Hastings police sergeant superimposed colleague’s face onto pornographic picture

Police sergeant Rob Adams, based at Hastings, faces allegations of breaching the standards of professional behaviour expected from the police, and he appeared in front of a disciplinary hearing on Thursday (December 3).

Between 2017 and 2019, PS Adams was a member of a team WhatsApp group that consisted of 20 police constables. Over a period of 17 months, it is alleged PS Adams sent messages containing explicit or pornographic images, participated in conversations of a sexual nature, participated in conversations that were derogatory about colleagues and instigated conversations about the physical appearance of a female colleague by sharing a screenshot of one of her Instagram posts into the WhatsApp group.

The hearing also heard PS Adams created a Secret Santa gift for a colleague in December 2017 by cutting a picture of a naked woman from a pornographic magazine and superimposed a female colleague’s face onto the image. He mounted it in a frame and a picture of it was then shared into the WhatsApp group, the hearing was told.

PS Adams accepted his behaviour amounted to misconduct but denied it was gross misconduct.

James Berry, bringing the case for Sussex Police, claimed PS Adams’ conduct amounted to gross misconduct which, if found, could result in PS Adams being dismissed from the force.

Mr Berry told the hearing PS Adams, as a supervisor of constables, had a duty to put a stop to inappropriate messages, particularly those referring to colleagues who were not in the WhatsApp group.

He said: “Sergeant Adams’ conduct is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable for any officer but aggravated by an officer in his position. In that role (as supervisor), he was required to set an example to encourage the professional behaviour and code of ethics. But instead, over a period of 17 months he participated in, and encouraged, the very type of behaviour he should have been standing against.”

The hearing was told that none of the other members of the WhatsApp group were offended by PS Adams’ messages, but Mr Berry said this did not make his behaviour acceptable.

“This is just a reflection on them (the other members of the group),” he said. “In their submissions, the other members of the group said it was a group of consenting adults, nobody was forced to join it and if anyone was offended then they would have left. What this demonstrates is that general officers did not understand the significance of PS Adams’ conduct.

“It’s like saying it’s ok for officers to make sexist jokes in the canteen because if someone was offended they could just get up and walk away. That would not make it acceptable.”

Defending PS Adams, Mark Aldred disputed this, saying it would be inappropriate to make these jokes in the work place, but argued – in this case – they were made in a private WhatsApp group while PS Adams and the other officers were off duty.

He argued PS Adams’ conduct – which he called ‘smutty schoolboy behaviour’ – amounted to misconduct but not gross misconduct.

The hearing, which is due to last two days, continues.