Yorkshire police officer who lied about arrests and relationship with criminal is sacked

A North Yorkshire Police officer who lied about being arrested and his relationship with a criminal has been sacked, following a disciplinary hearing.

The force said Christopher Hudson made several of “false declarations” when he applied to become a police constable in November 2017 and completed a vetting form three months later.

It comes after the 32-year-old was acquitted of sexually assaulting a woman in a police van, following a trial at Leeds Crown Court in February.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

According to the misconduct panel’s ruling, Hudson failed to tell the force he had been arrested for arson and criminal damage in 2006, and then released without charge, even though he was “fully aware of the requirement to disclose this matter”.

Christopher Hudson made several of “false declarations” when he applied to become a police constable in November 2017Christopher Hudson made several of “false declarations” when he applied to become a police constable in November 2017
Christopher Hudson made several of “false declarations” when he applied to become a police constable in November 2017

The officer, based in Harrogate, also failed to mention that he had a “notifiable association” with a criminal. He visited the man in prison and phoned him on his birthday.

When he was asked about the relationship, Hudson said they were not friends.

The misconduct panel said he failed to provide the names of his half sisters and brothers on his vetting form, even though it was clear requirement.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He also failed to disclose a county court judgement made against him, but the force accepted there may have been a “misunderstanding” and that was “a reasonable explanation”.

The panel stated: “His relationship with (the criminal) and denial of his knowledge of that person’s life alongside his failure to fully disclose his financial vulnerabilities is of significant risk to corruption and a risk to the integrity of his role as a police officer and to his colleagues.

“Had the public been aware of his relationship and behaviour and his failure to disclose previous arrests and notifiable associations, the trust and confidence in the service would be seriously affected.”

It added: “There is no confidence that the officer’s dishonest behaviour would not be repeated in the future given the multiple opportunities during this investigation for him to offer a truthful explanation for his actions. Indeed, he appears to have continued to embellish events.”