PC 70735 Jamie Lau
IN THE MATTER OF A POLICE MISCONDUCT HEARING
PURSUANT TO THE POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020
WILTSHIRE POLICE
Appropriate Authority (AA)
v.
POLICE CONSTABLE 70735 JAMIE LAU
Police Officer
DECISION
Panel Chair:
Assistant Chief Officer Craig Holden
Independent Panel Members:
Mr Paul Hughes and Ms Liz Richards
Legally Qualified Person (LQP):
Mr Mark Ruffell (Barrister)
Parties present:
Mr Darren Stewart (Counsel for Appropriate Authority)
Mr Christopher Hopkins (Counsel for PC Lau)
Hearing held:
The hearing took place from Monday 27 July 2026 to Thursday 30 July 2026 at Wiltshire Police Headquarters in Devizes.
Decision:
Allegation 1 not proved
Allegation 2 not proved
Introduction:
1. The Panel had been provided in advance of the hearing with a bundle from the AA (pages 1-416) and a character bundle on behalf of PC Lau.
[REDACTED]
The Allegations:
6. It is alleged that your conduct has fallen below the Standards of Professional behaviour expected of a police officer, in that:
Allegation 1: Sexual assault on Ms A
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT:
1. On or around the 21st of May 2025 you intentionally touched Ms A in a sexual manner without her consent (or reasonable belief in that consent), by rubbing and/or pinching her upper thigh. Your actions were unwanted and caused her to feel uncomfortable and/or intimidated.
ALLEGED BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:
1.1) Discreditable Conduct
“Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty…”
Your behaviour, in touching a colleague as described above, was such that it was capable of amounting to a breach of the standards of professional behaviour expected of police officers.
The conduct alleged was such that it was capable of bringing discredit to and/or undermining public confidence in the police service. It is alleged that this breach (1.1) is singularly or cumulatively assessed at the level of ‘Gross Misconduct’.
1.2) Authority, respect and courtesy:
“Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.”
Your behaviour, whilst on duty, on or around the 21st of May 2025 was such that it is capable of amounting to a breach of the standards of professional behaviour expected of police officers.
By acting as alleged, you displayed a lack of self-control, respect and courtesy towards Ms A.
It is alleged that this breach (1.2) is singularly or cumulatively assessed at the level of ‘Gross Misconduct’.
Allegation 2: Sexual harassment of Ms A
1) Between the dates of the 1st of January 2025 and the 19th of September 2025 you made sexually suggestive comments to Ms A and/or have sent sexually suggestive messages to her mobile phone. The comments and messages were not solicited nor canvassed by her and violated her dignity. They had the purpose or effect (whether intended or not) of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or hostile environment.
ALLEGED BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:
2.1) Discreditable Conduct
“Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the Police Service or
undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty…”
Your behaviour, in communicating with Ms A in a sexually suggestive manner, was such that it was capable of amounting to a breach of the professional behaviour expected of police officers.
The conduct alleged was such that it was capable of bringing discredit to and/or undermining public confidence in the police service.
It is alleged that this breach (2.1) is singularly or cumulatively assessed at the level of ‘Gross Misconduct’.
2.2) Authority, respect and courtesy:
“Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.”
By acting as alleged, you displayed a lack of self-control, respect and courtesy towards Ms A.
It is alleged that this breach (2.2) is singularly or cumulatively assessed at the level of ‘Gross Misconduct’.
7. The allegations were read to PC Lau. He denied both allegations.
Regulation 31 response:
8. In his Regulation 31 response, PC Lau denied touching Ms A’s thigh on 21 May 2025 and he stated that he had never tried to pursue a romantic or sexual relationship with her. Consequently, PC Lau denied any breaches of the standards of professional conduct.
[REDACTED]
Decision on Allegations:
103. The Panel accepted the advice of the LQP. He gave advice to the Panel to adopt a three stage process in relation to the allegations, reminding itself that the burden of proving the allegations was upon the AA, and that the standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities. The Panel were to first make findings of fact in relation to the allegations. Then the Panel would consider whether any of the allegations, if made out, breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour. Finally, the Panel would consider whether the facts and breaches found proved amounted to Misconduct or Gross Misconduct.
Witness credibility:
104. The Panel began by considering the evidence of Ms A. The Panel noted that her VRI was in September 2025, when many of the events she was recounting were several months before. The Panel considered that she gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and that she genuinely believed the account that she gave. The Panel observed that she claimed to be introverted by nature (which was supported by other witness evidence), but she would often initiate meeting with PC Lau to go to Sainsbury’s. Likewise, when others did not want to go for a night out, she was happy to go with people that she knew less well as they were not in her team (actions perhaps less consistent with a highly introverted personality). Overall, the Panel found her to be a convincing and credible witness.
