DS 2389 David Hambly
IN THE MATTER OF A POLICE MISCONDUCT HEARING
PURSUANT TO THE REGULATION 43 POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020
WILTSHIRE POLICE (Appropriate Authority (AA)
v.
DETECTIVE SERGEANT 2389 DAVID HAMBLY (Police Officer)
DECISION
Panel Chair: ACC Deborah Smith
Independent Panel Members: Mr Bryan McAlley and Mr George Beilby
Legally Qualified Person: Mr Mark Ruffell (Barrister)
Parties present: Miss Lucy Taylor (Counsel for Appropriate Authority), Mr Julian King (Counsel for DS Hambly), DS David Hambly
Hearing held: The hearing took place from Monday 18 May 2026 to Friday
22 May 2026 at Wiltshire Police Headquarters in Devizes.
Decision:
Allegation 1:
1.1 found proved with breaches of standard of Conduct as it was discreditable conduct and breached the standard of Authority, Respect and Courtesy.
1.2 found proved with no breaches
1.3 & 1.4 found not proved
Allegation 2:
2.1 found proved with no breaches
2.2 & 2.3 found not proved
2.4 found proved with no breaches
Allegation 3:
3.1 found not proved
3.2 found proved with breach of standard of Authority, Respect and Courtesy
Allegation 4:
4.1, 4.2. 4.3. 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.9 & 4.10 found not proved
4.6 found proved with no breaches
4.8 found proved with breach of standard of Authority, Respect and Courtesy
Allegation 5:
5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.7 & 5.9 found not proved
5.5 found proved with no breaches
5.8 found proved with no breaches
Outcome: Misconduct. Written warning imposed.
Introduction:
1. The Panel had been provided in advance of the hearing with a bundle from the AA (pages 1-606), various voice notes and three character reference bundles.
Preliminary Matters:
2. In advance of the hearing, a Pre-Hearing took place to determine various matters including which witnesses would be called to give live evidence. Ms Taylor made oral applications for witness anonymity orders for two witnesses. The Chair directed that the applications be made in writing. Upon receipt of written applications after the Pre-Hearing, the Chair granted the applications for witness anonymity orders for the two witnesses, who would be referred to as Witness A and Witness B. In addition, Ms Taylor made both oral and written applications for Special Measures for Witness A whilst she gave evidence. The Chair granted the application for Witness A to give evidence from behind a screen.
The Allegations:
3. It is alleged that your conduct fell below the Standards of Professional Behaviour, in that:
1) Allegation 1 - You have made inappropriate comments or jokes to or about colleagues:
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT:
1. You referred to Witness B as a ‘child’ and ‘retard’. She was referred to as ‘the child’ as the youngest on the team. You shouted, ‘are you a retard?’ when she drove to work in fog without her fog lights on. You used the word twice during the conversation. Use of the word ‘retard’ was witnessed by three other people. It is alleged that such language has affected Witness B’s confidence.
2. It is alleged that you used inappropriate terms such as ‘darling’, ‘girlies’, ‘ladies’ or
‘sweethearts’.
[REDACTED]
ALLEGED BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS:
1.1) Discreditable Conduct:
Your behaviour was such that it is capable of bringing discredit to and/or undermining public confidence in the police service.
[REDACTED]
1.3) Authority, Respect and Courtesy:
If it is found that you did make the comments you are alleged to have made, you have failed to treat your subordinates with respect and courtesy, abusing your powers or authority in doing so.
[REDACTED]
2) Allegation 2 – You placed a picture of a Beaver on Witness A’s locker
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT:
1. You put a picture of a female beaver in a tutu on Witness A’s personal locker. The beaver was bending over away from the viewer with a finger to her mouth and eyes half closed. You put her name underneath the beaver.
[REDACTED]
4. You have admitted placing the image on her locker.
[REDACTED]
3) Allegation 3 – You persistently asked Witness A about her personal life
[REDACTED]
2. In response you described her as ‘bipolar’ due to her unwillingness to discuss her personal life with you but her being happy and chatty with others, which is insensitive to people with mental health conditions.
BREACHES OF STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOUR:
[REDACTED]
3.3) Authority, Respect and Courtesy:
If the allegation is proved, you have failed to act with self-control and tolerance and have failed to treat Witness A, and those with mental health conditions, with respect and courtesy by responding the way you did when she did not wish to discuss her personal life with you.
[REDACTED]
4) Allegation 4 – You used insensitive words and actions in relation to Witness A’s [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
6. You failed to do any of the necessary referrals or arrange support for her. You did not do a risk assessment or refer her to occupational health or discuss reasonable adjustments. [REDACTED]
8. During her return to work meeting, you asked the standard question of ‘how will we prevent this from happening in the future?’ [REDACTED] and laughed loudly, when others were within ear shot.
[REDACTED]
BREACHES OF STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOUR:
[REDACTED]
4.3) Authority, Respect and Courtesy:
If the allegation is proved, you have failed to act with self-control and tolerance and have failed to treat Witness A, with respect and courtesy by responding the way you did [REDACTED]
5) Allegation 5 – You have subjected Witness A to an excessive level of contact while she was off work
[REDACTED]
5. You would send her Whatsapp messages then delete them. You then turned on disappearing messages so they would automatically delete after 24 hours.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
8. You regularly approached DC Callum Young to ask him about Witness A’s absence. You made comments to other officers such as ‘you know why she’s off don’t you?’.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
When the charges were read, DS Hambly denied all the allegations. DS Hambly also denied the alleged breaches of professional standards, in accordance with his Regulation 31 Response.
Background to the allegations:
4. DS Hambly joined Wiltshire Police on 4 February 2008. He was promoted to the rank of sergeant in June 2019. He is married and is a father to two daughters aged 13 and 10. He is aged 44. He has no finding of Misconduct or Gross Misconduct recorded against him. Witness A joined Wiltshire Police in September 2024. Her line manager was DS Hambly. Witness B joined the same unit in October 2024. [REDACTED]. Witness A made the allegations against DS Hambly on 10 August 2025 to the Counter Corruption Unit.
