by Two police officers have been found guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in sexual activity while on duty. A disciplinary panel ruled that Anthoni Eronini, a married father, and Chloe Caulfield would be sacked if they had not already resigned from Greater Manchester Police.
The lovers denied engaging in sexual activity but the disciplinary panel concluded that both had ‘engaged in sexual activity while on duty’, and had ’caused emotional harm to their respective partners’.
An internal investigation by Greater Manchester Police revealed the content of the texts between the pair which were ‘highly indicative of the text messages and behavior of the former officers having taken place in police motor vehicles and at police stations while on duty’.
READ Next: A major search for a missing man at Dovestone Reservoir enters its second day
Anthoni Eronini and Chloe Caulfield began an ’emotional and sexual relationship’ and it was ‘serious enough’ for PC Caulfield to ask PC Eronini to leave his wife, according to the published findings of a GMP misconduct hearing.
The two ‘engaged in sexual misconduct while on duty’ by talking about sex, ‘engaging in sexualised messages’ and ‘engaging in sexualised physical contact’, according to the ruling.
This included kissing and PC Caulfield ‘taking off his percussion instruments while on duty’, he reveals.
‘Their conduct continued over a considerable period’, according to the ruling, which revealed that although PC Eronini was married in 2021 and living with his wife with whom he has ‘several children’, PC Caulfield was ‘in long-term relationship and that he lived. with her partner there’.
The hearing was told that PC Caulfield’s home was fitted with a ‘Ring’ doorbell, which meant her partner knew when she was and was not in the property.
“His domestic situation was so great to make infidelity at the home address of Ex-PC Eronini almost impossible,” said the ruling.
PC Eronini, who joined GMP in 2019, resigned from the force in February and PC Caulfield, who joined the force in 2021, resigned in June last year, according to the ruling. The officers took ‘no part in the proceedings’, he said.
The panel found both guilty of ‘gross misconduct’.
It was alleged that the two had ’emotional and sexual relations before 21 January 2023′ and that they had ‘engaged in correspondence and sexual activity while on police duty’.
The panel said the case was ‘unusual’ as no specific dates were provided when the couple allegedly committed misconduct but concluded the alleged misconduct was ‘likely’ to have taken place during December 2022 and January 2023 ‘considering the emails and statements. of former officers’.
GMP urged the panel to confirm that they were on duty at the time ‘due to the nature and content of the text messages provided’.
PC Caulfield’s partner at the time detailed some of the messages the pair were said to have exchanged as part of her complaint to GMP and these were ‘highly indicative that the text messages and behavior of the former officers took place in motor vehicles police and at police stations while on duty’, the ruling shows.
The texts referred to ‘the van’, ‘the steps near the gym’ and ‘police equipment’ such as high-visibility jackets, the report says.
The panel said it took into account denials from the accused officers ‘that any sexual activity took place’ but continued that neither had provided ‘detailed answers’. However, the ruling continued that PC Eronini appeared to have accepted that he had breached the Standards of Conduct, had brought his party and his position into disrepute and had assumed that he had breached his duties and responsibilities as a Police Officer’.
The following was added to the ruling: “The panel noted that former PC Caulfield had said that the allegations made did not happen, although she had sincerely apologised. alleged sexual activity.”
He continued: “In the circumstances, the panel found on the balance of probabilities that the text messages were exchanged while the two former Officers were on duty. The panel found that the nature of the text messages were exchanged while on duty. , which constituted a breach of the Code of Ethics and which constituted a breach of the Standards of Professional Conduct in relation to duties and responsibilities and discreet behaviour.”
The panel also found that both engaged in sexual activity while on duty.
The ruling said: “Again, the panel took into account that both former Officers denied that any physical sexual contact had taken place. However, the panel found that it was entitled to take into account the nature and content of the text messages within the Contract. The panel found that some of the messages indicated that sexual activity had been arranged, occurred and discussed or referred to, after it had occurred.
“Ex-PC Eronini admitted kissing PC Caulfield and giving him a pair of her percussion instruments. This admission was significant, as it was consistent with an exchange within the text messages requested by ex-PC Caulfield on him before.PC Eronini if she still had her underwear He answered this question by providing details that he had to other officers.
“The panel therefore found, on the balance of probabilities, that it was more likely than not that former PCs Caulfield and Eronini engaged in sexual activity while on duty. The panel therefore found that this conduct breached the standards of professional conduct in relation to duties. and responsibilities and discreet behaviour.
“The panel also found that the conduct of the former Officers individually and collectively amounted to gross misconduct, that is a breach of the Standards of Professional Conduct in relation to duties and responsibilities and discretionary conduct which was so serious as to amount to gross misconduct. “
The panel ruled that their behavior was ‘intentional and sexually motivated’, ‘for the purpose of sexual gratification’ and had caused ’emotional harm to their respective partners’. Both had also ‘expressed remorse and apologized for their actions’.
The panel concluded that the most appropriate sanction would be ‘dismissal without notice in respect of the two former officers’ if they had not already resigned.