105. The Panel considered the evidence of PC Lau. The Panel noted his positive good character when he gave evidence. The Panel noted that PC Lau also gave his evidence in a straightforward manner, although he could not recall all of the conversations or events that were alleged to have taken place. The Panel noted that he was initially interviewed (criminally) on the September 2025 and then again on the 12th January 2026. Most of the events he was recounting were several months before his interview and the Panel understood why it may have been difficult for him to recall in detail each of the alleged events. He was professional, confident, articulate and measured throughout his evidence, including through robust cross examination. The Panel considered him to be a credible witness.
106. The Panel considered the evidence of MS B and Sergeant Hopkins. They considered both to be straight forward, confident and articulate witnesses who were doing their best to assist the Panel.
Power imbalance:
107. The Panel first considered whether there was any power imbalance between PC Lau and Ms A (as had been suggested by the AA). It was accepted there was an age difference of approximately 13 years and that Ms A was in her first professional workplace. PC Lau was however a probationer and came to a new team (VCT) to learn different core policing skills. He had no supervisory responsibilities (either real or implied) over Ms A and there is nothing to suggest such a power imbalance existed. Ms A was clear in her own evidence that she saw PC Evans as an equal, him being a Police Officer in his mid-20’s, with similar Police service to PC Lau. The Panel also considered the group dynamics between Ms A, Ms B, PC Evans and PC Lau and it was clear that within that group he did not hold a status as the group leader. The Panel considered his influence within the group to be at the lower end (based on him being the subject of many jokes). The ‘quirkiness’ described by witnesses suggested a degree of immaturity in social groups and situations. The Panel concluded there was no power imbalance between PC Lau and Ms A.
Romantic or sexual intentions:
108. The Panel then considered whether PC Lau wanted at any stage to commence a romantic or sexual relationship with Ms A, and whether he had said or done anything from which it could be inferred that he was testing any reciprocal feelings from Ms A. The Panel recognised that even if Ms A was in a relationship with someone else, this would not necessarily have been an inhibitor to commencing or holding out for romantic involvement in the future. The Panel noted that PC Lau had volunteered to join VCT. The background evidence suggested that he was a diligent and competent Police Officer before he joined VCT and during the time of the allegations.
109. The Panel considered that initially when PC Lau first joined VCT, he had been drawn to Ms A as someone who was like him, a person who was relatively quiet. He admitted that at first he did consider her to be attractive (but fell short of saying he was attracted to her). They formed a close working relationship. However, when he got to know her better, and saw that she had formed a relationship with PC Evans, he continued to remain fond of Ms A. The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that PC Lau did compliment Ms A, and was familiar with Ms A, but the Panel was not satisfied that Ms A did not appreciate such compliments at the time that they were made. She appeared to enjoy their relationship. The compliments themselves about Ms A’s appearance demonstrated a fondness for Ms A, and nothing more than that.
110. The Panel did not (in the overall context of the time period and the allegations set out) find that the compliments were excessive. Ms A said that at one point he made 5 compliments in one day and that she told PC Evans about this, although PC Evans did not recount this in his statement, even though he and Ms A were at that time in a relationship. The evidence to suggest the compliments were excessive (and therefore to some extent sexually suggestive) was not sufficiently compelling.
111. The Panel considered that there had been occasions where both PC Lau and Ms A had been drinking and there were times where it was just them. These might have been the opportunity for PC Lau to be more direct with a romantic or sexual approach, but none occurred (save for the allegation about his offer for her to stay at his house). In fact, on the night where it was just PC Lau and Ms A on a night out with another team, PC Lau was openly kissing a colleague from that other team.
112. The Panel were not satisfied that in this period, that PC Lau was attempting to start a romantic or sexual relationship or testing whether she would respond to him romantically or that any of the comments or messages were sexually motivated.
Arm touching:
113. The Panel noted that PS Hopkins and Lauren Buckingham described PC Lau as ‘quirky’ and as someone who got in someone’s personal space, whether male or female. In that context, the Panel accepted the evidence of Ms A, that in May 2025, PC Lau may have touched her arm (perhaps on several occasions), but this did not mean that such touching was sexual.
Thigh touch/pinch:
114. The Panel were satisfied on the balance of probabilities that PC Lau must have touched or grabbed or pinched Ms A on the left upper leg. However, the Panel noted that it was said with words encouraging Ms A to “wake up” or similar. By Ms A’s account PC Lau kept watching the CCTV and there was nothing more to the incident either before or afterwards. Indeed, Ms A was perfectly content to remain in PC Lau’s company over the following days and weeks. The Panel noted that PC Evans, who was Ms A’s boyfriend at the time, was not able to recall her mentioning this action. Had it been reported to him, as a sexual assault, then it would have been a very memorable incident. The Panel were satisfied that Ms A felt awkward by PC Lau straying into her personal space, but they were not satisfied that she felt threatened or upset by him or that she viewed it as sexual at that time. The Panel specifically considered whether the location of the touching itself was inherently sexual. The touching/pinch based on all the evidence was outside of clothing, towards the upper part of the thigh and towards the outer part of the thigh. The Panel considered that touching the inner part of the thigh, could be construed as inherently sexual, but the outer part of the thigh could be sexual, but was not inherently so. When combined with the language “wakey, wakey”, “wake up” or “you’re tired”, reduces the likelihood of any touching being sexual. The Panel were not satisfied that the location of the touching nor the circumstances of how it took place, could lead them to conclude that it was sexual.