Regulation 31 response:
5. In his Regulation 31 response,
Allegation 1:
1.1 DS Hambly accepted that it was common to refer to Witness B as a child and he stated that others did the same without any ill intent. DS Hambly denied using the direct term ‘retard’ toward Witness B. He recalled the team making fun of her for her driving. He may have said the decision to drive in fog without fog lights was ‘retarded’. He believed any comments about her driving were ‘gentle moments of humour’.
1.2 DS Hambly disputed using the term ‘sweethearts’ at work but may have used the term ‘darling’ as a reference to and in homage to the television series Blackadder. He accepted that he may have used the terms ‘girlies’ or ‘ladies’ but says he meant no offence. He also suggested that he used terms such as ‘chaps’, ‘gents’ and ‘guys’.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
DS Hambly denied the alleged breaches of professional standards.
Allegation 2:
2.1-2.4 DS Hambly accepted placing the image on Witness A’s locker but stated that it came about as a result of other team members having images on their lockers, which were inoffensive and part of team-bonding. He stated that during a discussion about spirit animals someone suggested that Witness A was a beaver. He alleged that he did not attach any sexual connotations to the beaver reference. He searched for and printed the image before putting it on her locker to encourage her to integrate into the team. He had no recollection of being [REDACTED]
DS Hambly denied the alleged breaches of professional standards.
Allegation 3:
3.1-3.2 DS Hambly [REDACTED] stated that on occasions Witness A was withdrawn in the mornings and was more outgoing in the afternoons. She would engage with colleagues but be more reticent around him. He did not recall describing her as ‘bipolar’ but accepted that he may have used the word when jokes were shared about her being up and down when team members went for a coffee.
DS Hambly denied the alleged breaches of professional standards.
Allegation 4:
4.1-4.10 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
He accepted that he likely made [REDACTED] attempt at humour as Witness A had mentioned it in front of others.[REDACTED] He offered support which was dismissed. DS Hambly stated that he had offered to move Witness A onto light duties. He stated that assessments and referrals were offered and refused. [REDACTED]
DS Hambly denied the alleged breaches of professional standards.
Allegation 5:
5.1-5.9 DS Hambly disputed the allegation. [REDACTED] He stated that the disappearing messages function on WhatsApp was an automatic setting, which could
only be bypassed if he actively cancelled the setting. He accepted asking if DC Young had spoken to Witness A but stated that he did not disclose confidences or reasons for her absence.
Evidence:
6. The Panel heard from Witness A. She adopted her witness statements dated 1 September 2025 and 23 October 2025 as her evidence in chief. She was asked questions by Mr King.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
She accepted that all the team enjoyed a joke or a prank.
7. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
8. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
9. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
10. Witness A was asked about her locker. She stated that everyone had their own locker in
Amesbury. Some people had pictures on their lockers and sometimes they were a joke. One had a picture of ‘Manuel’ from Fawlty Towers and another was ‘Hulk Hogan’. She recalled a conversation about spirit animals but she could not recall someone suggesting that she was a beaver. It was not long after that a picture of a beaver appeared on her locker. She did ask him about it and he did say that it was because of her flirty sassy nature. She did not consider that it was part of team bonding. She could not recall saying that she liked the picture or that she would prefer for it not to be on her locker.
11. Witness A was asked about the language in the office. She maintained that DS Hambly did use the words ‘sweetheart’, ‘chaps’, ‘gents’ and ‘guys’. DS Hambly and DC Williams used the word ‘darling’. She did not challenge the words. [REDACTED] She did not think that it would have helped to go to DI Martin or another sergeant regarding her concerns. She was unhappy for DS Hambly to be around but accepted that he needed to be around as he
was part of the team. She did not think that he was a hard working officer, but accepted that
sometimes he did want good outcomes from the team. [REDACTED] She wished that she could have spoken to supervisors but she did not feel able to do so.
12. Witness A maintained that in a conversation regarding her mood being up and down, DS Hambly did use the word bipolar. She accepted that team breakfasts were part of bonding the team together. She found that the team breakfasts were so traumatic that she could not attend them. [REDACTED] She considered that DS Hambly was untrustworthy, calculated, egotistical, disillusioned and disrespectful.
13. Witness A stated that DS Hambly did point out that to her that she was not happy to go on jobs with him. She stated that she would have gone on jobs with him if she had been asked, but she did not want to go with him. [REDACTED]
14. Witness A stated that DS Hambly did not say that in relation to Witness B, that it was a
‘retarded decision’ for Witness B to have driven without using fog lights. She maintained that DS Hambly called Witness B ‘a retard’. Witness B was referred to generally by others as ‘a baby’ and Witness B did make a joke of her youth. Witness A considered that DS Hambly did not show Witness B the level of support that he should have done.
15. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] She denied that DS Hambly asked her for a private word and then proceeded to ask about her welfare. He did not ask her then about a referral but there was a conversation on a different day about a referral. Witness A accepted that DS Hambly asked her if she needed anything from him or whether he could help at all. She declined as she did not want to be around him. He did ask about an occupational health referral but did not mention lighter duties. [REDACTED] She did not ask for any adjustments. [REDACTED]
16. Witness A accepted that she was not always discreet about topics but did not accept openly talking about her sex life in the office. [REDACTED] When Witness A contacted DI Martin on 25 January 2025, regarding feeling unwell, she accepted that she did not mention about DS Hambly and how she felt about him.
17. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
18. Witness A was asked about her friendship with DC Young. She accepted that she became friendly with him. She was shown messages between herself and DC Young from 31 January 2025. She was off sick at the time. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] She stated that she did not have any confidence in reporting DS Hambly because of her past experiences. She accepted gossiping about DS Hambly on a daily basis. [REDACTED] She denied that she was causing DC Young who was younger and with less experience than herself, to have adverse thoughts about other Police Officers within Wiltshire Police. She stated that she would be polite and professional to work colleagues when she met them in person.
