WEST MIDLANDS: EX-SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM O’CONNOR WOULD HAVE BEEN SACKED OVER SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
A former senior West Midlands Police officer would have been dismissed without notice if he were still serving, after a panel ruled he committed gross misconduct by subjecting female colleagues to inappropriate behaviour.Temporary Superintendent William O’Connor, who retired in 2024 after 28 years of service, was found to have breached standards of Equality and Diversity, Authority, Respect and Courtesy, and Discreditable Conduct following a three-day hearing.
The misconduct related to a series of incidents between 2019 and 2024.
Allegations included staring at the breasts and bodies of three female staff members, making them feel uncomfortable at work.
One complainant said she resorted to wearing scarves to hide her figure, while another described having to leave a room to escape his gaze.
Although an allegation of inappropriate touching during a 2023 away day was not proven, the panel found other claims – including prolonged staring and behaviour during workplace conversations substantiated.
The panel determined O’Connor’s actions were intentional, despite his assertion that any behaviour would have been subconscious.
In its decision, the panel highlighted the seriousness of the behaviour: “The panel was satisfied that individually and collectively T/Supt O’Connor’s actions were a serious falling below of the standards of conduct expected of police officers and were so serious that they could lead to dismissal.” Despite positive testimonials from colleagues and a lengthy career, the panel gave personal mitigation little weight.
It cited repeated behaviour over time, the officer’s senior role, and national concern about police conduct towards women as aggravating factors.
Chief Constable Craig Guildford, who chaired the panel, confirmed: “Had T/Supt O’Connor still been a serving officer, the appropriate, proportionate and necessary disciplinary action to uphold standards, maintain confidence in the police service and mark the seriousness of the misconduct would have been dismissal without notice.”