115. The Panel noted that Ms A accepted that she continued to have a good relationship with PC Lau, both within work and outside of work after 21 May 2025. She explained that he did annoy her due to his ‘man-splaining’. The Panel noted that this may have been partly due to his ‘quirky’ nature and slight social ineptness.
Fattie and freak comments:
116. The Panel noted that there was a message on 16 June 2025 from Ms A to Ms B ‘he called me a fattie [sic] and a freak.’ The Panel concluded that this related to a conversation in the car in McDonald’s car park. The Panel accepted that on the balance of probabilities that PC Lau used the word ‘fatty’ in his conversation with Ms A, and whilst this could have been a comment on her appearance in a misogynistic way, the Panel was not satisfied that it was used in such a derogatory way. Instead, the Panel considered that it was more likely to have been an inept and ill-judged joke.
117. The Panel accepted that on the balance of probabilities that there was a conversation in the smoking area in March 2025 about how many people they had all slept with, and in that context, something was said by someone about ‘the quiet ones’ being sexually adventurous.
Whether anyone said anything about ‘freaky’ or ‘freakiest ones’ or ‘filthiest ones’ in that conversation and if so who, was very difficult to ascertain. The evidence on exactly what was said and by who lacks clarity. In particular, the Panel had regard to the evidence of Ms B and was not satisfied that PC Lau was the person who said whatever was said. The Panel was satisfied that there was a later conversation on 16 June 2025 at McDonalds where PC Lau and Ms A referred back to this earlier conversation in March and what was said about ‘the quiet ones’. The Panel noted that Ms A was unclear as to the context of how or why this was said. The Panel were unable to exclude the possibility that this was a continuation of the banter and inept joking that PC Lau had been involved in with Ms A. The Panel noted that they continued to remain good friends after this conversation. The Panel were not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that whatever was said was sexually suggestive.
Love you message:
118. The Panel noted that on 2 September 2025 there was the ‘Love [Ms A]’ note left at the end of the shift. There then followed a series of messages which ended up with Ms A sending PC Lau a gif on 4 September 2025. It is likely that PC Lau went on about the joke (which he was clearly the target of) to Ms A and that Ms A may have interpreted that as being pressured, before she sent the gif two days later. The Panel were not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to disprove that this was anything other than a continuation of a team joke. The Panel noted that their friendship continued and they went out together for drinks with others on 5 September 2025 (and that Ms A had asked to meet PC Lau in town to walk to the pub together, knowing it would be just her and him).
Offer to stay at PC Lau’s address:
119. On 5/6 September 2025, the Panel were satisfied on the balance of probabilities that PC Lau offered the people in the taxi an opportunity to sleep at his address. PC Lau lived closer to town than many and Ms A lived 10 to 15 minutes further on. The Panel noted that PC Lau’s mother was at the address and references he made about his mother, were for anyone who might stay to be quiet and not wake her. The Panel further considered whether PC Lau had said to Ms A words similar to ‘nothing weird is going to happen’.
The Panel were satisfied this was said, however, they did not consider it was sexually suggestive, but was an appropriate and respectful thing to say to a female work colleague as reassurance, should she have chosen to stay at his house.
‘Desperate’ message - 16 September 2025:
120. The Panel noted from Ms A’s evidence that the ‘side eyes’ emoji was meaningless to her and held no specific connotations. It had been used by both her and PC Lau in a number of messages and she did not consider it to be inherently sexually suggestive. The message she had sent him clearly showed the extent to which she needed a lift to work and said she would do absolutely anything for a lift. In the context of their friendship, it can be seen how her message teed up a jocular response from PC Lau, particularly as he was not even due to work on that day. In cross-examination Ms A accepted that the message sent by PC Lau was not sexual, and the Panel was not satisfied that this was anything other than an attempt at a joke that may have been poorly expressed.
121. The Panel recognised that Ms A was upset by his response to her message, having not seen it as a joke, and it would seem that her upset was part of what led to her reporting PC Lau to Sergeant Hopkins (the ‘desperate’ message being one of the key messages she selected to show Sergeant Hopkins when explaining PC Lau’s behaviour towards her).
Decision:
122. The Panel found that neither allegation one nor allegation two were proved.
ACO CRAIG HOLDEN
(Chair)
Friday 31st July 2026