19. Witness A confirmed that Koren Fricker was a friend of hers who was not a Police Officer.
20. Witness A stated that DS Hambly invited her to his home for a meal with his family. She did not see this as a kind thing or genuine. She denied that DS Hambly was genuinely concerned about her, when she was hobbling after she had returned to work. She did have a referral to an officer, but did not go into detail. She referred to a custody case which she did not want to deal with.
21. Witness A stated that when she discovered that DS Hambly was to return in August 2025 after his temporary duties, [REDACTED] She accepted that as her supervisor, DS Hambly had one-to-one supervisory sessions with her, but she did not bring up her concerns with him. She stated that she had previously felt humiliated by him when she had discussed matters with him, so she did not wish to speak with him.
22. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
23. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
24. [REDACTED] When asked about messages that had been sent by DS Hambly concerning her welfare, she stated that DS Hambly had sent her mocking messages, then deleted them and then changed his message settings on WhatsApp to disappearing messages. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] When DS Hambly went to a different location, she felt better, but when she returned from her courses, she was told that he was coming back. She did not want these things to happen again, so she reported him. [REDACTED]
25. In answer to questions from the Panel, Witness A was asked to clarify about why she felt unable to report matters to a superior. She replied that DS Hambly and DI Martin had a very good relationship, and had more and more one-on-one conversations as DS Hambly stepped up to the DI role temporarily. She feared that if she reported DS Hambly to DI Martin, she would side with him and disregard her side, or minimise her side so as to excuse it. In addition, Witness A stated that she was not ready for the consequences of reporting, leading to a disciplinary process. She did reach out to DI Martin in her email in January 2025, but DI Martin did not respond to the email, so Witness A did not feel confident of telling DI Martin the full picture. Witness A stated that she did consider reporting matters to the higher ranking officers in CID, but did not have confidence in the south, and in Melksham she considered that the DI was also friends with DS Hambly. She considered reporting to a female Superintendent, but realised that she would have to go through others to reach them. She stated that she spoke with the Police Federation regarding her line manager, however they asked for details and she was scared. She was scared that she would not be
believed, it would be minimised, that DS Hambly had connections, and people would make her a target and try to remove her rather than deal with the problem. Witness A stated that she loved her job and needed to be in that department to qualify. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
26. Ms Koren Fricker gave evidence. She adopted her witness statement dated 14 January 2026 as her evidence in chief. [REDACTED] In cross examination, she accepted that she was a friend of Witness A but had not witnessed the events that were discussed in messages to her from Witness A.
27. DC Callum Young gave evidence. He adopted his witness statement dated 2 October 2025 as his evidence in chief. He was asked questions by Mr King. He stated that he had joined Wiltshire Police in September 2022 and then the CID team in Amesbury in January 2025. DS Hambly was his supervisor. He quickly formed a friendship with Witness A whom he had known from working together before he joined CID. He agreed that she was sassy. [REDACTED] Witness A said to him before he joined the team, that she had certain opinions already about DS Hambly, but she wanted him to form his own opinions.
28. DC Young stated that he always did what he was told. He did recall an occasion where he was spoken to about the manner of his reply to DS Hambly. He recalled a conversation where Witness B had not used her fog lights on her car when she had driven to work. DC Young stated that DS Hambly definitely said that Witness B was ‘retarded ‘and reprimanded her. DC Young considered that the word ‘retarded’ was inappropriate and he, DC Young, said something but it may not have been heard as he is quietly spoken.
29. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
30. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
31. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] DC Young considered that he could not report DS Hambly to DI Martin because of their friendship.
32. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
33. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
34. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
35. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
36. DI Eirin Martin gave evidence. She adopted her witness statement dated 15 October 2025 as her evidence in chief. She was asked questions by Mr King. She stated that she had been the Inspector of South CID since 2024. She had 4 teams, and there was meant to be a ratio of DS to DC of 1:6, but it was normally 1:5. She had to ensure that each DS was supported within their teams. DI Martin considered that DS Hambly was a very competent officer and from what she saw he was well liked and people enjoyed working with him. She said that he was one of the more jovial and outgoing members of the team and it was her impression that the team enjoyed working with him.
37. DI Martin stated that she was in the office every day and had an open door policy. Every time a new member of staff joined, she would sit down with them. She would ask them whether they had any concerns. She also believed in letting sergeants manage their teams. She had very capable sergeants including DS Hambly. She would have a detailed one-to-one conversation with each sergeant every four to six weeks, but she would see and speak to the sergeants on a daily basis. DI Martin had considered in 2025 that DS Hambly was more than ready to be promoted to the rank of Inspector. DS Hambly took Inspector examinations and then started becoming involved in evidence overviews and supporting her. DI Martin stated that DC Hambly performed well in this work.
38. DI Martin stated that she would discuss managing staff with her sergeants but she did not need to talk about individual officers as the sergeants had plenty of experience. She had to balance each team in relation to length of service and experience. Prior to these allegations being raised in August 2025, no one had approached her regarding DS Hambly. DI Martin considered that she had never given the impression of being so friendly with DS Hambly that she could not be approached by an Officer with a complaint. She had been approached by other DC’s about concerns that they had about the team that they were in, and she had acted accordingly, moving people to get the correct balance in the teams.
39. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
40. DI Martin stated that everyone knew that sometimes pictures were placed on lockers. She recalled people placing pictures on colleagues’ lockers and on hers. She had not seen a picture on Witness A’s locker. DI Martin was asked about an email sent to her on 25 January 2025 from Witness A [REDACTED] DI Martin then spoke with DS Hambly to see whether he needed any support or resourcing, and he replied that he had it in hand. Nevertheless, she had apologised for not doing more as a second line manager.
