Ravi Canhye

Accelerated Misconduct Hearing of Former Police Constable Ravi Canhye held on 25th October 2023

Finding

I have had the benefit of the papers in advance of today and have read them carefully before the Hearing.

I have listened to the case presented by the Appropriate Authority

I have carefully considered the documentary evidence provided to me,

including:

• The Investigator’s report which details the criminal investigation, charges and court outcome and
• PSC record of conviction in the absence of the certificate of conviction which is not yet available from the court.
• Reg 54 response of former PC Canhye

The facts in this case are clear.

Former PC Canhye is reported to have committed a number of sexual offences against 2 victims during Saturday 9th and Sunday 10th April 2022.

Former PC Canhye was arrested on 20th April 2022 and was interviewed in relation to the reported offences.

On 24th January 2023, the Crown Prosecution Service authorised a number of charges under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, namely:

Victim 1

During 9th – 10th April 2022.

• S 1 Rape - vaginal intercourse.
• S 2 Assault by penetration – Vaginal digital penetration.
• S 2 Assault by penetration - Anal digital penetration
• S 1 Rape - Oral sex
• S 3 Sexual Assault - Sexual touching of her breasts (injuries).
• Criminal Attempts Act - Attempted anal rape
• S 2 Assault by penetration – Vaginal digital penetration.

Victim 2

On Sunday 10th April 2022

• S 3 Sexual Assault.

The criminal case was heard at Winchester Crown Court on Monday 26th September 2023 and concluded on 4th October 2023 where former PC Canhye was found guilty on all eight counts and sentenced to 16.5 years imprisonment.

These convictions were at the criminal level of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Behaving in this way, that is committing serious sexual offences against 2 victims and being convicted for the offences at court, discredits the police service and significantly undermines public trust and confidence.

Former PC Canhye accepts that his conviction for Rape and the other associated offences amounts to discreditable conduct, as do the actions that led to his convictions.

I therefore consider that former PC Canhye has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of:

• Discreditable Conduct

Former PC Canhye committed the offences as convicted and can have been in no doubt whatsoever that his actions were unlawful and wrong. In addition, it is unacceptable for police officers, whether on or off duty, who are responsible for upholding the law, to break the law themselves and to do so brings discredit on the service. His convictions, their seriousness, and the sentence that followed reflects the gravity of the breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

I have reminded myself that gross misconduct is a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour so serious that dismissal would be justified. That doesn’t necessarily mean that dismissal will follow, but it does mean that the behaviour is such that it is right for dismissal to be considered and if dismissal were the outcome, it would be justified.

Applying that definition, I find the matter proven as gross misconduct.

Outcome

Having considered the matter fully and having had regards to the nature and severity of the breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour, my decision is that, had he remained a serving officer, former PC Canhye would have been:

• Dismissed without notice.

Rationale

The College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings is a clear document that sets out the stages of the decisionmaking process. I have applied those Guidelines and that process to my decision-making in this case.

There are three stages to determining the appropriate sanction:

1. assess the seriousness of the misconduct
2. keep in mind the purpose of imposing sanctions
3. choose the sanction that most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question The first stage of deciding on the outcome is to assess the seriousness of the proven conduct by reference to:
   1. the officer’s culpability for the misconduct
   2. the harm caused by the misconduct
   3. the existence of any aggravating factors
   4. the existence of any mitigating factors

The second stage is to keep in mind the purpose of the police misconduct regime. This has three elements:

1. To maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service
2. To uphold high standards and deter misconduct
3. To protect the public.

The police misconduct regime is not designed to punish police officers – it is about the reputation and standing of the profession as a whole.

The third stage is to choose the outcome that most appropriately fulfils the purpose given the seriousness of the conduct in question and must be imposed fairly and proportionately and must be used to achieve organisational justice.

This should be the least severe outcome which deals adequately with the issues identified, while protecting the public interest.

I have also considered former PC Canhye’s record of service during this decision-making process. A written copy of the record of service was not available, but salient points were read out by the Investigating Officer during the hearing.

At all times I must be aware of and adhere to human rights and equality legislation. That is, of course, part of my approach at all times as a police officer.

Every case is different and I have made my decision on the specific facts of this individual case.

I have started by assessing the seriousness of the conduct.

Stage 1 – Seriousness of the conduct

Culpability

Former PC Canhye has committed eight serious sexual offences over a 2-day period against 2 female victims. He was found guilty following a contested criminal trial. The conviction was based upon the burden of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, therefore on that factual basis, I determine that former PC Canhye would have known that he was committing such acts, is wholly responsible for his actions, knowing that they were wrong.

I have also considered other factors in his culpability:

It is unacceptable for police officers, who are responsible for enforcing the law, to break the law themselves. In this case, the offences committed are serious and former PC Canhye would have known this.

Such offending involves a fundamental breach of the public’s trust in police officers and inevitably brings the profession into disrepute.

In this case, former PC Canhye has committed serious sexual offences against two female victims.

These offences are regarded as Violence against women and girls. The term 'violence against women and girls' refers to acts of violence or abuse that are known to disproportionately affect women and girls.

Policing has come under national scrutiny through high-profile cases where there has been a failing to prevent or protect women and girls from abuse and violence, and/or violence has been perpetrated by those serving the police. It is imperative that policing makes it clear that misconduct of this nature is wholly unacceptable, setting a clear expectation as to the seriousness to which these matters are treated.

