PC caught stealing loo rolls from police station guilty of misconduct

by · Mail Online

A PC who was caught stealing toilet rolls from her station in a sting by anti-corruption officers has been found guilty of misconduct.

But Leicestershire Police could take no action against Julie Smith because she had already retired from the force.

A misconduct hearing last month heard the officer, who had more than 20 years' experience, claim she only took one roll to 'clean a spillage in her car' in February last year. 

But doubts were raised over the legitimacy of the spillage because Ms Smith had 'waited several hours before purporting to attend to it' and had 'mentioned it to no-one', according to a hearing report.

Ms Smith had also 'concealed the toilet roll on the way to her vehicle' the panel heard, and blue paper hand towels had also been available.

PC Julie Smith has been found guilty of misconduct after colleagues caught her stealing toilet rolls from their station in an anti-corruption sting
The Leicestershire Police misconduct hearing was told last month how loo rolls were coated with an invisible dye and later found in Ms Smith's car, her home and a relative's car

The officer's credibility was further 'undermined' by a later admission that she had taken six toilet rolls 'over the course of a year', the panel judged.

They found Ms Smith to be 'not a credible witness' and ruled her actions amounted to misconduct.

The Leicestershire Police misconduct hearing was told last month how loo rolls were coated with an invisible dye which was only visible under an ultraviolet light after a cleaner reported items going missing.

Read More

Anti corruption officers carried out sting operation to catch colleague taking TOILET ROLL from work

One roll was found in the officer's car while other loo rolls – which are larger than domestic ones – were found at her home. Another was discovered in the boot of a car belonging to a relative.

Ms Smith was arrested and accused of taking the items from a locked dispenser at Beaumont Leys station on three occasions in 2023.

She admitted taking one to clean a spill in her car, and said she had taken others as she had a condition which caused her to sneeze a lot and needed to carry toilet roll around with her.

Ms Smith left the force ahead of the misconduct hearing, which went ahead in her absence.

Panel chair Joanne Lees said she had 'chosen not to attend' and had not appointed legal representation. 

She said while Ms Smith, who joined Leicestershire police in 2001, had made 'some admissions' the allegations were still contested. The panel chair said Ms Smith was 'not facing criminal allegations of theft'.

In an email to the investigating officer which was read out at the hearing, Ms Smith said she had intended to return the roll found in her car, saying it was a 'disposable item with a very small value'. She wrote: 'It was a stupid thing to do in hindsight but it was a health issue with no malicious intent... I have not harmed anyone. '

Leicestershire Police (headquarters seen in a stock image) could take no action against Ms Smith because she had already retired from the force

The former officer said she believed she was being made a scapegoat for the thefts. 

She said she deliberately parked her car underneath CCTV cameras as the station car park was open to the public, adding: 'If I was running a toilet roll racket I would have parked elsewhere.'

The panel said there was not enough evidence to prove two further allegations of toilet roll theft.

The panel also accepted while toilet rolls and empty rolls had been found at Ms Smith's home and in her parents' car, it could not be sure they were those taken from the station.

As Ms Smith had retired from the force by the time of the hearing, no action could be taken against her except to record the finding, police said.

Det Supt Alison Tompkins, head of the force's professional standards department, said: 'Honesty and integrity are fundamental tenets of a police officer.

'Removing any items, regardless of the value, without permission is considered to be dishonest by the standards of professional behaviour.'