By Grâçia Ada Obi
Two United Kingdom (UK) police officers have been found guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in sexual activity while on duty. A disciplinary panel ruled Anthoni Eronini, a married father, and Chloe Caulfield would have been sacked had they not already resigned from Greater Manchester Police.
The lovers denied they had engaged in sexual activity but the disciplinary panel concluded the pair had ‘engaged in sexual activity whilst on duty,’ and had ‘clearly caused emotional harm to their respective partners.’
An internal investigation by Greater Manchester Police uncovered the contents of texts between the pair which were ‘highly suggestive that the text messages and conduct of the former officers had taken place in police motor vehicles and at police stations whilst on duty.’
Anthoni Eronini and Chloe Caulfield embarked on an ’emotional and sexual relationship’ and it was ‘sufficiently serious’ for PC Caulfield to ask PC Eronini to leave his wife, according to the published findings of a GMP misconduct hearing.
The pair ‘engaged in sexual misconduct whilst on duty’ by talking about sex, ‘engaging in sexualised messaging’ and ‘engaging in sexualised physical contact,’ according to the ruling.
This included kissing and PC Caulfield ‘removing her knickers whilst on duty,’ it reveals.
Their ‘conduct continued over a significant period,’ according to the ruling, which revealed that while PC Eronini was married in 2021 and lived with his wife with whom he has ‘several children,’ PC Caulfield was ‘in a long term relationship and lived with her then partner.’
The hearing was told PC Caulfield’s home was fitted with a ‘Ring’ doorbell which meant her partner ‘was aware of when she was and was not in the property.’
“Their domestic situation was such as to make infidelity at Ex-PC Eronini’s home address almost impossible,” said the ruling.
PC Eronini, who joined GMP in 2019, resigned from the force in February while 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,’ it said.
The panel found the pair guilty of ‘gross misconduct.’
It was alleged the pair conducted ‘an emotional and sexual relationship prior to 21 January 2023’ and that they ‘engaged in sexual correspondence and activity whilst on police duty.’
The panel said the case was ‘unusual’ as no specific dates had been provided when the couple were alleged to have misbehaved but it concluded the alleged misconduct was ‘likely’ to have taken place during December 2022 and January 2023 ‘considering the emails and statements of the former officers.’
The panel was urged by GMP to conclude they were on duty at the time ‘due to the nature and the content of the text messages provided.’
PC Caulfield’s then partner detailed some of the messages the pair were said to have exchanged as part of a complaint she lodged with GMP and these were ‘highly suggestive that the text messages and conduct of the former officers had taken place in police motor vehicles and at police stations whilst on duty,’ the ruling reveals.
The texts referred to ‘the van’, ‘the steps near the gym’ and ‘police kit’ such as high-visibility jackets, says the report.
The panel said it had taken into account denials from the accused officers ‘that any sexual activity had occurred’ but it went on that neither had provided ‘detailed responses.’ The ruling, however, continued that PC Eronini ‘appeared to have accepted that he had breached the Standards of Conduct, discredited his partner and his job and accepted that he had breached the duties and responsibilities required of him as a Police Officer.’
The ruling added: “The panel noted that former PC Caulfield had stated that the allegations made had not occurred, although she had apologised sincerely. The panel noted that former Officer Caulfield had not made any specific denials in relation to either the text messages or the alleged sexual activity.”
It went on: “In the circumstances, the panel found on the balance of probabilities that the text messages had been exchanged whilst both former Officers had been on duty. The panel found that the nature of the text messages, having been exchanged whilst on duty, were such that they amounted to a breach of the Code of Ethics and that they amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to duties and responsibilities and discreditable conduct.”
The panel also found that the pair had engaged in sexual activity while on duty.
The ruling said: “Again, the panel took into account that both former Officers had denied that any sexual physical contact had taken place. Nevertheless, the panel found that it was entitled to take into account the nature and content of the text messages within the bundle. The panel found that some of the messages suggested that sexual activity had been arranged, had occurred and had been discussed or referenced, following its occurrence.
“It had been accepted by former PC Eronini that he had kissed PC Caulfield and that she had given him a pair of her knickers. This admission was significant, because it was consistent with an exchange within the text messages whereby former PC Caulfield had asked former PC Eronini if he still had her underwear. He had responded to this question by providing detail suggesting he had. He later admitted that he had to other officers.
“The panel found therefore, on the balance of probabilities, that it was more likely than not that former PCs Caulfield and Eronini engaged in sexual activity whilst on duty. The panel therefore found that this behaviour breached the standards of professional behaviour in relation to duties and responsibilities and discreditable conduct.
“The panel also found that the former Officers’ conduct individually and collectively amounted to gross misconduct, namely a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in relation to duties and responsibilities and discreditable conduct which were so serious as such that they amounted to gross misconduct.”
The panel ruled their behaviour was ‘deliberate and was sexually motivated’, ‘was for sexual gratification’ and had ‘clearly caused emotional harm to their respective partners’. The pair had also ‘expressed remorse and had apologised for their actions’.
The panel concluded the most appropriate sanction ‘would have been dismissal without notice in relation to both former officers’ had they not already resigned.
