Two police officers have been found guilty of serious misconduct by engaging in sexual activity while on duty. A disciplinary panel ruled that Anthoni Eronini, a married father, and Chloe Caulfield would have been dismissed had they not already resigned from Greater Manchester Police.
The lovers denied engaging in sexual activity, but the disciplinary committee concluded that the pair had “engaged in sexual activity while on duty” and had “clearly caused emotional harm to their respective partners.”
An internal investigation by Greater Manchester Police revealed the contents of text messages between the pair that were ‘highly suggestive that the text messages and behavior of the former officers had taken place in police motor vehicles and at police stations whilst on duty’ .
READ NEXT: Major search for missing man at Dovestone Reservoir enters second day
Anthoni Eronini and Chloe Caulfield began an ’emotional and sexual relationship’ and it was ‘sufficiently serious’ for PC Caulfield to ask PC Eronini to leave his wife, according to the published findings of a GMP misconduct hearing.
The pair “engaged in sexual misconduct while on duty” by talking about sex, “engaging in sexualized messages” and “engaging in sexualized physical contact,” the ruling said.
This included kissing and PC Caulfield ‘removing her panties while on duty’, it reveals.
Their “conduct continued for a significant period of time”, the ruling said, which found that while PC Eronini was married and living with his wife with whom he has “several children” in 2021, PC Caulfield “had and was living in a long-term relationship”. with her then partner’.
The hearing was told PC Caulfield’s home was fitted with a ‘Ring’ doorbell, meaning her partner was ‘aware of when she was and was not in the property’.
“Their domestic situation was such that infidelity at the home address of ex-PC Eronini became virtually impossible,” the ruling said.
PC Eronini, who joined GMP in 2019, resigned from the force in February, while PC Caulfield, who joined the force in 2021, resigned in June last year, according to the ruling. The officers “did not participate in the proceedings,” the report said.
The panel found the pair guilty of ‘gross misconduct’.
It was alleged that the pair had ‘had an emotional and sexual relationship prior to January 21, 2023’ and that they had ‘engaged in sexual correspondence and activities whilst on police duty’.
The panel called the case “unusual” because no specific dates were given when the couple allegedly committed misconduct, but concluded that the alleged misconduct “probably” occurred in December 2022 and January 2023 “given the emails and statements of the former officers’.
The panel was urged by GMP to conclude that they were on duty at the time ‘due to the nature and content of the text messages provided’.
PC Caulfield’s then partner detailed some of the messages the pair are alleged to have exchanged as part of a complaint she made to GMP and these were ‘highly suggestive that the text messages and behavior of the former officers had taken place in police motor vehicles and at police stations while on duty,” the ruling shows.
The texts referred to “the van,” “the stairs at the gym” and “police kit” such as high-vis vests, the report said.
The panel said it had taken into account the accused officers’ denials “that any sexual activity had taken place”, but went on to say that neither had provided “detailed answers”. However, the ruling went on to say that PC Eronini ‘appeared to have accepted that he had breached the Standards of Conduct, brought discredit on his partner and his job and accepted that he had breached the duties and responsibilities expected of him as a police officer’ .
The ruling added: “The panel noted that former PC Caulfield had stated that the allegations made had not occurred, although she had sincerely apologized. The panel noted that former Officer Caulfield had made no specific denials regarding the text messages or the alleged sexual activity.”
It continued: “In these circumstances, the panel found on the balance of probabilities that the text messages were exchanged while both former officers were on duty. The panel found that the nature of the text messages, which were exchanged while on duty, were such that they amounted to a breach of the Code of Ethics and that they amounted to a breach of the standards of professional conduct in relation to duties and responsibilities and disgraceful conduct.”
The panel also found that the pair had engaged in sexual activity while on duty.
The ruling read: “Once again the panel took into account that both former officers had denied that any sexual physical contact had taken place. Nevertheless, the panel found that it was entitled to take into account the nature and content of the text messages within the The panel found that some messages suggested that sexual activity had been organised, had taken place and had been spoken about after it had occurred or whether it was referred to.
“It was accepted by former PC Eronini that he had kissed PC Caulfield and that she had given him a pair of her panties. This admission was significant as it was consistent with an exchange in the text messages where former PC Caulfield had asked former PC PC Eronini if he still had her underwear. He had responded to this question by providing details that suggested he had.
“The panel therefore found, on the balance of probabilities, that it was more likely than not that former PCs Caulfield and Eronini engaged in sexual activity while on duty. The panel therefore found that this conduct was contrary to the standards of professional conduct in relation to duties. and responsibilities and shameful behavior.
“The panel also found that the conduct of the former officers individually and collectively amounted to gross misconduct, namely a breach of the standards of professional conduct in relation to duties and responsibilities and disgraceful conduct which as such was so serious as to amount to gross misconduct . “
The panel found that their conduct was ‘deliberate and sexually motivated’, ‘was for sexual gratification’ and had ‘clearly caused emotional harm to their respective partners’. The pair had also ‘expressed remorse and apologized for their actions’.
The panel concluded that the most appropriate sanction would have been “dismissal without notice for both former officers” if they had not already resigned.