DS William Pearce

Name of officer

DS 2940 William Pearce

Date of hearing

8^th September 2026

Assistant Chief Constable

Mark Callaghan

People in attendance

Officer – William Pearce
Force Legal Advisor - Marie Macpherson
Council for the AA – Edward Barham
Investigation Officer – Mark Walsh
Counsel for Officer- Guy Ladenburg
Federation Rep – Andy Robertson
Head of PSD – Kim Goodenough
Staff Office – Chrissie Plumley
Corporate Comms – Paula Roberts
Observer – Emma Sweetzer

Outcome of hearing

Gross misconduct

Rationale for outcome:

Between the 21^st March 2025 to the 17^th October 2025 DS Pearce acted without honestly and integrity and / or failed to diligently discharge his duties by being absent from his place of duty without authorisation and / or submitting inaccurate records of his working time.

Between 26th September - 21st October 2025, DS Pearce failed to treat information with respect in that he accessed, and / or modified, and / or disclosed information that he was aware was not in the proper course of his police duties

On 25th April 2025, DS Williams behaved dishonestly and without integrity and was not diligent in the exercise of his duties, in that he told his line manager, that he was attending a dentist’s appointment when he knew that this was not true.

The Chair found that the behaviour of DS Pearce breached the standards of duties and responsibilities. With regards to honesty and integrity in the first allegation. The chair has separated the matters and found that there is a breach of integrity, but not honesty.

The Chair also found that the breach of standards in relation to the first allegation were not so serious to justify dismissal and found this to be misconduct.

With regards to accessing police systems and breaching confidentially by sending a sensitive document to their personal e-mail address the Chair separated this into two parts:

The accessing of the police data base was not found on the basis that the access had been for a policing purpose, which was to provide support and guidance.
 
In relation to sharing of confidential information, the report was sent to DS Pearce’s personal e-mail address, and this breached confidentiality and discreditable conduct which amounts to gross misconduct.

Whilst there was no intent for onward sharing or disclosing of the sensitive document / data, DS Pearce admitted to the breach of confidentiality and this practice is wholly inappropriate to which DS Pearce would have known.

Whilst there is no evidence of operational dishonesty (Dorset Police v Slater) across the allegations, DS Pearce has admitted to being dishonest in that he lied to his line manager and a staff member about attending a dentist appointment.
This breaches the standards of honesty and integrity, duties and responsibilities and discreditable conduct which amounts to gross misconduct.

Sanction

With the changes to the Police (Conduct) Regulations and the increased emphasis on maintaining public confidence in policing, where gross misconduct is found proven, there is now a presumption of dismissal, unless exceptional circumstances justify a different outcome which can be a final written warning or a reduction in rank. 

Rationale for sanction:

Having carefully considered all of the circumstances in this case, acknowledging that there are no stated cases as reference, the chair was satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed which rebutted the presumption of dismissal.

The exceptional circumstances in this case arise from the unique operational context in which the misconduct occurred.

At the relevant time, the officer was undertaking a highly specialised role that carried significant responsibility, demand and out-of-hours commitment. The evidence suggests that a disproportionate reliance was placed upon him for specialist advice and support, creating blurred professional boundaries and sustained stress and pressure that contributed to the circumstances of the misconduct.

Importantly, despite the matters under consideration, the Force has continued to entrust the officer with the same levels of security clearance and access to sensitive operational material. This demonstrates an ongoing degree of confidence in his integrity, professionalism and operational capability by the senior leadership team.

The chair made it clear that there is no evidence of operational dishonesty or corruption in this case.

The officer has shown candour, remorse and insight into his failings and has reflected meaningfully on his actions.

The misconduct is accepted to be out of character and occurred during a period of significant strain, contributing to poor judgement and decision making.

Consideration was also be given to whether organisational factors, including the management of out-of-hours working arrangements and welfare demands, contributed to the circumstances.

The chair felt as a Force they had let DS Pearce down with the out of hours aspect of the role and there will be wider learning to take forward.

However, the chair put on record that there was no suggestion of corruption, but DS Pearce was in a position of responsibility and as a line manager, should have known better. 

The chair gave due consideration to the imposition of a Final Written Warning, but he was not satisfied that such a sanction would appropriately address the seriousness of the breaches of professional behaviour identified in this case.

Those holding first-line leadership positions are expected to uphold and model the highest standards within the Force. A lesser sanction has the potential to undermine the public trust and confidence and also risk undermining discipline and good working practices within the organisation.

In all the circumstances, the chair concluded that a reduction in rank was the appropriate and proportionate final sanction

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

Publication of Notice

There is no reason why the outcome of this hearing cannot be published.