A Northumbria Police detective sergeant who created an evidential statement in another officer’s name, then submitted it to the Crown Prosecution Service, has avoided dismissal after the Chief Constable concluded that, despite the seriousness of the behaviour, she was ‘not dishonest’.
On 5th July 2024, in response to a CPS action plan, Detective Sergeant 719 Katrina Moore produced an excerpt of mobile phone evidence, marked as exhibit SD/1s, along with a signed statement purportedly made by a detective constable which exhibited that material. The detective constable was not on duty at the time, was unaware of the production of the exhibit, and did not know that a statement had been created and signed in their name. Three days later, on 8th July 2024, the statement and exhibit were submitted to the CPS as evidence in the case.
Moore admitted the factual basis of the allegations. She also accepted that she breached the ‘orders and instructions’ standard, and accepted that her actions lacked integrity. However, she denied that she had acted with dishonesty. Her position was that she was effectively undertaking an administrative task, and negligently failed to appreciate the significance of completing a statement in another officer’s name, thereby accidentally making a false representation to the CPS.
Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine, who chaired the hearing, concluded that it was ‘impossible’ to accept that Moore did not appreciate what she was doing when she typed out a statement in another officer’s name. She said she felt ‘compelled’ to draw the inference that Moore must have known she was making a false statement about authorship and the production of the exhibit. At the same time, she found that Moore’s conduct was ‘not dishonest’, reasoning that there was no malicious purpose or personal gain, and that Moore’s aim was to get the correct information to the CPS ‘in an efficient manner’, albeit in the wrong way.
The Chief Constable framed the question in terms of what an ‘ordinary decent member of the public’ would think. In her view, while the conduct might look dishonest on its face, the wider circumstances meant such a member of the public would not consider it dishonest for Moore to ‘try to supply correct information to the CPS’, even if she must have realised she was doing it in the wrong way. The determination also relied heavily on Moore’s prior good character, including what was described as a large bundle of ‘glowing’ references depicting her as dedicated, careful, and detail-oriented, with around 20 years of service.
Despite the finding of ‘no dishonesty’, Chief Constable Jardine still found gross misconduct. She concluded that writing a statement in another officer’s name ‘seriously lacks integrity’, undermines public confidence, and undermines good order and high standards in policing. In other words, it was serious enough that dismissal could be justified.
On outcome, the Appropriate Authority argued for dismissal without notice, pointing to the operational context, the importance of integrity where evidence is concerned, and the aggravating feature of Moore’s rank as a sergeant. Moore’s case was that this was not operational dishonesty, her culpability was medium, there was no direct harm, and the issue had been disclosed fully to the CPS and the defence without any resulting problem in the relevant proceedings. Her representatives argued Northumbria Police should apply a learning culture, and that Moore had admitted her mistake, shown insight, and would not repeat the behaviour.
Chief Constable Jardine ultimately imposed a reduction in rank to constable. Despite written representations suggesting that Moore should no longer be deployed in duties that involve submitting evidence, Jardine concluded that this should not be the case, and that any future role involving evidential work should be assessed on a case by case basis.
Jardine described the matter as falling towards the lower end of operational lack-of-integrity cases, characterised it as a serious error of judgement in an otherwise unblemished career, and decided dismissal, while justifiable, was not required.
OP ED
Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine’s utterly defective determination collapses under its own contradictions. She says it is ‘impossible’ to accept that Moore did not appreciate what she was doing, and that she ‘must have known’ she was making a false statement in another officer’s name for the CPS. Yet at the same time, she declares this brazen forgery ‘not dishonest’, on the basis there was no malicious purpose or personal gain involved. She also automatically accepts that Moore’s motives were purely what she claimed they were: a bid to ‘get the correct information to CPS in an efficient manner’. Information that could hardly be described as ‘correct’ if its evidential provenance was a forgery – a forgery that could, in itself, cause the prosecution to collapse.
But even here, Chief Constable Jardine is full of excuses, suggesting there was no harm done because the defence (who was subject to this evidential forgery) raised no objections. We can only take her word on that, and if it is true it merely goes to show the appalling standards of criminal defence solicitors that are typical in these types of cases. In any event, attempting to reframe an officer’s deliberate misconduct into something noble does not excuse the officer’s deliberate intent to deceive.
Taken together, the message is clear: Northumbria’s most senior officer has created a de facto ‘efficiency’ excuse for evidential falsification – calling it gross misconduct, but withholding the only word that properly describes what really happened: dishonesty. If a sergeant can knowingly sign another officer’s evidential statement and submit it to the CPS, and the force still refuses to label it dishonest, then the public is being asked to accept that truth in policing is optional so long as the paperwork moves fast.
