September 19, 2017 10.40 am This story is over 77 months old

Police detective to face misconduct hearing accused of accessing confidential crime reports

He will appear at the hearing next week.

A police detective is set to face a misconduct hearing accused of breaching professional standards regarding confidentiality after it is claimed he accessed crime reports when he had no policing purpose.

Humberside Police Detective Constable Julian McGill is scheduled to appear at Beverley Police Station on Monday, September 25 from 10am.

The allegations against him are as follows:

  • On August 4, 2016 at 14:57:40 he accessed his own unique reference number when there was not a proper policing purpose for doing so.
  • On August 4, 2016 at 14:58:24 he accessed a crime report relating to an allegation of harassment where he was the victim and did not have a proper policing purpose for doing so.
  • On August 4, 2016 at 14:59:12 he accessed a crime report relating to an allegation of harassment where he was the victim and did not have a proper policing purpose for this access.
  • On August 4, 2016 at 15:00:03 he accessed a crime report relating to an incident at his home address where he was the suspect and did not have a proper policing purpose for this access.
  • On August 17, 2016 at 15:12:02 he accessed the same crime report relating to an incident at his home address where he was the suspect and did not have a proper policing purpose for this access.
  • On August 18, 2016 at 09:07:29 he accessed the same crime report relating to an incident at his home address where he was the suspect and did not have a proper policing purpose for this access.

The force has said that the allegations are that conduct amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of Confidentiality, Orders and Instructions and Duties and Responsibilities contrary to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012.

A Humberside Police spokesperson said: “The matters set out above are a breach of the standards which are so serious as to justify dismissal and therefore constitute gross misconduct.”