PC William Parker

POLICE (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2020

As amended by the Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations

CONCERNING:

Officer: PC 1042 William Parker

Norfolk Constabulary

Case: CM 76/24 and CM117/24

Final Written Report

Introduction

1. This is the record of determinations made by a Panel at misconduct proceedings brought under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 as amended (the Regulations) against Police Constable 1042 William Parker.

2. The Panel consisted of Assistant Chief Officer (ACO) Nicholas Davison (Chair), and Independent Panel Members Dr Lafferty and Mr Rogers.

3. The Appropriate Authority (the AA) was represented by legal counsel Mr Waters.

4. The officer was represented by legal counsel Mr Banham and supported by Norfolk Police Federation.

5. The Panel were assisted by Mr King, the Legally Qualified Person (the LQP).

6. The Hearing was a public hearing and was held at Norfolk Constabulary, Operations and Communications Centre, Falconers Chase, Wymondham, Norfolk.

7. The Hearing was held between Tuesday 5^th May and Wednesday 13^th May 2026.

8. The hearing was a public hearing and an earlier application for anonymity by the officer had been rejected.

9. There was a preliminary application on behalf of the officer concerning the AAs decision making in respect to its assessment of allegation two as being gross misconduct. The Panel heard submissions from parties on this matter and made a ruling rejecting the application.

10. The Panel has been convened to consider allegations of misconduct made by the Appropriate Authority (AA) against PC Parker. It is alleged that the officer acted in breach of the standards of: - use of force and authority, respect and courtesy.

 

The Allegations

11. The Panel was referred to a Regulation 30 notice in respect of the Officer containing the allegations and that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct, namely:

 

Allegation 1 - Conduct

SWEARING AND UNPROFESSIONAL LANGUAGE

On 23 June 2024, whilst transporting a detainee, DW, in a police

van to Kings Lynn PIC you repeatedly swore and used unprofessional

language.

 

In particular you made the following comments to or about him:

a) Shut your fucking mouth.

b) If you cause any damage, you're going to fucking get it.

c) Can we have a welcome committee because this guy is a dickhead.

d) He’s a fucking idiot.

e) You're the one that's being a dickhead.

f) You're going to be dragged out of there.

g) Yes, we will we fucking (inaudible).

h) You're an idiot.

i) Can you let us in please, we've got an idiot being a twat in the back of my van.

j) Just leave him, I'm going to drag him out by his fucking head in a minute.

k) Get out my fucking van.

 

Once DW had been removed from the police van you further went on to call him:

l) A fucking idiot.

m) A fucking hard man.

n) A fucking dickhead.

o) And told him to shut the fuck up and fucking stay there.

 

EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE

On 23 June 2024 you used excessive force on DW at Kings Lynn PIC. Having told him to get out of the van he replied he would walk out and that you didn't have to be like this. You nevertheless took hold of his legs and pulled him, saying “you've just smashed the fuck out of my van, get out.” You pulled him with force off the seat by his feet / legs, causing him to land on the floor of the van on his front while handcuffed to the rear.

 

Allegation 2 - Conduct

EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE

On 3 October 2024 you arrested LC. Whilst he was being escorted downstairs by your fellow officers, PC Chapman and PC Hildon, he verbally abused you. You responded by pushing past your fellow officers, grabbing him and pulling him down the stairs, banging his head on the way down. Your behaviour was such that your fellow officers had to repeatedly tell you to leave him alone before you released him and stood back.

 

Standards of Professional Behaviour

Your behaviour failed to meet the standards expected of police officers and breached the following Standards of Professional Behaviour:

Allegation 1

Authority, Respect & Courtesy - Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public with respect and courtesy. Your repeated use of unprofessional language and swearing, both on the journey to the PIC and at the PIC demonstrated a complete lack of respect and courtesy by you.

Use of Force - Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances. The force used to remove DW from the van was excessive and unnecessary in particular given that he had indicated he would leave the van voluntarily and in the nature of the force you used, with its obvious risk of injury.