Violence against women and girls perpetrated by a police officer, whether onduty or off-duty, will always have a high degree of culpability, with the likely outcome being severe.

Former PC Canhye also accepts that his conviction for Rape and the other associated offences amounts to discreditable conduct, as do the actions that led to his convictions.

Given all these additional factors and the facts of this case, I determine that the culpability of former PC Canhye is extremely high.

Harm

Former PC Canhye’s actions have caused harm in a number of areas:

• Individual harm - The victims in this case have suffered from sexual abuse which will undoubtedly caused secondary harm relating to damage to their physical and mental health, due to the very nature of the offences
• Reputational harm - It is entirely unacceptable for police officers who are responsible for enforcing the law to break the law themselves. Any conviction is serious and likely – on its own – to have an adverse impact on public confidence in policing. The seriousness of the offences committed here and the additional scale and depth of local and national concern further harms public trust and confidence, both to Dorset Police, but also to national policing.
• Trust and Confidence - A factor of the greatest importance is the impact of the misconduct on the standing and reputation of the profession as a whole. These offences are those relating to violence against women and girls perpetrated by a police officer. The fact that former PC Canhye was off-duty when the offences does not lessen the harm to trust and confidence in policing, since this is inimical to the values of modern policing and the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
• The facts of this case are known by the public by the virtue of the criminal court trial. The nature of the offending is such that victims of sexual offences must have trust and confidence in policing to report such matters knowing that their reports wills be dealt with thoroughly and professionally. To have officers convicted of sexual offences working within the service is untenable to our victim service. Given all of these factors, I deem the level of harm to be extremely grave.

Aggravating factors

Having considered the details of this case, I have recorded the following factors that tend to worsen the circumstances of the case:

• Repeated behaviour – former PC Canhye committed a number of offences over a two-day period
• Multiple victims – these offences were committed against two victims
• Vulnerability – within the Judge’s sentencing comments I note that one of the victims was considered vulnerable and the offences committed with a child present in the house
• Any form of violence against women and girls, whether on or off-duty – these offences were committed against two female victims
• Scale and depth of local and national concern about a particular issue – the matter of acts of violence against women and girls is of local and national importance.

Mitigating factors

I have considered the Regulation 54 response from former Pc Canhye and note that there were no further representations made on his behalf by Mr Robertson. I have also read the sentencing Judge’s remarks within the court papers that refer to alcohol abuse and mental health issues.

I note that former PC Canhye has offered an apology to all of those impacted by his actions with his Regulation 54 response, however, I assess that this holds little value other than in general remorse given the fact that this has occurred after the criminal case was held in a contested trial by jury.

Former PC Canhye’s personal record does not offer anything that would be considered personal mitigation that would lessen the circumstances of this case.

Having assessed the personal mitigation, I consider that the misconduct is so serious that nothing less than dismissal would be sufficient to maintain public confidence and the personal mitigation will not justify a lesser sanction.

Therefore, because the culpability and harm are so high, and there is no tangible mitigation that would tend to reduce the gravity of former PC Canhye’s conduct and behaviour in a way that means I would consider that taking no disciplinary action would be justified. (This would have been my only alternative option given that the officer has already resigned)

Stage 2 – Keep in mind the purpose if the misconduct regime

I explained earlier that the decision-making process has three stages. I now move to the second stage, which is to keep in mind the purpose of the police misconduct regime.

As I mentioned before, this has three elements:

• To maintain public confidence in and the reputation of the police service,
• To uphold high standards and deter misconduct, and
• To protect the public.

In behaving in the way he did, as I have described above, and in being convicted of a number of criminal offences in respect of that behaviour, former PC Canhye has discredited himself, Dorset Police and national policing.

This was very grave misconduct which undermines public confidence in policing as well as our reputation.

The public could not have confidence in former PC Canhye to protect them if he is willing to commit such serious criminal offences. Nor would the public have confidence in the policing if we appeared not to take such criminal convictions and such behaviour by a police officer seriously - which I know would be the case if I imposed any lesser sanction today.

A lesser sanction would not serve to uphold high standards and deter misconduct that is so out of keeping with colleagues’ and the policing’s ethics and values.

Stage 3 – Choose the outcome that most appropriately fulfils the purpose given the seriousness of the conduct in question

I now move to the third stage of decision-making, which is to choose the outcome that most appropriately fulfils the purpose given the seriousness of the conduct in question.

In this case, the officer has resigned from the force and as such I can only consider two outcomes:

1. Disciplinary action
2. No disciplinary action

Where the finding is gross misconduct and disciplinary action is imposed, this can only be that the former officer would have been dismissed if still serving.

No other sanctions can be enforced. If the finding is gross misconduct but I determine that dismissal is not justified, then no action will be taken and the gross misconduct will be recorded.

DECISION

For the reasons set out above, it is clear to me and it is my decision that determining that no disciplinary action would be taken would be an inadequate outcome for behaviour and a criminal conviction of this kind.

Therefore nothing less than dismissal, had former PC Canhye remained serving, would fulfil the purpose of the police misconduct regime.

Had former PC Canhye remained a serving officer, my decision would have been that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct and the outcome would have been:

Dismissal without notice

Publication of Notice

Having considered the representations made, I have decided that there is no reason why the outcome of this hearing cannot be published on the College of Policing Barred List

The wording will state:

‘Officer convicted of rape and 7 other related offences’

Amanda Pearson
Chief Constable

1300hrs 25th October 2023