Hertfordshire Chief Constable demotes inspector to sergeant for selling his police trousers on Vinted
A Hertfordshire police officer has been demoted for selling his trousers on Vinted.
Former inspector Owen Hurley admitted selling the single item of uniform via the second-hand selling app in the summer of 2023.
A member of the public reported him to the constabulary. Chief Constable Charlie Hall ruled his actions were gross misconduct and reduced him to the rank of sergeant.
The officer explained that the trousers had been in his wardrobe at home for “a long time” and he wanted to “make space” after redecorating.
At a misconduct hearing on Tuesday (February 6), Sgt Hurley said: “It was a mistake. I should have thought through the process but I just did it instinctively at the time.
He added: “It wasn’t about money...It was only when PSD (professional standards department) made me aware that I actually thought about how gross a mistake it was.”
The sergeant confirmed the trousers did not bear a police logo or insignia, but confessed to writing a listing on Vinted which indicated they were police issue.
He denied the incident amounted to gross misconduct and said he engaged “proactively” in the probe into his behaviour.
Facing questions from Mr Hall, Sgt Hurley said members of the public and his colleagues would likely view the incident as a “stupid mistake, doing something without thinking”.
In January 2023, Sgt Hurley ordered two new pairs of police trousers which were the same size as the items listed on Vinted. He said the old trousers were a poor fit.
Counsel on behalf of the officer said: “Had it been something more overtly identifiable as police uniform – for example, a jacket or helmet, something bearing a logo – then I would suggest that is something that would bring discredit to the force.”
His team urged the chief constable for a “distinction [to be] made between clearly identifiable police issue property and things that are not so identifiable”.
The brief added “not every mistake is unethical” and argued that in selling the item in his own name, Sgt Hurley had never tried to conceal his behaviour in a way which suggested deliberate wrongdoing.
They said he was “highly thought of” by his colleagues. He had served for 15 years and was described as “reliable” and “respected” in a bundle of evidence handed to the chief constable.
Sgt Hurley’s legal team said to Mr Hall: “As serious as you have found it, this is still [just] one incident.”
Representatives of the appropriate authority – which brought the case – said Sgt Hurley had not shown integrity, which is a “nebulous” but “fundamental” policing concept. They said although the facts of the case were “not close to premeditation or planning”, they amounted to “more than just a simple mistake”.
Mr Hall ruled Sgt Hurley had breached the professional standards of integrity, discreditable conduct, duties and responsibilities.
“A member of the public was sufficiently angry to report this,” he said. “You have described it as a mistake… I would describe it as stupid.”
He told Sgt Hurley the trousers “were not yours to sell” and were originally bought using public funds. He said: “This is clearly an act the public disapproves of… The public rightly expects higher standards from the constabulary.”
Mr Hall said taking no action may result in “a slippery slope – one that I cannot allow to get a foothold”.
He said dismissal “is not proportionate” but a reduction in rank to sergeant recognised that the former inspector’s line management role was an aggravating factor in the case.