 

Allegation 2

Use of Force - Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances. The force used to take LC from your fellow officers and pull him downstairs was excessive and unnecessary, and demonstrated a lack of control on your part in response to verbal abuse from LC.

Your behaviour and your breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour as set out above evidence a pattern of behaviour on your part where you fail to control your temper when provoked, resorting to swearing and the use of excessive force, and amounts to gross misconduct.

 

Officer response

12. The officer provided a formal regulation 31 response to the allegations. With the exception, of recognising he could have used different language, he denied the allegations.

13. The Panel proceeded on the basis that the facts and alleged breaches were required to be proved.

 

Evidence

14. The Panel were in receipt of:

• the case papers bundle,
• Body Worn Video (BWV) Digital material.
• Custody Suite CCTV
• Conduct Interview recording.
• Use of Force Form
• Incident CAD record
• Custody Record
• AA opening note
• Regulation 31 response and addendum response
• Expert witness evidence and reports
• NPCC College of Policing Personal Safety Manual extracts
• Officer accounts and live oral testimony

 

Approach taken by the Panel

15. We remind ourselves that the burden of proof lies with the AA and is discharged on the balance of probabilities.

16. We have considered all oral evidence we have heard, and all written and digital evidence contained within the bundle. To be admissible, evidence must be relevant; evidence is relevant if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof. However, the Panel can still rule evidence inadmissible if it would be unfair to admit it because its probative value is clearly outweighed by its prejudicial effect. There has been no challenge to the admissibility of the evidence we have received.

17. We have been assisted by the submissions of both Counsel. Submissions on law have been made by both counsel and we have been assisted by the LQP in our determination.

18. The issues in the case are whether such force used by the officer was necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances and whether the words used by the officer amounted to a breach of the standard of authority, respect and courtesy.

19. The standards said to be engaged are-

Authority, Respect & Courtesy - Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public with respect and courtesy.

Use of Force - Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.

20. The misconduct to be considered is contained within the regulation 30 notice.

21. Our findings must be based on evidence, including inferences properly drawn from the evidence, but not conjecture or speculation.

22. The assessment of witnesses including the officer is a matter for the Panel, but we have reminded ourselves to avoid over-reliance on demeanour. The officer chose to give evidence and his evidence is considered in the same fair way that other witnesses are considered.

23. We have looked at what may properly be regarded as corroborative evidence. Corroboration is not required but may assist in our evaluation of other evidence. We have considered first if the pieces of evidence are independent of one another before using as corroborative.

24. The officer is of ‘good character’ and when making our findings we have deployed this fact. Good character is not a defence to the allegations, but it is relevant in two ways. First, the officer has given evidence. His good character is a positive feature which we take into account in his favour when considering whether we accept what he told us. Secondly, the fact that he has not acted in the way alleged in the past may make it less likely that he acted as the AA alleges in this case where there is a dispute of fact.

25. The officer answered questions in interview and served a Regulation 31 response. It is not suggested by the AA that there has been any significant departure from the earlier explanations, and we are not invited to draw any adverse inference and do not do so.

26. Of the witnesses who gave oral evidence we found their evidence to be credible. There was broad consistency with their original statements and the recorded footage. We observe that PC Hutchinson did not have the benefit of body worn footage to refresh her memory in the making of her statement and it was clear that her recollection was not consistent with the evidence of others or the recorded footage. PC Hutchinson accepted this in her evidence, and we have no doubt her evidence was true to the best of her belief, albeit inadvertently inaccurate.

27. The decision-making process generally – we have made findings of fact then decided whether these findings are consistent with finding a breach of a standard. More than one incident is alleged in the regulation 30 notice and we are aware that we may come to different conclusions on each. If we find one or more breaches, we will make an assessment of seriousness. We ask ourselves if the breaches found are serious enough to amount to misconduct, are the breaches so serious so they may justify dismissal and so amount to gross misconduct or neither. In the assessment of seriousness, we will apply the CoP guidance on outcomes. Should we find more than one breach made out then we may consider the totality of misconduct when making an assessment of seriousness.

