The Police Ombudsman's Office has concluded investigations into two separate incidents of "operational dishonesty," resulting in final written warnings for the PSNI officers involved.

While dishonesty typically leads to dismissal, disciplinary panels determined that mitigating factors in both cases warranted the lesser sanction.

Nikki Davis, the Police Ombudsman's Director of Investigations, emphasised the gravity of the findings: "Incidents of operational dishonesty such as these are viewed extremely seriously within policing. The PSNI disciplinary panels noted that dishonesty would normally result in dismissal, but concluded that there were mitigating circumstances in both cases which meant that a final written warning was the appropriate sanction."

The first case involved a report from a woman living in England who suspected that over £14,000 had been stolen from her late father's bank account around the time of his death in 2020. A disciplinary hearing found that an officer performed "inadequate" enquiries before falsely recording that the complainant had consented to the case being closed. The officer further claimed to have held lengthy discussions with the woman and her solicitor, stating she was "more than happy" with the police response.

However, the Ombudsman found:

• The officer spoke to the woman only three times and never contacted her solicitor.

• The complainant was unaware the case was closed and sent six follow-up emails that went unacknowledged.

The panel cited the officer's inexperience and poor supervision as mitigating factors. The officer's supervisor also received a disciplinary sanction for failing to maintain standards.

In the second instance, an officer admitted to misleading a victim of an assault at a north coast bar in 2021. The officer falsely claimed to have viewed CCTV footage of the attack.

Additionally, the officer closed the case using a Community Resolution Notice (CRN). Investigators ruled this was inappropriate given the severity of the injuries and noted that the officer failed to check if the victim was satisfied with this outcome.

In this case, mitigation included:

• The officer immediately informed his manager once he realised the victim was dissatisfied.

• The panel viewed the incident as an isolated error by an inexperienced officer who showed genuine remorse.

Both sanctions addressed failures to follow police policy, inaccurate record-keeping, and conduct likely to bring the police service into disrepute.