel did not gain the impression that any of them were
being untruthful. At times they were all evasive to some degree, but in the Panel’s
view that was because none of them wanted to be responsible for taking this
matter to PSD and for the potentially serious consequences for PC Walsh.
47. With regard to each witness individually, the Panel’s general assessment of their
credibility was as follows:
• APS Aaron Brownbill
The Panel found that he was embarrassed that, as an acting sergeant, he had not
challenged PC Walsh’s behaviour. His recollection was not strong and at times
he was evasive, but he had no reason to be untruthful. In the Panel’s view he was
concerned about PC Walsh losing his job. He accepted that he was intoxicated.
• PC Toby Burton
PC Burton stood by the account in his witness statement, but then proceeded to
answer many of the questions which were put to him by saying “I can’t recall”.
The Panel was not convinced that was the case and formed the view that PC
Burton was being non-committal because he did not want to be involved in
misconduct proceedings against his friend. However, the Panel found nothing
which cast doubt on the reliability of his evidence.
• PC Lawrence Kelly
18
PC Kelly had not been drinking and was much more forthcoming in his oral
evidence than APS Brownbill or PC Burton. The Panel found him to be an
articulate and engaged witness who appeared confident in his recollection of the
events of that evening. He was less forthcoming when asked about events at
work on 6 September, but again the Panel attributed that to a reluctance to be
involved in misconduct proceedings involving his friendship group.
48. The Panel also made an overall assessment of the credibility of PC Walsh’s
evidence. The Panel found that PC Walsh had been intoxicated that night. He
was open about the language used amongst the group and when cross examined
he was steady and unflustered. He did not resile from the position in his
Regulation 31 response, so he was consistent in that respect. He made various
frank admissions such as admitting saying “foreign fucker”. However, the Panel
did not find it credible for him to then deny using the word “bastard” which was a
milder swear word. The Panel also noted that he did not say in his Regulation 31
response, as he did in his oral evidence, that the group all called each other
“cunts”. He did not explain to the Panel’s satisfaction why he did not want to go
to the Beer Emporium due to it serving craft beer and the connection with him
pointing out a ‘gay area’ of Bristol. He denied being challenged about anything
relating to this behaviour, whereas PCs Burton and Kelly were clear that he had
been.
49. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Advisor that the test for Gross
Misconduct had not changed and it rejected Mr Hopkins’ submission that the bar
was now higher as a result of the presumption of dismissal. The Panel applied
the definition as it appeared in the Regulations and as set out above.
50. Having made a general assessment of the witnesses, the Panel handed down the
following decision orally which is set out below in italics (including some minor
textual corrections):
This is the Panel’s decision in relation to facts, standards of professional
behaviour and gross misconduct.
In summary, the Panel has found the allegations proved, the relevant standards
have been breached, and that the breaches are so serious as to amount to Gross
Misconduct.
Our findings are as follows (we have adopted the numbering in the Regulation 30
Notice).
Allegation 1)
Factual Allegations:
1) and 2) – these were not disputed and are proved by admission.
“3) When enroute to the ‘Beer Emporium’ and passing in the vicinity of
Queen Square you made comments which included words or similar
phrases to:
19
a) “That’s where the poof’s go”
b) “ we should avoid the area otherwise we will get bummed”.
Both of the comments alleged were striking and unusual. They were heard by a
number of police officers and there is no evidence that any of them were lying or
making it up. The Panel accepts that the witnesses may have discussed what had
happened before they made their statements. However, in the Panel’s view that
was reasonable. These were not criminal offences, and it is to be expected that
the witnesses would have discussed what happened because they were
concerned about it. The Panel finds no evidence that any of the witnesses were
giving evidence of things which had been suggested to them. It is clear to the
Panel that in all cases the evidence given was the witness’s own evidence and
they had all given formal witness statements to that effect. The Panel finds that it
was clear to all of the witnesses that lines of acceptable behaviour had been
crossed.