41. DI Martin was asked about what she thought of colleagues sending disparaging messages to each other about other work colleagues over many months, and she replied that she was concerned. She stated that it was concerning that staff could message each other rather than raise a complaint. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
42. DI Martin was asked about her expectation for sergeants when an Officer was off sick. She stated that the sergeant was expected to be supportive, and to understand the relevant time frame for the officer being unable to work. She considered that a standard level of contact was once a week, and they could sometimes meet up for coffee. She stated that a sergeant should raise any issues with her. She stated that DS Hambly had spoken to her about struggling to make contact with Witness A. They both had understood that Witness A was a very private person. DI Martin stated that she would envisage a sergeant who could not make contact, to keep trying to make contact. She considered that the WhatsApp messages from DS Hambly to Witness A asking about her welfare were entirely appropriate, [REDACTED] In addition, it was appropriate to tell Witness A that she had been warned for Court in the circumstances that existed in relation to her.
43. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
44. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] She was asked again about pictures on lockers. She explained the sea witch picture of her demonstrated that she had a life outside of work and was amusing for all to see including her. She was asked whether it was appropriate for a more senior officer to put a picture such as a smiling beaver on a subordinate officer’s locker. She explained that she did not know the context but would not have thought that it was well advised to put it on their locker.
45. DI Martin was asked about WhatsApp messages between DS Hambly and Witness A. She was unable to comment on whether it was appropriate or not to have disappearing messages switched on, on a personal telephone that contained work related messages.
46. DI Martin was asked questions by the Panel. She was asked whether the office culture or atmosphere was toxic. She stated that she did not recognise the description of toxic. She
understood that an individual may have an issue with a sergeant and regarded their relationship with the sergeant as toxic, and if she was aware of it, then she would work to change that relationship. She was surprised when she heard these allegations. When she was told about them, she acted appropriately.
47. DS Toni Nugent gave evidence. She adopted her witness statement dated 29 September 2025 as her evidence in chief. She confirmed that she did not hear anything inappropriate being said by DS Hambly to Witness A.
48. DS Nugent answered questions from Mr King. She had been in South CID since 2017 and been a DS since October 2022. She had plenty of cross-overs with DS Hambly and people that he supervised. She had never seen any inappropriate behaviour from him or seen him disclosing confidential information. She had never been approached by anyone with a concern about DS Hambly. She would have challenged any inappropriate behaviour had she seen DS Hambly behaving inappropriately. She recalled asking after Witness A’s welfare but cannot recall when that was. [REDACTED] DS Hambly seemed genuinely concerned about it. [REDACTED]
49. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
50. DS Faulkner gave evidence. He adopted his witness statement dated 18 September 2025 as his evidence in chief. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] He considered that anyone considering that a picture of a beaver was sexually explicit was a reflection of the person looking at the image and making that judgment.
51. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] thought of him. DS Faulkner gave examples of pictures on lockers and described one involving coffee on DS Hambly’s locker. DS Faulkner stated that DS Hambly had never mentioned anything sexual. He explained that 80% of their work was linked to sexual offences, and he had never heard DS Hambly say anything inappropriate in the context of discussing these investigations.
52. DS Faulkner answered questions from the Panel. He considered that putting a picture of a beaver on a locker was silly not inappropriate.
53. Witness B gave evidence. She adopted her witness statement dated 9 October 2025 as her evidence in chief. She was asked questions by Mr King. Witness B stated that she joined under the direct entry scheme in March 2024. In October 2024, she joined Amesbury CID and was aged 22. Her first sergeant was DS Hambly. She accepted that it was slightly intimidating her entry into CID and some officers were suspicious of the recruitment process. She was used to banter in other roles outside the Police, but some of the banter in the Police was different and more robust. Most of the team, if not all of the team joined in calling her ‘the child’. She accepted that it was mainly humorous, but there came a time when it became too much. Mr King then stated that DS Hambly offered his apology to her. Witness B did not complain about the banter as she thought that it was part of policing and she did not like complaining. She did not recall using the phrase ‘I am just the child’ about herself, but could not say that it did not happen. [REDACTED]
54. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
55. Witness B was asked about driving into work and there being a discussion about fog lights. She accepted that there were comments made that she should have used her fog lights. She recalled that DS Hambly said ‘are you retarded?’ Mr King offered DS Hambly’s apologies. It was said twice and very loudly. It made her feel embarrassed, but the word itself did not upset her. Witness A and DC Young were present, and did not challenge what was said. They did say something about it elsewhere. She considered that DS Hambly was suspicious of the direct entry scheme. However, he was very supportive and approachable in work related activities. She accepted that she was not singled out, and that DS Hambly was jokey towards everyone, although she felt that it was disproportionate towards her. He would say that she should have been on response longer. It wore her down.
56. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
57. Witness B recalled seeing a beaver picture on Witness A’s locker. Some colleagues had pictures on their lockers. She recalled ‘Manuel’ on a locker. She considered that picture JJR/03 was very similar to the picture that was put on the locker. The picture did not upset her or cause her concern.
58. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
59. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
60. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
61. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
62. Witness B stated that the team had a group WhatsApp chat which was set to disappearing after 24 hours, and her personal WhatsApp chat with DS Hambly was also set to disappearing after 24 hours.
63. Witness B considered that DS Hambly had a genuine concern for his team and wanted them to do well.
64. Witness B was asked questions by Ms Taylor. [REDACTED] She stated that the beaver picture was taken down as a result of DS Faulkner asking about it and later Witness A took it down. Witness B recalled DS Hambly saying something to Witness A when she returned to work, and Witness A commenting, but she could not recall herself being alarmed about what was said. There had been a question on a form about how to prevent the sickness. [REDACTED] DS Hambly found it quite funny but Witness A did not find it funny. She recalled DS Hambly and Witness A using banter towards her, but not specifically what was said.
65. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
66. DC Rhiannon Williams gave evidence. She adopted her witness statements dated 22 September 2025 and 23 October 2025 as her evidence in chief. DC Williams explained that she had had a head injury and her memory was affected and her words had become jumbled. At one point, she had become frustrated at how her situation had been handled. She felt that people, particularly DS Hambly, did not believe how sick she was. She had been in hospital twice. She was messaged in the evening asking how she was, one message a week, and she would react to that message.
