Special constable based in Stamford sacked for gross misconduct after having sex with vulnerable teen

editorial image
0
Have your say

A police officer who had sex with a “vulnerable” teenager he had helped to find after being reported missing has been sacked for gross misconduct.

Special constable Sergeant Corey Alvey admitted breaching standards of professional behaviour but was not present at the misconduct hearing held at Lincolnshire Police’s headquarters in Nettleham yesterday.

Prosecuting, Matthew Greene told the tribunal that the 17-year-old teenager, whose gender and identity were not revealed, was reported missing to police by their mother on the morning of April 9.

The teenager, known as HF during the hearing, had a history of self -harm and had been assessed by a crisis team, who said they were considered to be a vulnerable person.

Sgt Alvey, who was based in Stamford, was assigned to look for HF and found mentions of Rutland Water on their social media profiles on Instagram and Snapchat.

Sgt Alvey decided to go to Rutland Water to try and locate, the hearing was told.

“At approximately 12.45pm, the incident office reported that [the victim] returned home. It may well be the case that he [Alvey] didn’t realise that they had been found,” said Mr Greene.

Mr Greene said that at 13.02pm, Alvey then contacted HF via Instagram, to enquire about their whereabouts and it was establised that they were no longer missing.

The tribunal heard that after sending the message Sgt Alvey sent a second message, which was flirtatious, via Instagram. The pair continued to engage via Snapchat.

Alvey admitted in an interview before the hearing that during the conversation HF had asked him whether: “he was getting the same vibe?” and said things like: “you’re hot”.

The next day Alvey contacted HF again and the pair went to his home address where they had sex.

HF’s father then reported that the pair had sex to the police after HF admitted it to him.

Mr Greene said: “Sgt Alvey appeared to be supporting HF in the initial part of the conversation, then it constitutes as flirtatious in content.

“Special Sergeant Alvey knew or ought to have known that HF was vunerable in that way.”

The hearing was told that Alvey was unable to attend the hearing as he was not able to get the time off work.

Defending Phil Clark said: “Special Sergeant Alvey makes no representations on his behalf, other than to apologise for his misconduct.”

Chief Constable Bill Skelley, who led the hearing, dismissed Alvey without notice, saying: “I am clearly the man responsible to ensure the public confidence in the police is maintained and that the rights of members of the public are protected. Those who are vulnerable should be protected by the police. What Sgt Alvey did is entirely inconsistent with what Sgt Alvey should do as a warrant officer.”