With regard to the comment “That’s where the pouf’s go” the Panel finds that PCs
Kelly and Burton heard PC Walsh make that statement – they have given written
and oral testimony to that effect which the Panel accepts. In particular, PC Kelly
was not drinking and his evidence was that he heard the comments and PC
Burton challenge PC Walsh. PC Kelly was very clear in his oral evidence that he
had heard this comment. The Panel notes PC Walsh’s case that he would not
have said this because . However,
so the Panel rejected this.
The comment “we should avoid the area otherwise we will get bummed”. The
Panel finds this proved for the same reasons.
With regard to APS Brownbill’s evidence, he states that he heard PC Walsh state
that they should avoid the area around Queen Square because that’s where the
gays go. The Panel finds that this was a separate comment to that which is the
subject of this allegation. It was a comment made earlier in the evening which
supports PC Walsh’s propensity to then have said something similar on his way
to the Beer Emporium. APS Brownbill was at the front of the group when the
comments which are the subject of this allegation were made, so it is reasonable
that he did not fully hear it.
“4) Your comments suggested that members of the LBGT community
would meet in that area and that your group should avoid the area
otherwise there was risk that they would be sexually assaulted by a gay
person, by virtue of going to that area.”
The Panel finds that this was an offensive remark which does suggest this
meaning.
“5) Your comments were derogatory to members of the LBG community.”
These comments were clearly derogatory to members of the LBG community.
20
Professional standard of Authority Respect Courtesy – the Panel finds this is
breached on the basis that the comments were disrespectful of the LGBTQ
community.
Allegation 2
Factual allegations:
Paragraphs 1) 2) and 3) are not in dispute and are proved by admission.
“4) When inside the ‘Beer Emporium’ establishment you made comments
to PC Guerreiro including words to the effect of;
a) Calling PC Guerreiro an immigrant cunt and/or
b) Calling PC Guerreiro a foreign bastard.”
The Panel accept that PC Guerriero was not cross examined. However, at the
time he made his witness statement, he was a police officer giving a formal
statement within a reasonable time of the incident. He had no axe to grind
because he was a friend of PC Walsh. His evidence is supported by other
witnesses, in particular PC Kelly. PC Walsh admits regularly calling PC Guerreiro
a foreign fucker and that the word ‘cunt’ was regularly used within the group. The
Panel finds that PC Walsh has a propensity to use that type of language.
For these reasons, the Panel finds it is more likely than not that PC Walsh made
these comments as alleged.
“5) Your comments were disrespectful to foreign nationals present in the
United Kingdom.”
Self-evidently, these comments were disrespectful to foreign nationals.
The Panel finds that the standard of Authority Respect Courtesy has been
breached as alleged.
Allegation 3)
Factual allegations:
Paragraphs 1) and 2) were not disputed and are proved by admission.
“3) When inside the ‘Beer Emporium establishment the topic of
discussion within the group turned to an absent female colleague and the
fact, that she resided outside of her parent’s main home so that refugees
from Ukraine could be hosted within the main part of their home.”
The Panel finds that there was a discussion about the female colleague’s living
arrangements. That is clear from the evidence of PC Kelly and PC Guerreiro. PC
Walsh accepts that there was a previous conversation about it and the Panel
finds that this supports their evidence.
For these reasons, the Panel finds this proved.
“4) You made comments including words or a similar phrase to the effect:
21
“We need to look after our own first”.
The only direct evidence of the comment itself is from PC Guerreiro. However,
the context of the conversation is supported by PC Kelly’s evidence who also
states that PC Walsh was getting more dismissive throughout the evening and
was not listening to what anyone was saying. The Panel has found that PC
Walsh’s comments to PC Guerreiro in Allegation 2 are proved and Allegation 3
was part of the build up to that. It is understandable that the other officers did not
tune into this part of the conversation between PC Walsh and PC Guerreiro until
PC Walsh used offensive language which is what caused them to take notice.
