An ex-cop who pocketed a £5 note as a "cleaning fee" during a car inspection has been found guilty of gross misconduct.
Former police constable Jonathan Wolverson resigned in March after working at Banbury Police Station.
During a recent police misconduct hearing held on Teams, Wolverson was accused of discreditable conduct for keeping a five pound note he found while on duty.
He was said to have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to honesty and integrity along with his duties and responsibility.
The incident took place between September and October last year when Wolverson was conducting a vehicle check to make sure it was safe and roadworthy.
During the inspection he found a £5 note and told his colleagues words to the effect of "I'll keep it as a cleaning fee".
After taking the cash, Wolverson made no attempt to return the money and continued working.
He told interviewers he was frustrated at the state of the cars and having to continue cleaning them.
GOOGLE MAPS
|Banbury Police Station
But, he admitted to taking the cash, adding it was an error of judgement.
Wolverson offered to return the £5.
Chief Constable Jason Hogg, who chaired the hearing and ultimately found the ex-police officer guilty, said the decision came down to public expectations.
"On the balance of probabilities the behaviour did amount to gross misconduct on the simple basis that his actions fell below what the public would expect," Hogg said.
GETTY
|The former officer took a £5 note during a car inspection
“The former officer knowingly took the £5 note when he knew or ought to have known that the right thing to do would be to attempt to find the owner or advise a supervisor."
Appropriate Authority representative Amanda Holmes called for Wolverson to be dismissed.
Hogg quoted case law and said one of the main considerations was public confidence in police.
The chief constable however said “that the appropriate disciplinary action is for no formal action be taken.”
He added that there was only two options.
Whether to choose ‘no sanction’ or ‘dismissal’ and considering the case, he opted for the former.
“I stated that, taking all the circumstances into account, I was uncomfortable to dismiss the former officer and have his name added to the barred list on the basis of this set of circumstance," Hogg said.
“In the future it is entirely possible he may well have matured and developed skills and attributes that would be of use to policing.”
In handing down his decision, Hogg quoted Wolverson’s “very poor sickness record” and that he had been honest.
“There is very limited risk to the public," he said.
"Through not dismissing the former officer as he has already resigned, and this gross misconduct finding will still be visible on his record.”