A police officer was fired after receiving an overpayment of approximately £30,000.


A police officer was fired after receiving an overpayment of approximately £30,000.

A Merseyside Police officer was found guilty of failing to declare £30,000 in unpaid overtime.

Constable Christopher Lewis was judged to have engaged in gross misconduct by violating professional norms such as honesty and integrity.

The accusations were filed after an inquiry into an officer who got a large overpayment while on leave in 2019.

As the predatory paedophile is escorted to the cells, the victim cries, “You are an awful monster!”

This month’s misconduct hearing took place at Eaton Road Police Station from October 5 to 8.

PC Lewis joined Merseyside Police in 2009 and completed his sergeant’s exam in 2015, according to notes from the hearing.

He was said to be of “excellent character” and had no past misconduct rulings against him.

In late March 2019, PC Lewis’ partner was expected to deliver birth. He had enquired with Merseyside Police about his entitlement to leave and pay following the birth of his child a month before.

He was advised that he was entitled to 37 weeks of leave at £145 per week, with his salary decreasing after that.

PC Lewis was then discovered to have failed to declare a formal application for paternity leave or shared parental leave with the Human Resources team after first requesting to be paid the same as a woman on maternity leave, claiming that not doing so would be sex discrimination.

Another cop saw he was still on duty around the time his partner gave birth and booked him off on paternal leave.

According to the investigation, while PC Lewis was on paternity leave and was scheduled to return on February 17, 2020, he continued to take his wage for 45 weeks without declaring or questioning it.

Merseyside Police discovered PC Lewis was on unauthorised leave and had been overpaid by £27,723.41 in February 2020.

PC Lewis claimed in his defense that he had no idea how much money was being paid into his account and that he had not examined his bank account to see what money was being paid into his account.

“Notwithstanding the birth of. “Summary concludes,” the examining panel concluded.


Comments are closed.