The Panel finds that immigration was a topic of conversation that night, as stated
by PC Kelly.
There is a lot of detail in PC Guerreiro’s statement about this allegation and the
Panel finds that it is unlikely that it is all wrong. The Panel finds that it is more
likely than not that the comments alleged were said by PC Walsh.
“5) By your comments you meant to convey that British citizens should
take precedence over foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom,
and that the latter were not of equal importance to the former.”
The Panel finds that this is the natural inference from the words used.
Authority Respect Courtesy: the Panel finds this has been breached.
The Panel finds that the standard of Discreditable Conduct has been breached in
relation to all three allegations which the Panel has found proved because the
comments made by PC Walsh will discredit and undermine public confidence in
the police because he expressed offensive and discriminatory views in a public
place which would cause a member of the public to question how he would treat
people from those minority communities. This would have an adverse effect on
public confidence
In assessing whether the conduct found proved is Misconduct, Gross
Misconduct or neither, the Panel has applied the approach in the College of
Policing Outcomes Guidance.
Culpability
This means PC Walsh’s blameworthiness or responsibility for his actions.
The Panel finds that the comments in Allegation 1 were unprovoked comments
and PC Walsh is fully culpable.
With regard to Allegation 2, the Panel notes that PC Guerreiro admits winding up
PC Walsh and the Panel accepts that with regard to Allegation 3, this was part of
a conversation about immigration and refugees. The Panel finds that the
comments made by PC Walsh in Allegation 3 were unprovoked but by his own
admission, PC Guerreiro did provoke PC Walsh leading to the comments in
Allegation 2. However, the Panel is also clear that PC Walsh did not need much
provocation in order to make these offensive comments.
22
The Panel finds the conduct was not planned, and that PC Walsh did not set out
to target PC Guerreiro.
However, PC Walsh should have reasonably foreseen the risk of the harm arising
from his conduct. He was a trained police officer
Paragraph 4.54 of the Guidance states that “Discrimination towards persons on
the basis of any protected characteristic is never acceptable and always
serious.”
The Panel finds that there was discriminatory language relating to sexual
orientation, foreign nationals and refugees (both of which are features of racial
discrimination)
The Panel finds that PC Walsh’s culpability is high.
Harm
The Panel finds that there will be an impact on public confidence because the
statements were made in busy public places.
There will be an impact on PC Guerreiro, although the Panel takes account that
PC Guerreiro stated that he was not personally offended. However, PC Guerreiro
did express concern that PC Walsh might treat victims of crime in a similar
manner. There is also an impact on PC Walsh’s colleagues having to give
evidence – it is clear that this was an uncomfortable experience for them. There
would also have been an impact on the working environment in the officers’
team.
The Panel finds harm to public confidence and to the reputation of the police,
especially in relation to the comments about gay men which were made in an
area of Bristol which is well known as an area frequented by members of the
LGBTQ community. All of PC Walsh’s colleagues felt that his comments were
sufficiently serious for them to come forward.
The Panel finds a high level of harm
Aggravating circumstances
There were multiple offensive comments in the three Allegations.
Discriminatory language was used.
Alcohol was also an aggravating factor – PC Walsh had been drinking to excess
and was therefore disinhibited.
The Panel finds low/moderate aggravating circumstances.
Mitigating factors
(not personal mitigation)
There was some limited provocation by PC Guerreiro in relation to Allegation 2.
PC Walsh made limited admissions and accepted using similarly offensive
23
language on other occasions. He offered an apology. However, the Panel finds
that these mitigating factors only reduce the level of overall severity to a very
limited degree.
Gross Misconduct
The Panel cannot find that this is anything other than Gross Misconduct. That is
especially true of the comments about gay people. However, all of the comments
will adversely affect the public because they were homophobic, discriminatory
and had racist connotations.
