A WEST Yorkshire Police misconduct panel has heard how a detective posted photos of his partner on an online wife-sharing forum and accessed confidential records relating to her former partner and his new girlfriend.
Former Detective Constable Simon Sewell, who has since resigned from the force, also shared a “very graphic” picture of a bloodied cot at the scene of an attempted murder as well as images of a man in custody, and a rape complainant, with his partner.
His behaviour, which he admitted, is alleged to amount to gross misconduct, which he accepts.
The formal misconduct hearing at the force’s headquarters in Wakefield heard how Sewell’s behaviour was reported in May 2023 by his partner after their three-year relationship broke down.
Identified only as Miss A, she said Sewell had posted intimate photographs of her on the social media app KIK, including an indecent image of her performing a sex act whilst blindfolded, in 2021 without her consent.
During her emotional testimony, she revealed how she was “haunted” by the thought of photographs of her being on the internet and felt “exploited” by Sewell.
She said she brought the issue to the attention of the force after returning from holiday to find that Sewell had visited a swingers’ club and had also met a man on the gay dating app Grindr for a sexual assignation.
An internal investigation found that Sewell had accessed confidential records on internal police computer systems “without a lawful policing purpose” on multiple occasions between June 2020 and May 2023.
The most recent instances related to the ongoing investigation initiated by his partner’s allegations.
Barrister Simon Mallett, making the case for the police authority, said Sewell chose to share confidential images of crime scenes and offenders that he came across in the course of his duties as a detective with Miss A.
A screenshot of a male in custody was forwarded with the comment “Do you think that looks like me?”
Sewell also sent images from the pocketbook of a colleague, showing the “shocking” scene of an attempted murder, and an image of a victim of rape accompanied by disparaging remarks about the veracity of her allegations.
Via a prepared written statement Sewell, who chose to not appear before the panel, claimed the images had been shared as “a malicious allegation” that were designed to cause him “personal and professional difficulties”.
He said he “couldn’t believe his stupidity” in sending the images but that he had sent them to prove what he was doing whilst working late as he was subject to Miss A’s controlling behaviour.
He said the online checks on her former partner and his new girlfriend had been made due to pressure from Miss A “in moments of high stress”.
He suggested that he was in a controlling relationship and his mental state should be taken into account as a result. He highlighted what he felt was the “malicious timing” of Miss A’s complaint and that he had been “under duress” to make many of the checks.
Mr Mallett described those suggestions as “wholly implausible” and that confidential records should only be accessed for legitimate reasons “and not to satisfy the curiosity of any officer”.
He said Sewell was not coerced and that his explanation “lacked credibility”. He had accessed records of his own accord, adding: “He just did it.”
Mr Mallett said Sewell’s conduct in sharing images without consent and accessing computer systems “was so serious that disciplinary action should be imposed against him”.
Miss A denied being a controlling person and making a malicious allegation. She said she had been very insecure and distrustful as Sewell had cheated on her early in their relationship and that they had been to a relationship counsellor. She said he had made allegations about her to justify what he had done.
Cross-examined by barrister Peter Gilmour, representing Sewell, Miss A said she had never asked him to search for information about her ex, and did not know intimate holiday photographs had been put online until she saw them on the KIK app on his phone.
She said: “I will never fully know what images are out there of me. That’s something that’s haunted me to this day.”
The panel will make its ruling on Friday.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article