Two police officers were found guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in sexual activity while on duty. Anthoni Eronini and Chloe Caulfield, a married father, would have been dismissed had they not resigned from Greater Manchester Police, a disciplinary panel ruled.
The lovers denied having sexual intercourse, but the disciplinary panel concluded that the couple “engaged in sexual intercourse while on duty” and “clearly caused emotional harm to their respective partners”.
An internal investigation by Greater Manchester Police uncovered the contents of texts between the pair that were ‘highly suggestive that the former officers’ text messages and behavior took place in police motor vehicles and at police stations while on duty’.
READ NEXT: Extensive search for missing man at Dovestone Reservoir enters second day
Anthoni Eronini and Chloe Caulfield began an ’emotional and sexual relationship’ and it was ‘serious enough’ that PC Caulfield asked PC Eronini to leave his wife, according to the published findings of the GMP misconduct hearing.
According to the decision, the couple ‘sexually harassed while on duty’, talked about sex, ‘gave sexualized messages’ and ‘engaged in sexualised physical contact’.
This included kissing and PC Caulfield ‘removing her knickers while on duty’.
PC Eronini was married in 2021 and was living with his wife, with whom he had “several children”, while PC Caulfield was “in a long-term relationship and living together”, according to the decision, “their behavior continued for a significant period of time”. . with his then partner’.
The hearing was told that PC Caulfield had a ‘Ring’ doorbell at his home, meaning his partner ‘knew when he was and was not on the property’.
“Their situation within the country was so bad as to make disloyalty to Ex-PC Eronini’s home address almost impossible,” the ruling said.
According to the decision, PC Eronini, who joined GMP in 2019, resigned from his post in February, while PC Caulfield, who joined the group in 2021, resigned in June last year. The statement stated that the officers ‘did not take part in the hearing’.
The board found the couple guilty of ‘gross misconduct’.
It was claimed that the couple ‘had an emotional and sexual relationship before January 21, 2023’ and ‘engaged in sexual correspondence and activities during police duty’.
The panel said the case was ‘unusual’ as it did not specify the date on which the couple allegedly engaged in inappropriate behavior, but concluded that the alleged misconduct may have occurred in December 2022 and January 2023, given the emails and statements. from former officers.
The panel was encouraged by GMP to conclude that they were on duty at the time ‘due to the nature and content of the text messages provided’.
PC Caulfield’s then partner detailed some of the messages the pair shared as part of his complaint to GMP, saying they were “highly suggestive that the ex-police officers’ text messages and behavior took place in police motor vehicles and at the scene.” The decision reveals that police stations are on duty.
The report stated that “police kit” expressions such as “pickup truck”, “stairs near the gym” and high-visibility jackets were used in the texts.
The board noted the accused officers’ denials that “any sexual activity took place” but that neither provided “detailed responses.” However, the decision continued that PC Eronini ‘appears to have admitted that he breached the Standards of Conduct, brought his partner and his job into disrepute and breached the duties and responsibilities expected of him as a Police Officer’.
The decision added: “The panel noted that although former PC Caulfield sincerely apologised, he stated that the allegations did not occur. The panel noted that former Constable Caulfield did not make any specific denials in relation to either the text messages or the alleged sexual activity.”
He continued: “Under the circumstances, the panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the text messages were sent while both former officers were on duty. The nature of the text messages was such that they were exchanged in the course of duty. They would constitute a breach of the Code of Ethics and constitute a breach of duty and “will constitute a breach of the Standards of Professional Conduct in relation to responsibilities and discreditable conduct.”
The panel also found that the couple engaged in sexual activity while on duty.
The following statements were made in the decision: “The panel once again took into account that both former officers denied that any sexual physical contact took place. However, the panel found that it had the right to take into account the nature and content of the text messages within the scope of the case. The panel found that some found that the messages suggested that sexual activity was arranged, took place, and was discussed or referenced after it occurred.
“It was admitted by former PC Eronini that he kissed PC Caulfield and gave him a pair of underwear. This admission was significant because it was consistent with text messages in which former PC Caulfield asked the former PC. he had later admitted the question to other officers.
“The panel therefore finds that, on the balance of probabilities, former PCs Caulfield and Eronini were more likely than not to have engaged in sexual activity while in office. “The panel therefore finds that this conduct breached standards of professional conduct in relation to duties and responsibilities and was discreditable.” behaviors.
“The Panel also found that the conduct of the former Officers individually and collectively amounted to gross misconduct, namely a breach of the Standards of Professional Conduct in relation to duties and responsibilities and discreditable conduct that was so serious as to amount to gross misconduct.”
The board decided that the behavior of these people was ‘intentional and sexually motivated’, ‘for sexual gratification’ and ‘clearly causing emotional harm to their partners’. The duo also ‘expressed their regret and apologized for their actions’.
The panel concluded that had they not resigned, the most appropriate sanction ‘would have been dismissal without notice for both former police officers’.