Death of Ian Morton

[2][3] It was heavily raining that morning and whilst on the A337 Lymington Road, Highcliffe, Morton made a phone call to his supervisor, Detective Sergeant Wayne Seymour, having realised he was running late.

[1][2] Around a minute after the phone call was made, at approximately 05:40 GMT, Morton crashed into a bungalow belonging to an elderly couple located on the corner of Lymington Road and Curzon Way.

Tanswell was fast asleep when the accident happened, waking up to 'two prolonged bangs' and initially thinking a shelf had fallen down, but saw smoke and what appeared to be a car.

[2] Dorset Coroner Sherriff Payne concluded that Morton had died as result of the accident, stating: "There is a nagging feeling that he may have been using his phone near the time he lost control.

"[2] Salter became aware that Morton, who was married, had been having an affair with a Special Constable in another police force that he had spent the evening before his death with her, whilst his wife was on a night shift in her job as a carer.

On 27 October, Salter met with Mesher and instructed him to attend the yard that Morton's vehicle had been recovered to, locate the mobile phone and destroy it.

Mesher instead decided to raise Salter's request for him to destroy evidence with senior colleagues, with the matter being reported to the Professional Standards Department.

Salter stated that he was aware the Coroner would require all the evidence to be provided, but he wanted to protect Morton's family, who could have discovered about the affair.

The Panel accepts that on the balance of probability you made a decision to have the mobile phone belonging to Ian Morton removed and destroyed as you were concerned about the feelings of his family.

However, the decision to remove the mobile phone had serious implications in relation to subsequent investigation of the road traffic collision.

The Panel also consider that your direction to PC Scott Mesher to remove and destroy the mobile phone is an aggravating factor and could have led to another officer compromising their integrity.

Those holding the office of Constable, which carries with it not only significant responsibilities but also enormous powers, are expected to have the personal strength of character to make sound judgements under pressure and in the face of ethical dilemma.

Mr Salter's application for this Review argued that the decision to require an officer to resign calls for a 'careful and proper analysis of the facts and mitigation in any particular case'.

In my view the fact that Mr Salter has been allowed the dignity of resignation rather than being dismissed from the service demonstrates how fully the mitigation, his previous good record and the character evidence has been taken into account.

Conversely, any lesser sanction, such as reduction in rank or a financial penalty would, in my view, be wholly inadequate to mark the seriousness of Mr Salter's misconduct.

The misconduct admitted is not an issue solely in relation to rank but also to Mr Salter's honesty and integrity as a police officer, which as a result of his own actions has been irreparably damaged.32.

Furthermore I do not believe that Mr Salter could ever again become a good and efficient police officer due to the entire question of an ongoing lack of trust.

For example, the nature of Mr Salter's misconduct would mean that he would be able to undertake only a very limited range of police duties because he simply could not be put forward to the Crown Prosecution Service or the courts as a witness of truth.33.

Laudable as that may seem, he crossed the line into unprofessional conduct which involved a junior officer who, commendably, had the good sense not to carry out the instructions...''This was a one-off aberration in an otherwise unblemished career.

''We consider that the public might well think it somewhat harsh and lacking in compassion for an officer in the Appellant's position and situation to lose his job, with all that that entails, for what he did.

We are clear, however, that the Appellant should be forthwith relieved of his supervisory role, something he himself has contended for before the Panel, the Chief Constable and in his grounds of appeal before this Tribunal.

[12][14][15] On 14 December 2011, Mr. Justice Burnett ruled that the tribunal had 'applied the wrong legal test and given too much weight to Salter's unblemished career and exceptional character'.

Within his judgement, Mr. Justice Burnett applied the language of Sir Thomas Bingham MR who said in Bolton v Law Society [1994]:[15]“Any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal… the most serious (type of case) involves proven dishonesty… in such cases the Tribunal has almost invariably, no matter how strong the mitigation advanced for the solicitor, ordered that he be struck off the Rolls of Solicitors.”Burnett J found no reason why such principles should not apply with equal force to the police service.

This was outlined where the judgement stated:'As to personal mitigation, just as an unexpectedly errant solicitor can usually refer to an unblemished past and the esteem of his colleagues, so will a police officer often be able so to do.

[18] Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset [2012] EWCA Civ 1047 is quoted in other police misconduct cases, including where a claimant has appealed a decision.