28. We have asked the LQP to write up our report which he has done. We have reviewed the document and confirm that it properly records the panel’s findings.

 

Stage one - Findings of fact

29. In making our findings of fact we have followed the same numbering scheme as used by the AA in the Regulation 30 notice.

30. Allegation 1 – We find proven the allegation that PC PARKER repeatedly swore.

The Regulation 30 notice sets out particular words. We have listened to the BWV recording and are satisfied that the following words were spoken by the officer-

a) Shut your fucking mouth.

b) If you cause any damage, you're going to fucking get it.

c) Can we have a welcome committee because this guy is a dickhead.

d) He’s a fucking idiot.

e) You're the one that's being a dickhead.

f) You're going to be dragged out of there.

g) Yes, we will we fucking.

h) You're an idiot.

i) Can you let us in please, we've got an idiot being a twat in the back of my van.

j) Just leave him, I'm going to drag him out by his fucking head in a minute.

k) Get out my fucking van.

l) Fucking idiot.

m) Fucking hard man.

n) Fucking dickhead.

o) Shut the fuck up and fucking stay there.

We note the officer’s evidence and that whilst he had no recollection of each word, he did not deny the words were said.

31. Use of Force. We start with that which is clear from the audio-visual recordings (BWV and Custody CCTV). Just prior to entry into the van dock PC PARKER said, ‘Just leave him, I’m going to drag him out by his fucking head in a minute.’ Once in the van dock we are satisfied that the officer said, ‘Get out of my fucking van’ DW replied ‘Alright.’ PC PARKER grabbed DW and said again, ‘Get out of my fucking van,’ DW starts to say, ‘I would’ but is spoken over by PC PARKER who says, ‘Get out of my van.’ DW replied he would walk out and said, ‘You don't have to be like this..’ The officer replied and took hold of DW’s upper body pulling him. This did not remove DW from the van and the officer took him by the legs and pulled him again, saying ‘you've just smashed the fuck out of my van, get out.’ The officer pulled him with force off the seat by his feet / legs, causing him to land on the floor of the van on his front while handcuffed to the rear. This caused an injury to the face of DW. PC PARKER then calls him a ‘Fucking idiot.’  

32. We consider the account given by the officer. We find that the journey to the station was not an easy one. We accept that PC PARKER was operating under stress as a result of DW’s behaviour. We find that once inside the van dock PC PARKER was aware that there was no immediate assistance present and as a result decided to remove DW from the van using force. We observe his demeanour captured by the footage and note the language he used before during and after the extraction. We are satisfied that at the point of the use of force he acted in anger and not with any thought as to the welfare of DW. We are satisfied that the account given by PC PARKER is not credible when exposed to scrutiny allowed by a consideration of the audio-visual evidence.

33. We observe that PC PARKER did not wait any significant time for assistance from others nor did he attempt to communicate again with custody staff. At the time of the use of force DW was not self-harming, was still secured by hand cuffs and was in the secure rear compartment of the van. We find the force used was excessive.

34. Allegation 2- On 3 October 2024 PC PARKER arrested LC. It is not in dispute that PC PARKER took LC to the ground. We note that there is no complaint by the AA concerning this phase of the incident and so treat it as background evidence. During this phase of the incident LC accuses PC PARKER of trying to throw him down the stairs and asks other officers to ‘Get him away from me,’ meaning PC PARKER. The following conversation can be heard-

Pc Chapman: ‘Will you walk with me and Tiegan yeah’? 

LC: (Nods) ‘yeah, get him off me, you two, yeah’

Pc Chapman: ‘If Will walks over there, LC listen, if Will walks over there’…

PC Parker steps away and allows PC Chapman to take his place. PC Chapman and PC Hildon help LC to his feet.

LC: ‘Touch me again and you’re going to get …..’

Hildon: ‘LC less of that please’

They begin to move down the stairs.

