Stephen Jenkinson

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer following a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from an incident where the officer assaulted a handcuffed and intoxicated prisoner, resulting in a criminal conviction for common assault.

The Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's application of disciplinary penalty principles, including the officer's subsequent rehabilitation, academic achievements, and the impact of his criminal conviction on his ability to testify in future proceedings.

The Commission found no manifest error in principle in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the officer's criminal conviction and failure to accept responsibility rendered him unfit for continued service, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he was found guilty of discreditable conduct.

The disciplinary charge followed a criminal conviction for common assault against a handcuffed and intoxicated prisoner.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by failing to give proper weight to his rehabilitation, academic achievements, and good character, and by treating his failure to admit responsibility as an aggravating factor.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding no manifest error in principle.

The Commission noted that the appellant's criminal conviction would seriously impair his credibility and usefulness as a witness in future criminal proceedings, which is an essential duty of a police officer.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty of dismissal imposed after he was found guilty of discreditable conduct.

The disciplinary charge followed a criminal conviction for common assault arising from an incident where the officer assaulted a handcuffed, intoxicated prisoner.

The Commission reviewed the Hearing Officer's application of the principles of sentencing in police discipline cases, including the officer's failure to admit responsibility, the impact of the criminal conviction on his ability to testify in future proceedings, and his subsequent rehabilitation and academic achievements.

The Commission found no manifest error in principle and upheld the penalty of dismissal.