A Hertfordshire police officer told a female colleague that he would try to "get into your knickers … even if you are unconscious" and sexually harassed a second colleague, a misconduct panel has found.

The officer who made the comment, referred to only as Officer D, was found to have committed gross misconduct by the panel for a range of allegations made by multiple female colleagues. Officer D resigned before the misconduct hearing took place.

Of 28 allegations laid against Officer D, 19 were found proven on the balance of probabilities and nine not proven.

On one occasion, Officer D changed the email signature of a colleague known as Ms A to "Ms A, the Fainter" after she had fainted at work, resulting in witnesses being sent emails with that signature. Officer D, who admitted the allegation, said it was a "joke" that he assumed would be noticed immediately.

At the time, Officer D and Ms A worked in the Joint Child Protection Investigation Team – a team that the misconduct panel suggested was "dysfunctional".

Officer D was also found to have made "remarks of a sexual nature" to Ms A on a number of occasions.

Talking about football, he said: "I'll be your manager, have a shower with you after each game" and "I'll make you the star player, and you can pay me back with sexual favours on and off the pitch".

On another occasion, Officer D said words to the effect of: "I have tried to get into your knickers before, I will keep on trying again even if you are unconscious."

He was also found to have pointed towards his groin and told Ms A: "Go on, touch it", and to have made "inappropriate comments" about her breasts "on at least 10 occasions".

The panel concluded that Officer D's actions towards a second colleague, Ms B, amounted to sexual harassment as well. He was found to have shouted at the colleague to move out of the way while he said "words to the effect that [he] needed a good view of [a female colleague]" because he wanted to "do her".

According to the panel's report, Officer D showed a lack of "self-control, respect and courtesy" during the incident. The panel added: "The sexual objectification of a colleague discredited the police service and would undermine public confidence in the service."

Another colleague, DC Brine, was in a car with Officer D when they spoke about a "misunderstanding" they had had a few weeks previously in Hatfield.

Officer D was found to have made "threatening remarks", including that he was "so angry" about the situation that if he had spoken to her on the day, he would've "punched [her] in the face". When DC Brine complained about this, Officer D said: "I'm trying to see if there's a way I could punch you in the face in this car right now and get away with it."

Further allegations that were found proven by the panel included:

• After Ms A returned to work, having suffered from "poor mental health", Officer D said: "We don't want your parents suing the force if you go and kill yourself."
• Officer D "aggressively" threw car keys at Ms A.
• Officer D described Ms B as "walking like a spas" during a conversation about a condition that may have required her to receive medical treatment.

The panel concluded that Officer D broke standards of professional behaviour relating to authority, respect and courtesy, and equality and diversity.

They said he would have been dismissed had he remained a serving officer at the time of the hearing, and he is also set to be placed on the College of Policing barred list.

The panel concluded that Officer D's "neurodiverse characteristics" may have been "a material cause in at least some of the behaviours" but were not "the sole cause of any of the behaviours".

Their report continued: "We take into account the officer's neurodiversity, but the repeated and continuing nature of the behaviour, the acceptance that the former officer could control his behaviour,s and the continuation after challenge lessens the impact of this mitigation.

"The team upon which the former officer served was dysfunctional, inappropriate in its use of expression and lacked sufficient supervision. However, this cannot excuse his behaviour.

"The overall level of culpability is high.

"The level of harm was high. 

"The actions were deliberate. 

"There was psychological harm to members of the team affected

"The treatment of women, the threat of violence and the change of signature would, if known of, cause significant reputational harm and significantly affect public confidence in the service.

"The misconduct was repeated and … the behaviour was continuing even after there should have been awareness of wrongdoing."

After the hearing, Hertfordshire Constabulary's deputy chief constable Andy Mariner said: "This officer's behaviour clearly fell well short of that expected of a serving Hertfordshire police officer and he would have been sacked had he not resigned beforehand.

"I want to reassure residents of Hertfordshire, and all officers and staff here in the force, that there is no place for inappropriate behaviour in policing or in any workplace.

"We will not tolerate such behaviour and people falling short of our high professional and ethical standards have no place in our organisation.

"I am content that the team where this individual was based is working well and across the organisation, all officers and staff know what is and is not acceptable and will confidently call out poor behaviour."