A predatory police officer who sent explicit pictures to female colleagues for 12 years would have been sacked if he had not already resigned, a misconduct hearing heard.
Thomas Harvey, at temporary detective sergeant for Norfolk Police sent unsolicited sexual messages and images between 2011 and 2023. An independent panel concluded his behaviour was motivated by sexual gratification and amounted to “deliberate predatory steps” over a significant period.
Harvey – who was nominated for officer in the year in 2017 – resigned from the force in April 2023, after an internal investigation into him was launched.
The misconduct panel has now ruled that if he was still employed he would have been dismissed without notice for breaching professional standards amounting to gross misconduct.
The hearing was told the married former officer had sent pictures of a penis to one woman on multiple occasions in 2011 and 2012. Harvey also sent images to an acting sergeant in 2015 with a message asking: “what would you do with that?”
On other occasions in 2021, he messaged another police worker asking “when are you sitting on my face then?”
Another message read: “How good a friend are you… I need help with a back sack and crack…would you help me?”
He also asked a custody detention officer whether or not she wore pyjamas in bed and messaged a special constable referring to the tightness of her uniform trousers.
His behaviour came to light in February 2023 when he sent a WhatsApp message to a special constable stating “if you want to see what I’ve got…” followed by a picture of a penis.
The woman told the disciplinary panel she had given him her mobile number hoping to get advice on how to progress her career in the police. The former officer, who worked in a role investigating serious sexual offences, also breached data rules by keeping personal details from rape cases.
Chairman Andrew Hearn said: “The panel considered this to be a very serious case of repeated misogyny and inappropriate behaviour towards females, including female officers, over an extended period where this issue has been highlighted as one of national concern for policing.
“Equally the failure on the part of an officer of rank to respect the confidentiality of sensitive data is a very serious matter.”
Harvey was found to have photographed and kept on his phone sensitive personal data. This included the phone number, aliases and photo of a witness in a rape investigation. He also kept a picture of part of a witness statement from a woman containing an explicit description of a rape.
The panel said at the time much of his work would have involved the investigation of serious sexual offences.
Mr Hearn added: “That fact, coupled with the training which he will have received, should have made him acutely sensitive to the need to ensure that communications with colleagues were appropriate and treat sensitive information relating to the commission of alleged sexual offences.
“Yet his conduct revealed a complete failure on his part to do either of those things and all of this further aggravates his offending behaviour.”
The case is among an increasing number of Norfolk police officers facing misconduct investigations, which rose by almost 50 per cent last year.
Chief constable Paul Sanford has said he expects more officers to face disciplinary action in the coming months amid greater scrutiny.
Harvey, previously a beat manager in Poringland, a village in Norfolk, did not attend the misconduct hearing and was not represented.
When interviewed under caution in June 2023 he initially answered ‘no comment’ to all questions but had later offered explanations for the data protection allegations.
He told investigators: “Everything is work-related in my time at work when I am dealing with a number of jobs and I have not done anything with any material or meeting anyone or anything like that.”
In written evidence, one of the female officers who received a penis picture from him said she had not reported it because she “just thought that it was one of those things that unfortunately females get”.
Another said although she had thought it was “pervy” she had not been offended enough to raise it and had thought of him as “a bloody idiot”.