 

35. LC was returned to his feet and the process of his removal from the scene with a view to transporting him to the police station began. He was escorted downstairs by PC Chapman and PC Hildon. As this begins PC PARKER walks away from the three, taking steps along the upper landing towards PC Hutchinson. LC looked back at PC PARKER and said ‘You’re a big man are you?.’ We find that the remark was the deliberate goading of PC PARKER. PC PARKER reacted to this comment by saying ‘Get out of my way’ to the officers with LC and moving quickly between PC Chapman and PC Hildon, making contact with PC Chapman causing her to disengage entirely from LC. PC PARKER made contact with LC, grabbing him by his right arm and LC falls to his left then forward down the stairs.

36. We find that at, or shortly after the moment PC PARKER makes contact with LC, PC Hildon releases her grip on LC. We note the evidence of PC PARKER that LC dropped his weight. We accept this evidence. We take into account the evidence of all officers but having considered the accounts and reviewed them in light of the footage we reach this conclusion. We are satisfied that there was some contact between LC’s head and the banisters, but this did not appear significant. Upon reaching the turn in the stairs PC PARKER still had hold of LC’s right arm and started to lift LC by his right arm, with LC still in cuffs to the rear. PC PARKER then released LC completely, leaving LC unrestrained by any officer. At this point LC is orientated so that he is on his back with his head closest to the descending stairs. PC Chapman starts to sit LC up and at which point PC PARKER took hold of LC again and attempted to drag LC forward. This resulted in LC moving headfirst down the stairs momentarily. This quickly ceased and PC Chapman returned him to a sitting position.

37. We start with the fact that LC was properly arrested, his detention was lawful and there was a need to remove him from the scene and to the police station. We find that PC PARKER initially allowed his fellow officers to begin removing LC and his intervention was a reaction to the goading by LC and not any honestly held belief that his assistance was needed. Other officers did say words that indicated they wished PC PARKER would stop what he was doing. Whilst we find this as a fact, we do not use this evidence to inform our view as to PC PARKER’s use of force as their opinion cannot replace the panel’s.

 

Stage Two – Are the Standards engaged and breached?

The Standards

Allegation 1.

38. Authority, Respect & Courtesy - Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public with respect and courtesy.

39. PC PARKER does not deny saying the words which are attributed to him by our finding of fact. His explanation is that whilst he could have chosen other ways in which to express himself, he believed he was using language that DW would understand and that this was the effective way in which to communicate with DW. We note that the poor choice of words extended to his communication with colleagues. We are satisfied that the use of language was often derogatory, both to and about DW, and do not accept that the choice of words was driven by any genuine intention to communicate or deescalate the situation PC PARKER found himself in. We find that the standard was breached.

40. Use of Force - Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances. We have found that the reason for the use of force was not a lawful one. The officer acted out of anger and not any honestly held belief that the force was necessary. The standard was breached.

 

Allegation 2

41. Use of Force - Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances. We find that PC PARKER did not honestly believe that the use of force was necessary, rather that it was a reaction to the goading of the officer. We find the standard was breached.

 

Stage Three - Do the breaches of the standards identified amount to misconduct, Gross misconduct or neither.

42. We apply the College of Policing (CoP) Guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings. We have considered the breaches that we have found individually and then cumulatively to make a finding. We emphasise that the following discussion is a preliminary application of the guidance on outcomes used to reach a finding of whether the breaches equate to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither. Should we make a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct we will invite submissions on outcome and make a full assessment.

43. Using the CoP guidance on outcomes we followed the approach required in conducting a severity assessment under the headings of culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors.

44. Here culpability denotes the officer’s blameworthiness or responsibility for their actions. The more culpable or blameworthy the behaviour in question, the more serious the misconduct and the more severe the likely outcome. Harm can be considered in various ways including types of harm, impact of a person and their characteristics, impact on communities as well as an effect in the police service and or public confidence in policing. Aggravating factors are those tending to worsen the circumstances of the case, in relation to either the officer’s culpability or the harm caused. Mitigating factors are those tending to reduce the seriousness of the misconduct. Some factors may indicate that an officer’s culpability is lower, or that the harm caused by the misconduct is less serious than it might otherwise have been.