67. DC Williams was asked questions by Mr King. She stated that she had known DS Hambly for a number of years in the Police and they lived near each other for a number of years. DC Williams described DS Hambly as supportive within work as a friend and as a colleague. He was interested in her welfare as her line manager and she joined his team in 2023. DC Williams stated that officers joining as part of the direct entry scheme created challenges for the team and for supervisors. DC Williams stated that DS Hambly was jokey and sometimes clumsy with his jokes. She did not think that he was otherwise clumsy. He had never upset her with his jokes. She had a disagreement with DS Hambly over her taking on certain duties. It was resolved with an apology from him and that was helpful. In DC Williams’ opinion, DS Hambly was good on welfare but not so good on career development.
68. DC Williams was asked about the lockers and she recalled certain members of the team had pictures on the lockers. DS Hambly and Witness A both laughed about the picture on the computer and then the picture appeared on Witness A’s locker. DC Williams saw no reason to
challenge the picture on the locker.
69. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
70. DC Williams recalled Witness B being called a child by DS Hambly and herself and she recalled that Witness B referred to herself as a child. Witness B was never upset by this. She never heard DS Hambly using the word retarded.
71. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
72. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
73. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
74. DC Williams accepted that the WhatsApp messages between herself and DS Hambly when she was unwell, were jokey and showing genuine concern for her welfare. At no stage did he pressure her to return to work. She recalled him using the word ‘darling’ to everyone. When she returned to work (and in the context of her having then to take more time off), she did feel pressured at one point, and asked for messages to be passed through another person. [REDACTED]
75. DC Williams was asked questions by Ms Taylor. She explained that she was off work from the end of January to mid-February, then from mid-February to mid-March, and then from mid-March to mid-April, when she then returned to work. Sometimes contact from DS Hambly was more often than once a week.[REDACTED] [REDACTED] Since then, DC Williams considered that they were friends but not anymore due to these proceedings. [REDACTED]
76. DC Williams was asked questions by the Panel. She stated that before she had her accident, the atmosphere in the office felt fractured as people left the team and different people had joined. She felt now that there had been more going on at that time, but she was unaware of it at the time.
77. Ms Taylor relied on the witness statements and exhibits that were contained within the
Appropriate Authority’s bundle.
78. DS Hambly gave evidence. He was taken through his Regulation 31 response by Mr King. Prior to joining the Police he was a graphic designer and photographer for a charity dealing with closing orphanages in Eastern Europe and in Africa through finding foster carers for the children. He found the work satisfying. He joined the Police in 2008 and soon joined Trowbridge response and was there for over 5 years. It was very busy. He then moved to the dedicated crime team that targeted county line drug dealers, and was there for 7 years. He became a detective. He was then promoted to a sergeant in 2019 and he moved to Trowbridge response for 18 months, then to Melksham, then to Operation Fortitude which dealt with drugs. He then moved to Amesbury. He was an acting DI in early 2025 until August 2025.
79. DS Hambly stated that during his time at Amesbury the balance of experienced officers to inexperienced officers had skewed from more experienced to more inexperienced officers. He enjoyed his time at Amesbury. It involved dealing with the more serious elements of criminality. He had to manage the workload, ensure that witnesses were updated and investigations were dealt with expeditiously. He wanted people to work hard, give their best and enjoy their work. There were pranks and humour. Having a joke in the office did not distract from work getting done. Where he found that things were not working as well as they should have been, he took action to remedy the situation.
80. DS Hambly recalled that Witness B had entered the Police as a trainee detective. This was in his opinion, a far steeper learning curve. She was very motivated. She was quite quiet. She said that she found it challenging. Her time on response had been cut short due to operational need. He and his colleagues tried to integrate Witness B into the team. She settled in well. He stated that he did make comments about her youth, and regretted having done so now. He knew that he had made a mistake and he would not do it again. He did conduct one-to-one meetings with Witness B. He was saddened that she could not approach him as to how she felt. He had gone to her when others had spoken inappropriately about her and asked how she wished him to deal with them.
81. DS Hambly recalled an occasion when Witness B had been driving in very thick fog. There had been previous comments made by a DS regarding Witness B’s driving. He accepted using the word ‘retarded’ in a sentence towards Witness B. He was ashamed that he used a version of the word. Witness B accepted that she should have put her fog lights on.
82. DS Hambly did not think that he used the phrase ‘sweetheart’ at work. He normally used it towards his children. He regularly used the word ‘darling’ towards everyone. He had probably used the words ‘girlies’ or ‘ladies’. He has not used the word ‘darling’ since.
83. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
84. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
85. DS Hambly was asked about pictures being placed on the lockers. He stated that the images on the lockers did not cause anyone upset. He recalled others in the team chatting about spirit animals. There was some reference in the conversation to Witness A being a beaver. He went on Google and found a picture of a beaver. He could recall Witness A seeing it. There was nothing sexual about it. He thought that it was a nice way of her getting involved in the team. It was a sassy cartoon animal. Witness A was a gregarious, loud and sassy character.
86. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
87. DS Hambly recalled taking the team out for coffee. Someone had begun a conversation about Witness A being up and down in mood. The team were being jocular about each other. He did not think that he used the word bipolar, but if he did do so, he was being jovial.
88. [REDACTED] [REDACTED][REDACTED]
89. DS Hambly stated that he had asked Witness A whether she needed any adjustments or support. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
90. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
91. When Witness A returned to work, DS Hambly was required to conduct a return to work interview. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
92. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
93. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
94. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
95. DS Hambly stated that when he downloaded the WhatsApp application to his new telephone in 2025, he thought that it automatically set disappearing messages to 24 hours. He provided messages regarding contact with Witness A, which he considered was appropriate contact from him as her supervisor. DS Hambly had mentioned about a cancelled court case. He had been asked to contact the Welsh Police to get the date moved and he did so to help relieve her stress.
96. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
97. [REDACTED]
98. DS Hambly was asked questions by Ms Taylor. He stated that he had no idea that Witness B was upset at being referred to as a child. He accepted that Witness B was lacking confidence when she started on the team. On reflection, he wished that he had not referred to her as a child. He did not think that he was the person who began using the word ‘child’ and he thought that Witness B gained confidence in the team. He stated that Witness B seemed to enjoy the environment and he checked on her. She played up to the ‘child’ name. Witness B was always confident with him in one-to-one’s. He did challenge DC Young when he spoke to her, but she was happy and did not want it to be taken further. He stated that he was confident that he did not call her a retard but he could not be certain that he did not say ‘are you retarded?’ He felt that the comment was directed towards the decision and not the
person, but he accepted either way it was inappropriate to say it and he was ashamed to have used the phrase.
99. DS Hambly did not intend to use the word ‘sweetheart’ in the office, but he may have used it. He originally heard another officer using the word and then he used it towards his daughters. He accepted using the word ‘darling’ towards people that he was friendly with. [REDACTED] He stated that he referred to some men as ‘darling’ but not all. He accepted that he may have used words such as ‘girlies’ or ‘ladies’ but he could not remember specifically doing so and in his opinion, there was nothing wrong with him doing so, but if they were uncomfortable then he would not have done it.
100. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
101. [REDACTED]
102. DS Hambly found the beaver picture and put Witness A’s name underneath and put it on her locker. DS Hambly recalled various times that Witness A laughed at something on the computer. He could not recall whether it was that image. She did laugh at the image when it was printed off and liked it. There were no connotations attached to the image. It was not bending over looking back, but looking back to show the tail so it was obvious that it was a beaver rather than a squirrel. He accepted that upon a reflection he would not stick such a picture on a locker, but at the time it was liked. He accepted that the female nature of it carries a risk. There had been a conversation where she had been identified as a beaver and he had googled it and printed it out.
103. [REDACTED][REDACTED] He accepted that he might have used the word ‘bipolar’ but he may have used it given the context. [REDACTED]He recalled Witness A saying that she was ‘not a morning person’ and it was not something that DS Hambly was doing.
104. [REDACTED]
105. [REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED]
106. [REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED]
107. [REDACTED][REDACTED]
108. DS Hambly denied saying that there was no point in making a referral [REDACTED], it was Witness A who did not want the referral. DS Hambly stated that he thought that the officer could decide, but he knew now that it was for the supervisor to decide whether a referral was necessary for a risk assessment to be completed due to her health condition. [REDACTED][REDACTED]
109. DS Hambly explained that there was a form that he had to complete with a question ‘what steps have you taken to prevent a reoccurrence of the sickness?’ He accepted that he may have commented that ‘we know what the solution will be’ [REDACTED] and recalled Witness A laughing with him. He stated that he would not respond in the same way in
the future.
110. [REDACTED]
111. [REDACTED][REDACTED]
112. [REDACTED]
113. [REDACTED][REDACTED]
114. [REDACTED] DS Hambly did not recall when the disappearing message function appeared on his device. DS Hambly stated that he screenshotted the contact that he had with Witness A on each day that he sent messages, and kept them in his screenshot folder so that he had a record of the contact that he had with an officer. He did this often. He had a default timer on the vast majority of chats on his telephone. He had produced every message from his mobile telephone of the contact that he had had with Witness A. He did not think that he should screenshot call logs as he would have called on WhatsApp and it would have appeared in the screenshots that he had made.
115. [REDACTED]
116. DS Hambly was asked questions by the Panel. He confirmed that his work mobile telephone did not have WhatsApp, so he used his personal mobile telephone. His work telephone was not great so he did not use it, and his personal telephone was always on so he could be contacted by his team. [REDACTED] He confirmed that the image JJR.03 was similar to the beaver picture that he printed but he could not say that it was or was not the same image.
117. DS Hambly relied on 20 written character references that spoke to his good character.
Submissions on facts:
118. Miss Taylor provided oral and written submissions. She submitted that the evidence given supported the allegations. She submitted that in relation to Allegation 1.1, DS Hambly accepted calling Witness B a child, it would not have increased her confidence, and as the sergeant he should have taken the lead in not using the word. Witness B was very confident that DS Hambly stated ‘are you retarded?’ and DS Hambly accepted that if he said it or something similar he should not have said it. In Allegation 1.2, DS Hambly accepted that he may have used the terms, but he should not have done so as the sergeant, especially as it was found to be patronising. [REDACTED]
119. In relation to Allegation 2.1-2.4, Ms Taylor submitted that it was inappropriate to put a
picture of a beaver on the locker.
120. In relation to Allegations 3.1 to 3.2, Ms Taylor submitted that DS Hambly’s explanation
seemed to accept discussion and words and regretted using word ‘bipolar’.
121. In relation to Allegation 4.1 to 4.10, Ms Taylor invited the Panel to accept what Witness A stated. Witness A had a clear recollection of what was said. [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
122. In relation to Allegation 5.1 to 5.9, Ms Taylor set out the messages that complained about the level of contact between DS Hambly and Witness A. She submitted that the private messages between Witness A and DC Young were private and should not cause a distraction over what took place in the office.
123. Mr King provided oral and written submissions. He submitted that the Panel should have regard to DS Hambly’s good character. He submitted that Witness A’s evidence was fundamentally flawed. [REDACTED][REDACTED] The majority of the communications between the Witness A and DS Hambly had been provided by DS Hambly.
124. Mr King submitted that DC Young’s account was flawed. [REDACTED][REDACTED] The disappearing messages setting was not something that was peculiar to Witness A, but applied across the team. Mr King referred to witness statements where officers commended DS Hambly on the way he conducted himself as an officer and how they had never seen him behave inappropriately. DC King then made submissions on each allegation.
