Former Thames Valley police officer allegedly had 'naughty' sex with colleague at Hertfordshire station

Mark Pattinson, a former police sergeant who also worked for Hertfordshire Constabulary, was found to have undertaken sexual acts with a junior officer at a police station while on duty.

He denied the charge, but a Thames Valley Police panel found he was likely to have committed the offence after reviewing the evidence given by him and the other officer.

Findings from the panel, which were published in February here, show that the other officer who is referred to as Miss A in the report, claimed they had shared WhatsApp messages describing their ‘naughty’ sexual encounter at Hatfield Police Station.

She said these could not be provided as evidence as she and her then line manager, PS Pattinson, had used disappearing messages. When Miss A joined the force Pattinson was assigned to be her supervisor and he held the position during the period in which they had an affair and allegedly engaged in sexual activity whilst on duty.

According to Miss A they both performed oral sex on one another on a staircase which could not be seen by the force’s police cameras. However, former PS Pattinson claimed this was a fabrication and they only ever had sex during their short-lived affair at each others’ homes.

Both parties admitted they had a consensual affair between December 2021 and February 2022. But a panel found Miss A’s evidence more credible.

Miss A presented a lengthy statement during her misconduct hearing stating that she had sex with the more senior officer in their cars, once at the station, and also at each others’ homes.

Former PS Pattinson stated there was no corroborating evidence to support the allegation and it was based entirely upon her inconsistent testimony. His denials related to the fact that Miss A did not disclose the affair when first approached by an investigating officer.

Miss A had subsequently been found guilty of gross misconduct in relation to allegations which included dishonesty and accordingly this impacted upon her credibility as a witness, he said. The panel dismissed this summary, finding that Miss A gave “a consistent account as to why she had not been honest in her first misconduct interview”.

It was also argued that had both officers been missing for a 12-minute period, as Miss A suggested, other people within the ‘busy custody suite’ they were working at would have noticed.

Both parties resigned prior to misconduct hearings from their respective police force’s. The panel examining Pattinson’s behaviour found his actions amounted to gross misconduct and would have led to dismissal had he not quit beforehand. He has been placed on the College of Policing Barred List.

The report states: “Given that the relationship was short lived and seemingly based upon mutual sexual attraction with both parties living with their existing partners, the panel found it highly unlikely that, as the officer alleged, they simply met in cars to speak and kiss. The panel found no rationale as to why Miss A would lie about such matters. The panel found, this evidence supported the view that Miss A was a truthful witness.”

The panel also said that Pattinson could not provide a credible reason as to why Miss A would make up the police station encounter. It added that this was ‘especially’ relevant considering the professional damage she would suffer as a result of the revelation.

The panel concluded that the on duty encounter would discredit Thames Valley Police’s credibility. The report states: “The panel found that the proven behaviour if known by the public would bring discredit upon the police service. The panel further concluded that the proven conduct was aggravated by the fact that Miss A was significantly more junior in service to the officer and that he was her supervisor at the time the conduct took place.”

Within the report the panel was also critical of Pattinson’s conduct as a manager and superior within the relationship. It adds: “Miss A had less than one year’s police service, he was her supervisor and had significant policing experience. By definition this created a clear and obvious power imbalance. At the point that the affair commenced, it was the duty of the officer to recognise this imbalance and risk and follow the College of Policing Guidance.”

It was revealed at the hearing that Pattinson reported the affair to the police force, after he was confronted by his wife.