 

Allegation 1

45. Authority respect and courtesy. The actions of PC PARKER were intentional but not planned. The words were sometimes threatening. There was persistence. There was a degree of intimidation. DW was not vulnerable by his personal characteristics, but he was a detained person and in handcuffs.

46. We initially find culpability as high.

47. We find that DW was engaging in very similar if not identical use of language and we did not observe any effect upon DW as a result of PC Parkers language. We do however find that if members of the public were to be aware of his words there would be some reputational harm.

48. We initially find harm as low.

49. We find that the sole aggravating factor was continuing the conduct after the officer should have known it was improper.

50. We find that the behaviour, both spoken words and actions by DW were capable of being considered provocation.

51. Use of force. We find that the use of force was deliberate. We are satisfied that the officer had a genuine desire for help in the extraction of DW from the van, but when this was not immediately available went on to forcibly extract DW.

52. Given our finding that PC PARKER did not honestly believe what he did was necessary we equate his actions with a criminal assault but do not find that he intended to cause harm, rather was reckless as to whether harm was caused, failing to take any steps to protect the head of a man in cuffs.

53. We find that the use of force, in contravention of the misconduct regulations, was violent.

54. DW was not vulnerable by his personal characteristics, but he was a detained persons and in handcuffs. The method of extraction exposed his situational vulnerability.

55. Culpability is high.

56. There was some physical injury. The risk of more serious injury was present. We find there was a risk of reputational harm. There is a national concern about the use of force by the police.

57. Harm is high.

58. There are no aggravating factors that have not already been accounted for.

59. Mitigating we accept that the use of force was in the heat of the moment.

60. In conclusion we make the provisional assessment that the misconduct was so serious that dismissal may be justified and so amounts to gross misconduct.

 

Allegation 2

61. The action was deliberate. There was not an intention to harm, and PC PARKER attempted to exercise control over the descent down the stairs, but the actions of LC frustrated this causing a risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable.
62. Whilst no criminal conviction is present, we find the use of unnecessary excessive force was criminal in nature being akin to a battery.

63. The misconduct is violent but resulting in little injury and so towards the lower end of this scale.

64. LC was vulnerable in the following ways: PC PARKER was aware he suffered from mental health problems, substance misuse and was in handcuffs to the rear.

65. We find culpability as high.

66. Harm.

67. We infer from the footage there must have been some injury. The risk of serious injury to LC was present. We find there was a risk of reputational harm. There is a national concern about the use of force by the police.

68. We conclude that harm is medium.

69. We do not find any aggravating factor that has not been accounted for already.

70. Mitigating we find the actual misconduct was short in duration, there was deliberate provocation by LC.

71. Were this second allegation to be considered in isolation we find that the conduct would amount to misconduct. We acknowledge that there are two factors that are identified as particularly serious, the use of violence and conduct akin to a criminal offence, we take the provocation together with the current lack of evidence of any particular injury and that there was no intention to cause harm. We find that these factors result in a level of serious that requires disciplinary action.

72. We aggregate the findings and factor in the multiple victim feature and conclude against the definitions that dismissal might be justified overall and so make an ultimate finding of gross misconduct.

 

Stage 4 – Outcome

73. We listened carefully to submissions on outcome from both parties and received advice in open hearing from our LQP.

74. We have returned to the college of policing’s guidance on outcomes and fully reviewed our initial seriousness assessment.

75. In relation to the officer’s role, we do not find that he had a particular position of trust or authority above and beyond that which the position of constable would always attract and do not find this as an increased culpability factor.

76. We accept that the culpability factors of ‘violence’ and ‘conviction or caution for a criminal offence’ share a factual basis and did not and do not ‘double’ our culpability assessment as a result. This is anticipated in the guidance at 4.23: -

 ‘If the conduct found proven in the misconduct proceedings is criminal in nature, take this into account when considering the culpability of the officer, notwithstanding the absence of a criminal conviction. For example, a finding that an officer has used unreasonable force may amount to the equivalent of a finding of assault.’