125. The LQP gave legal advice to the Panel on the burden and standard of proof; inferences and speculation; emotion; special measures; delay in reporting and stereotypes; good character evidence; and misconduct and gross misconduct.
Decision on Allegations:
126. The Panel accepted the advice of the LQP. The Panel adopted a two-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.
127. Allegation 1:
1.1 The Panel noted that DS Hambly admitted that he used the word ‘child’ and he had apologised for saying it. Witness B stated that it had affected her confidence. DS Hambly accepted saying ‘are you retarded?’ The Panel was satisfied that the word ‘retard’ or ‘retarded’ was used, and were satisfied that it was used in a derogatory context towards Witness B. The Panel was not satisfied that DS Hambly shouted ‘are you a retard’ but was satisfied that he said ‘are you retarded?’ The Panel was satisfied that Allegation 1.1 was proved.
1.2 The Panel noted that DS Hambly accepted that he may have used the word ‘sweetheart’ and had used the words ‘darling’, ‘girlies’ and ‘ladies’. The Panel were satisfied that the use of these words was inappropriate. The Panel was satisfied that Allegation 1.2 was proved.
1.3 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] The Panel found that Allegation 1.3 was not proved.
1.4 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] the Panel found that Allegation 1.4 was not proved.
The Panel then went on to consider whether in the light of Allegations 1.1 and 1.2, there had been breaches of professional standards:
i. In relation to Allegation 1.1, the Panel noted that the comments to Witness B did cause her upset, and that DS Hambly was apologetic when he realised the effect upon her. The Panel considered that a sergeant calling an under-confident new officer a ‘child’ or ‘retarded’ would undermine public confidence in the Police and was therefore discreditable conduct and breached the standard of Conduct.
ii. In relation to Allegation 1.2, the Panel did not consider that the use of the words harmed the reputation of the Police or compromised effective policing. Accordingly, the Panel did not consider that Allegation 1.2 breached the standard of Conduct.
iii. Whilst the terms used by DS Hambly in Allegations 1.1 and 1.2 were inappropriate, the Panel did not consider that they were used in a discriminatory way and did not breach the standard of Equality and Diversity.
iv. In relation to Allegation 1.1, the Panel considered the use of the words ‘child’ and
‘retarded’ could be regarded as ‘offensive’ by the public and policing colleagues and was therefore a breach of the standard of ‘Authority, Respect and Courtesy.’
v. In relation to Allegation 1.2, the Panel did not consider that the words used breached the standard of ‘Authority, Respect and Courtesy.’
128. Allegation 2:
2.1.The Panel noted that DS Hambly accepted that he put a picture of a female beaver looking over her shoulder on Witness A’s locker and he put Witness A’s name on it. In the absence of the actual picture being provided to the Panel, the Panel was unable to determine the exact content of that picture. Accordingly, the Panel found Allegation 2.1 found proved to this limited extent.
2.2. [REDACTED] The Panel found Allegation 2.2 not proved.
2.3. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] the Panel found Allegation 2.3 not proved.
2.4.The Panel noted that DS Hambly admitted to placing the picture on the locker and therefore found Allegation 2.4 proved
The Panel then went on to consider whether in the light of Allegations 2.1 and 2.4 being proved, there had been breaches of professional standards.
i. The Panel was not satisfied that this picture was provocative or had a sexual connotation. There was evidence that the picture was on Witness A’s locker for some time, and not regarded as inappropriate or offensive by others. The Panel was not satisfied that putting the picture on the locker was discreditable behaviour, nor did it amount to discrimination on the ground of sexual harassment or that DS Hambly failed to treat Witness A with respect and courtesy. Accordingly, the Panel did not find that there had been breaches of the standards of professional conduct.
129. Allegation 3:
3.1 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Allegation 3.1 not proved.
3.2 The Panel noted that Witness A stated that DS Hambly had said to her that she was the most bipolar person he knew, in a morning conversation at a coffee house, when she did not wish to talk to him. DS Hambly admitted saying something similar on one occasion at the coffee house, as there were jokes shared about Witness A being up and down in her moods. DS Hambly in his Regulation 31 response and in his evidence, stated that if this was insensitive, then he apologised. Accordingly, the Panel found Allegation 3.2 proved.
The Panel then went on to consider whether in the light of Allegation 3.2 being proved, there had been breaches of professional standards.
i. The Panel considered that the use of the word bipolar was said once, in an informal
conversation, in a social setting and when discussing Witness A’s moods. Although, it should not have been said, it did not in the Panel’s view amount to discreditable conduct.
ii. The Panel noted that there was no suggestion that Witness A suffered from a mental health condition. The Panel did not consider that the use of the word bipolar was said in a discriminatory way and therefore did not amount to a breach of the standard of Equality and Diversity.
iii. However, the Panel considered that the use of the word bipolar in a conversation with Witness A was a breach of the standard of Authority, Respect and Courtesy.
iv. In the light of the finding on Allegation 3.1, the Panel found that there was no breach of the standard of Confidentiality.
130. Allegation 4:
The Panel went on to consider the credibility of the account given by Witness A. [REDACTED] [REDACTED][REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] the Panel considered that it had to approach Witness A’s evidence with caution, particularly when there was no other evidence to corroborate what she had alleged. Conversely, the Panel considered that DS Hambly was a persuasive and credible witness. Where he could not recall matters, he accepted that he may have caused upset and he had apologised. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] His demeanour and conduct as a witness were in accordance with the positive good character evidence
that was given on his behalf.
4.1 [REDACTED] The Panel found this Allegation not proved.
4.2 [REDACTED] The Panel found this Allegation not proved.
4.3 [REDACTED] The Panel found this Allegation not proved.
4.4 [REDACTED] The Panel found this Allegation not proved.
4.5 [REDACTED] The Panel found this Allegation not proved.
4.6 The Panel noted that DS Hambly accepted that he should have completed the referrals, despite Witness A not wanting a referral. [REDACTED], the Panel found that Allegation 4.6 was proved to the limited extent of failing to make a referral.
