A former detective based in Peterborough would have been dismissed without notice after admitting a criminal offence linked to a device inside a prison, a misconduct hearing has concluded. Detective Constable Zoe Rogers, who was previously stationed at Thorpe Wood Police Station, was found to have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of Honesty and Integrity and Discreditable Conduct.
An accelerated misconduct hearing, held at Cambridgeshire Constabulary on 9 February 2026, determined that although Rogers is no longer a serving officer, her conduct amounted to gross misconduct and would have resulted in her dismissal.
Deputy Chief Constable Chris Balmer said: “Police officers are entrusted with significant responsibility, and the public quite rightly expect us to uphold the highest standards of honesty, integrity and professionalism at all times.
“We will act decisively, as we did in this case, to maintain public confidence.”
Conditional caution for prison-related offence
The hearing was told that on 28 October 2025, former DC Rogers accepted a Conditional Caution in relation to the offence of aiding and abetting the unauthorised possession of a device inside a prison.
The offence was contrary to section 40D(3A) and (3B) of the Prisons Act 1952 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.
The former officer admitted the offence and took responsibility for her actions.
However, notes to editors issued by the force stressed an important clarification.
“The Professional Standards Department investigation demonstrated that the former officer was in no way involved with any device entering a prison,” the report stated.
It added: “The caution that the former officer accepted, concerns the offence of aiding and abetting the unauthorised possession of a device inside a prison.”
Accelerated misconduct process
The case was dealt with under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (Amended) as an accelerated misconduct hearing.
The chair outlined that the purpose of the misconduct regime is:
- “To maintain public confidence and the reputation of the police service
- To uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct
- To protect the public”
Under the process, the Appropriate Authority was required to prove the allegations on the balance of probabilities — meaning whether they were “more likely than not” to be true.
The chair explained: “I shall not find that alleged conduct amounts to gross misconduct unless it is admitted, or I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that gross misconduct has been proven on the material before me.”
No witnesses gave evidence during the hearing. The evidence considered was contained within documents served with the Regulation 51 Notice.
It was established that Rogers had been routinely updated about the timing and venue of the hearing but elected not to attend. She was represented by the Police Federation.
Breach of honesty and discreditable conduct standards
The allegations centred on breaches of two key Standards of Professional Behaviour set out in Schedule 2 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020:
- Honesty and Integrity
- Discreditable Conduct
Under the standards, officers must state: “I will be honest and act with integrity at all times and will not compromise or abuse my position.”
They must also declare: “I will behave in a manner, whether on or off duty, which does not bring discredit on the police service or undermine public confidence in policing.”
The chair concluded: “I am satisfied that the facts outlined by the Appropriate Authority are proven, and the former officer’s conduct breached both of these standards.”
Although Rogers accepted her conduct amounted to misconduct, she did not accept that it constituted gross misconduct.
The chair disagreed.
‘Culpability is therefore HIGH’
In a detailed written determination, the chair assessed culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors.
On culpability, the ruling was unequivocal.
“In this case there is no doubting the fact that the former officer was solely responsible for their conduct,” the chair said.
“The actions of the former officer were deliberate.
“The former officer could have reasonably foreseen the risk of harm to the reputation of policing.
“As stated within CoP guidance on outcomes, it is unacceptable for police officers, who are responsible for enforcing the law, to break the law themselves.
“Such offending involves a fundamental breach of the public’s trust in police officers and inevitably brings the profession into disrepute.
“Culpability is therefore HIGH.”
‘Harm is therefore HIGH’
The chair also found that the reputational damage caused by the offence was severe.
“In this case harm has been caused to the reputation of the Constabulary, the police service and importantly it damages the trust and confidence that the public have in their police,” the determination stated.
The ruling emphasised that harm does not need to be suffered by a specific individual to undermine public confidence.
It added: “The actions undertaken seriously undermine discipline and good order within the police service and it matters not whether actual harm has resulted to others.”
Referring to national guidance, the chair highlighted: “Where gross misconduct has been found and the behaviour has caused – or could have caused – serious harm to public confidence on the police service, dismissal is likely to follow.”
“The actions of the former officer would undoubtedly undermine public confidence, having been cautioned for such an offence.
“Harm is therefore HIGH.”
Aggravating and mitigating factors
Among the aggravating factors identified were:
- Ongoing national concern regarding misconduct within the police
- Two breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour
- A significant deviation from force policy or national guidance
However, the hearing also acknowledged mitigation.
“I acknowledge the personal challenges that the former officer was experiencing, which they raised throughout the investigation,” the chair said.
It was also noted that by accepting the caution, Rogers had shown “a degree of insight”.
The chair confirmed receipt of a 2022 letter highlighting the former officer’s good work and acknowledged her contribution to policing.
But the weight given to personal mitigation was limited in light of the seriousness of the findings.
Quoting from case law in R (on the application of Williams) v the Police Appeals Tribunal, the determination stated: “The importance of maintaining public confidence in and respect for the police service is constant, regardless of the nature of the gross misconduct under consideration.
“The more it does so, the less weight can be given to personal mitigation…
“Where the facts show dishonesty, case law establishes that dismissal will almost always be necessary, and dismissal will often also be necessary where the misconduct involves a lack of integrity.”
Would have been dismissed without notice
The outcome was clear.
“Therefore, as a result of this hearing, to deal adequately with the issues identified, whilst maintaining public trust and confidence.
“Had the former officer still been a serving officer, they would have been dismissed without notice.”
It was further recommended that Rogers be placed on the College of Policing barred list, preventing her from returning to policing.
The former officer will be formally notified in writing within five working days of the decision and informed of her right of appeal.
Maintaining public confidence
The chair reiterated that professional disciplinary proceedings are not primarily about punishment.
“The purpose of professional disciplinary proceedings is not, primarily, punishment, but instead to maintain the reputation of the profession in question and thus public confidence in that profession.”
Deputy Chief Constable Balmer echoed that message following the hearing.
“Police officers are entrusted with significant responsibility, and the public quite rightly expect us to uphold the highest standards of honesty, integrity and professionalism at all times,” he said.
“We will act decisively, as we did in this case, to maintain public confidence.”
The full determination and outcome of the accelerated misconduct hearing have been published by Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