77. We are not persuaded that the officer had a malign intent in relation to either incident, rather being an expression of anger and loss of control, taking action without thought of the consequences.

78. We observe that, in relation to the first incident, the officer was served the Reg 17 notice on the 2/7/24 but went on to deal with LC in the way that he did on the 3/10/24.

79. Whilst the officer accepted the words which were audible on the Body Worn Video, he did not accept wrongdoing in relation to either use of force, rather seeking to shift some degree of blame on to other officers.

80. We recognise that in making our findings we have largely rejected the account of the officer given to us in evidence.

81. The amendment to the regulations that would lead to dismissal being the consequence of a finding of gross misconduct was not in force at the relevant time and so we consider the least serious outcome first.

82. We have been reminded of the following guidance at paragraph 4.74-

‘Where gross misconduct has been found and the behaviour has caused – or could have caused – serious harm to individuals, the community and/or public confidence in the police service, dismissal is likely to follow. A factor of the greatest importance is the impact of the misconduct on the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole.’ 

83. Returning to the consideration of culpability and harm we remain of the opinion that overall, both were high.

84. We have considered the officer’s personal mitigation. We note that these are both personal and employment references. We have regard to the comments of those who have particular supervisory experience of the officer, Insp Smith, for example, describes him as ‘hardworking and dedicated.’ Sgt Morris has known the officer for over 7 years and acted as his supervisor. He sets out a number of specific actions of the officer that are particularly commendable and being aware of the allegations, continues to be ‘happy to work with him.’ The officer has received a Chief Constable’s certificate of good work recognition.

85. We observe the guidance that the weight attached to personal mitigation necessarily decreases as the seriousness of the misconduct increases.

86. We have received and take into account the officers experience and training but note the advice we have received as to how we consider this –

‘It must be obvious that misconduct which is so serious that nothing less than erasure would be considered appropriate cannot attract a lesser sanction simply because the practitioner is particularly skilful. But if erasure is not necessarily required, the skills of the practitioner are a relevant factor.’

87. We remind ourselves of the three-fold purpose of the misconduct regime-

1. to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service.

2. to uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct.

3. to protect the public.

 

88. We turn to consider the available outcomes and do so by considering the least serious outcome first.

89. We do not consider a final written warning, even if extended would fulfil the threefold purpose. We do not consider that such an outcome would be proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. Such an outcome would not meet either of the first two objectives.

90. Furthermore, we do not believe that such an outcome would protect the public as we are not satisfied that the officer would modify his behaviour. We are driven to this conclusion by the repeated nature of the misconduct, even after the original reg17 notice was served and his continued inability to accept full culpability.

91. We take into account both the officer’s personal mitigation, his references, his training and his service to the police but are able to attach less weight to these factors given our assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct.

92. We are driven to the conclusion that only dismissal without notice meets the seriousness of the misconduct and the purpose of the regime.

93. Therefore, the decision of the Panel is the outcome that fulfils the purpose of the regime is dismissal without notice.

 

Police Barring List – Police & Crime Act 2017.

94. The AA is directed to write a report to the College of Policing seeking to have the officer placed on the police barred list.

Publication

95. The AA is directed to publish the final written report redacting the members of the public’s names from it. The officer is to be named.

Appeal

96. All officers have a right of appeal to a Police Appeals Tribunal against any disciplinary finding and/or disciplinary outcome imposed at a misconduct hearing or a finding of gross misconduct and/or any disciplinary outcome imposed. The grounds of appeal for matters dealt with under the Conduct regulations are:

a) That the finding or disciplinary action imposed was unreasonable,

b) That there is evidence that could not reasonably have been considered at the misconduct hearing which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action or,

c) That there was a breach of procedures set out in the Conduct regulations or other unfairness which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action. Where an officer wishes to appeal, they will need to give notice in writing to their local policing body. The notice must be given within ten working days, beginning with the first working day after the police officer is first supplied with a written copy of the decision they are appealing against.

 

THE PANEL

21/05/2026