4.7 [REDACTED] The Panel found this Allegation not proved.
4.8 The Panel noted that there was agreement between Witness A and DS Hambly having a discussion regarding the sicknote. This was corroborated by Witness B who considered that Witness A was slightly uncomfortable and displeased when DS Hambly made his comment. In his Regulation 31, DS Hambly broadly accepted this Allegation. The Panel found this Allegation proved.
4.9 [REDACTED] The Panel found this Allegation not proved.
4.10 [REDACTED] The Panel found this Allegation not proved.
The Panel then went on to consider whether in the light of Allegations 4.6 and 4.8 being proved, there had been breaches of professional standards.
i. The Panel considered that Allegation 4.6 did not amount to discreditable conduct or a breach of the standards on Equality and Diversity; Authority, Respect and Courtesy or Confidentiality.
ii. The Panel considered that Allegation 4.8 did not amount to discreditable conduct or was a breach of the standards on Equality and Diversity. However, the Panel considered that to have laughed in the manner that he did [REDACTED] was disrespectful and discourteous, thereby breaching the standard of Authority, Respect and Courtesy. Whilst the Panel considered that DS Hambly should have undertaken the return to work interview in a private office with the door closed, to have prevented their private conversation from being overheard, he had not disclosed the information outside the proper course of his Police duties. Therefore the Panel did not consider there had been a breach of the standard of Confidentiality.
131. Allegation 5:
5.1 The Panel considered that in the light of its decision on Allegation 3.1, the Panel found this Allegation not proved.
5.2 [REDACTED] The Panel considered that in the light of its decision on Allegation 3.1, the Panel found this Allegation not proved.
5.3 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] The Panel found this Allegation not proved.
5.4 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] the Panel found Allegation 5.4 not proved.
5.5 The Panel noted that DS Hambly activated disappearing messages and some WhatsApp messages were deleted. The Panel found Allegation 5.5 proved.
5.6 [REDACTED] The Panel found Allegation 5.6 not proved.
5.7 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] the Panel found Allegation 5.7 not proved.
5.8 The Panel considered that DS Hambly accepted that he had contacted DC Young in order to find out about Witness A. However, in the absence of evidence corroborating Witness A, the Panel did not find proved that DS Hambly commented ‘you know why she’s off don’t you?’ Therefore, the Panel found that this Allegation was proved in part.
5.9 [REDACTED][REDACTED] the Panel found that this Allegation was not proved.
The Panel then went on to consider whether in the light of Allegations 5.5 and 5.8 being proved, there had been breaches of professional standards.
i. The Panel considered that these Allegations did not amount to discreditable conduct, or were breaches of the professional standards of Equality and Diversity; Authority, Respect and Courtesy or Confidentiality.
Decision on misconduct:
132. The Panel considered that the breaches of the Code of Conduct that were found proved were serious and amounted to misconduct. The Panel did not consider the breaches were so serious as to amount to gross misconduct.
Submissions on outcome:
133. Ms Taylor submitted that a Written Warning would be an appropriate outcome.
134. Mr King submitted that a Written Warning would be an appropriate outcome. He submitted that DS Hambly would learn from his mistakes. He had apologised for his mistakes.
Decision on outcome:
135. 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’ in order to assess the seriousness of the misconduct. The Panel’s overall assessment of culpability was that it was at the lowest level due to the fact that it was a careless use of language rather than an attempt to insult or to harm the reputation of either person. However, there were blurred professional boundaries and DS Hambly should not have used such language towards Witness A or Witness B or allowed others to use the term ‘child’ towards Witness B. There was harm caused to Witness A and Witness B, but that harm was limited, and at a lower level. The Panel considered that the seriousness was aggravated by DS Hambly’s leadership position, and the expectation that he should have acted as a role model. However, the Panel also noted that DS Hambly had admitted aspects of these allegations and demonstrated genuine remorse. He had apologised for his actions and had demonstrated some insight into his actions.
136. In all the circumstances, the Panel determined that a Written Warning was an appropriate sanction.
ACC DEBORAH SMITH
(Chair) 31st May, 2026
Appeals Process
A police officer has a right of appeal to a Police Appeals Tribunal against any disciplinary
finding and/or disciplinary outcome imposed at a Misconduct Hearing held under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. A police officer may not appeal to a tribunal against a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct where that finding was made following acceptance by the officer that his or her conduct amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct (as the case may be).
Grounds of appeal
A Police Appeals Tribunal is not a re hearing of the original matter; rather its role is to
consider an appeal based on specific grounds.
In the case of matters dealt with under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 the grounds for appeal are:
That the finding or disciplinary action imposed was unreasonable; or
That there is evidence that could not reasonably have been considered at the misconduct meeting (in the case of senior police officers), the misconduct hearing or special case hearing (as the case may be), which could have affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action; or
That there was a breach of the procedures set out in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 or other unfairness which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action.
Notice of appeal
Where a police officer wishes to appeal then he or she will need to give notice of his or her
appeal in writing to the Professional Standards Department
via email [email protected]
The notice of appeal must be given within 10 working days; beginning with the first working day after the police officer is supplied with a written copy of the decision that he or she is
appealing against.
In cases where the police officer fails to submit his or her notice of appeal within the 10 days
period, he or she may, within a reasonable time after the end of that period, submit a notice of appeal, which shall be accompanied by the reasons why it was not submitted within that period.
Wiltshire Police will appoint a Police Appeals Tribunal chair to deal with the notice of appeal.
Where the notice is sent outside of the time limits the tribunal chair will consider the following:
Whether or not it was reasonably practicable for the notice to be given within the time limit; and
Whether the notice was submitted within a reasonable time after the end of the 10-day period for submitting a notice of appeal.
Where the tribunal chair determines that it was reasonably practicable to have submitted the notice within the time limit, or that the notice was not submitted as soon as possible after the end of the 10-day time limit, the appeal shall be dismissed at this stage.