Outcome
51. The Panel received PC Walsh’s record of service.
52. On behalf of the AA, Mr Sapiecha submitted that “exceptional circumstances”
means circumstances which were unusual. He drew a parallel with the test for
exceptional hardship in driving cases. He submitted that there were no
exceptional circumstances in this case and the usual outcome of dismissal
should apply.
53. On behalf of PC Walsh, Mr Hopkins submitted that PC Walsh was relatively new
in service and the Outcomes Guidance anticipated that outcomes would be
more severe the more senior an officer was. He outlined PC Walsh’s personal
and financial circumstances. He stated that PC Walsh was deeply committed to
his career as a police officer and had gone back to college to gain the necessary
academic qualifications to allow him to join the police. He gave an example of
how PC Walsh had assisted a young person in difficulties. He reminded the Panel
that PC Kelly had had no concerns about PC Walsh prior to that evening and this
was an isolated lapse. He asked the Panel to give PC Walsh credit for his candid
admissions. He drew the Panel’s attention to PC Walsh’s Regulation 18 response
in which he had reflected and apologised. He submitted that PC Walsh had
shown insight.
54. With regard to exceptional circumstances, he submitted that this was a
significant change in the law, there was no guidance, and ultimately it was a
matter for the Panel to judge. He stated that PC Walsh’s qualities shone through
in his character references and in his prior conduct and invited the Panel to
consider a Final Written Warning.
Legal Advice
55. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Advisor and applied the following
approach:
• Having found Gross Misconduct, the Panel must impose disciplinary action. The
options are dismissal without notice, or if the Panel were satisfied that there
were exceptional circumstances which justify it, a Final Written Warning.
24
• There is no law or guidance on the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” so
the Panel should give the words their ordinary and natural meaning. Any such
circumstances would need to have a definable quality which made them
“exceptional”. That does not necessarily mean unusual, but they must be
exceptional in some way.
• The Panel should have regard to the Home Office Guidance and the Outcomes
Guidance. The Panel must also take into account PC Walsh’s record of service
and character references.
• The Panel should follow the approach in the Outcomes Guidance. Although the
Panel had already undertaken such an analysis at the previous stage of the
proceedings, that was in the context of Gross Misconduct so the Panel should
apply the same approach separately to the issue of outcome i.e. assessing
culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, coming to an
overall conclusion about the level of seriousness, and bearing in mind the three
fold purpose of imposing outcomes in police misconduct proceedings. Personal
mitigation must be considered after the Panel has assessed seriousness.
Because of the purpose of police misconduct proceedings (maintenance of
public confidence in the police service, which is a constant factor), personal
mitigation carries less weight than in criminal proceedings.
• The Panel should start by considering dismissal and should only impose a Final
Written Warning if the Panel finds exceptional circumstances.
56. The Panel handed down the following decision orally set out below in italics:
The Panel has considered the level of seriousness at this outcomes stage and
has applied the approach in the College of Policing Outcomes Guidance. The
Panel has not found that there are any changes in its earlier assessment of
seriousness, which it does not repeat.
The Panel has reminded itself of the threefold purposes of imposing outcomes in
police misconduct cases.
The Panel has taken into account PC Walsh’s record of service, character
references, and the submissions made on his behalf including his personal
mitigation.
The Panel does not find that there are any features of this case which could be
described as exceptional. An otherwise unblemished record of service and
positive references are not, in the Panel’s view, exceptional.
As such, the Panel cannot identify any factors which would dislodge the
presumption of dismissal.
In the Panel’s view, this is not the most serious example of Gross Misconduct.
However, it is still Gross Misconduct, and the Panel is cognisant that outcomes in
police misconduct proceedings must seek to maintain public confidence in the
police service.
25
Accordingly, the Panel has concluded that the only appropriate outcome is
dismissal without notice.
Publication and barred list
57. The Chair directed that the Panel’s report be published, subject to the redactions
set out above. There were no representations relating to PC Walsh’s inclusion on
the public barred list.
Craig Holden
Misconduct Hearing Chair
15th June 2026