Two police officers sacked over despicable recordings

A police officer with the PSNI has been dismissed, along with a colleague, after they filmed and photographed vulnerable people without consent and shared the images with sexualised comments. Police Ombudsman Jacqui Durkin called their behaviour utterly despicable. Eighteen people were identified in material dating from 2016 to 2021.

Key Takeaways

• Two former PSNI officers were sacked after an ombudsman inquiry found they recorded vulnerable members of the public and shared images with demeaning commentary.
• Eighteen people were identified in photos, videos and messages on Officer A's phones between 2016 and 2021, including scenes in homes, hospitals and police vehicles.
• Deputy Chief Constable Bobby Singleton described the conduct as horrifying and said it fell far below public standards.
• Prosecutors directed no criminal prosecution; dismissals followed disciplinary processes after devices revealed the material.
• A third officer received a final written warning for failing to report an inappropriate video.

Why were the two PSNI police officers dismissed?

Two Police Service of Northern Ireland officers lost their jobs after investigators concluded they treated people they were sent to help with contempt rather than care. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland characterised their actions as "utterly despicable".

Officer A took videos and pictures of people who were drunk, had reported crimes, or were considered at risk of self-harm, without their knowledge. Some images were shared on WhatsApp with sexualised and demeaning commentary, including with a member of the public.

Officer B photographed two vulnerable women and sent the pictures to Officer A with derogatory and sexualised messages. He also appeared in a bedroom video recorded by Officer A of a woman with complex needs and learning difficulties, during which sexual comments were made.

According to the ombudsman, almost all of those affected were vulnerable, some extremely so. Policing Board chair Mukesh Sharma said the officers showed a "callous disregard" for people at their most vulnerable.

What did investigators find about the bedroom recording?

In June 2021, the two officers were sent to the home of a woman with mental health needs and learning difficulties after a welfare concern. Officer A filmed her in bed in nightwear while Officer B stood at the foot of the bed.

The report said Officer A posed a highly inappropriate question using slang about the woman's sex life. Officer B then shouted a comment and asked her to repeat it. When she held up her electronic tablet and said she was recording them, Officer A claimed they were having the "craic" and told her to "lighten up".

Shown the footage later, the woman said she had not known she was being recorded and felt "disgusted". Ms Durkin said the recording was a gross intrusion of privacy and an affront to her dignity. "They demeaned her for their own amusement," she added.

How wide was the pattern of recording vulnerable people?

The inquiry identified 18 people in recordings, messages and photographs on Officer A's personal phones covering 2016 to 2021. Images and videos were taken in residences, hospitals and police vehicles.

Five people were photographed or filmed in hospital settings. They included a woman Officer A had dealt with repeatedly over self-harm concerns; in June 2019, while escorting her to hospital, he sent a photo of her to a member of the public with details of her medical condition.

He also captured two videos of another woman he was told to locate after she left hospital while being treated following an overdose. She was attached to a drip and did not know she was being filmed. She later said she had been at the lowest point of her life and felt angry.

Other material included waiting-room images of people at risk of self-harm, a video of a woman abusing alcohol and drugs, and five videos of an elderly, visibly vulnerable man filmed at home and from a police vehicle, with remarks about his sex life. Further clips showed women in a neighbour dispute who were unaware they were being filmed, plus mocking messages about men in police cars or lying across chairs.

In November 2020, Officer B was inside the home of two women who had reported assault and theft. While speaking with them, he photographed the women—known to have vulnerabilities—and forwarded the images to Officer A with derogatory language. One man who learned he had been filmed said he felt turned into a "laughing stock".

How did the misconduct come to light?

The behaviour surfaced during a 2021 investigation into an allegation that Officer A had abused his position for a sexual purpose by forming a relationship with a woman he met while on duty. That inquiry led to no formal action against him.

Police Ombudsman investigators arrested Officer A, searched his home and workplace, and seized electronic devices. Concerning material on his phones triggered further probes. Misconduct files went to prosecutors, who directed no prosecution.

A related probe found that 74 officers, including Officer A, had accessed police body-worn video without a valid reason. The PSNI issued management action against all 74.

Following an internal Professional Standards investigation into racist, sexist and misogynistic memes shared among officers, Officer A was sacked in 2025. Officer B was dismissed for gross misconduct in July 2026 after the ombudsman investigation. Because Officer A had already been dismissed, no further disciplinary action could be taken against him over the later findings.

Officer B told investigators he was a junior officer and that Officer A was his probationary support officer. He said he had been "trying to fit in" and would not have acted as he did if he had not met Officer A. Another officer, Officer C, received a final written warning after receiving a video of a vulnerable member of the public from Officer A and later returning it without reporting it. No further action was taken against Officer D, who was present when a recording was made but said they were unaware it was occurring.

What have PSNI leaders said, and why does it matter?

Deputy Chief Constable Bobby Singleton said the officers' behaviour was "horrifying" and would shock and appal colleagues. He stressed that the conduct of a small number of former officers does not reflect the professionalism of the wider service, but that this does not lessen the impact on those affected.

"The behaviour described by the ombudsman falls far below the standards the public is entitled to expect from police officers," Mr Singleton said. He called it a serious breach of trust, especially for people entitled to care at times of acute vulnerability.

Ms Durkin concluded that the pair were unworthy of the role of police officer and that dismissal was the right outcome. She also noted that one officer shared messages with a member of the public, showing scant regard for the confidentiality of police inquiries.

For more BlasterPost coverage, browse our Wealth Hacks & Passive Income hub. Full reporting is available from RTÉ News and The Independent.

The case underlines why independent oversight matters when a police officer is accused of exploiting power over people in crisis. Public confidence depends on complaints being investigated fully—and on clear consequences when evidence shows contempt for those who needed help.