Detective with previously unblemished record sacked for giving false evidence in court

A detective sergeant who knowingly gave false evidence under oath in Bristol Crown Court has been dismissed from Avon and Somerset Police.

Nicholas Eckland wrongly told a pre-trial hearing in March that he had personally attended the post mortem of a defendant in a drugs conspiracy he had been investigating.

He then failed to clarify a statement he described as “muddled”, which was based on so-called hearsay evidence.

His actions did not cause a miscarriage of justice but the trial had to be adjourned until October so his evidence could be corroborated. All but one of the defendants have since been convicted.

Eckland, who served with the regional organised crime unit and had an unblemished 25-year career, was found guilty at a hearing of two counts of gross misconduct and one of misconduct.

Barrister Adam Rathmell said his actions risked tarnishing the reputation of Avon and Somerset Police and there was no place for him in the constabulary.

He said: “Members of the public are entitled to a well-founded confidence that any police sergeant is a person of unquestionable integrity, probity and trustworthiness.

“DS Eckland gave false evidence under oath in crown court.

“This is about the integrity of a senior investigating officer. This is gross misconduct.

“He didn’t clarify his evidence. The whole point was to dispatch the issue and move on.”

Rathmell added: “Police carry out a vital public function. It’s important police have confidence in them. A single officer can tarnish the reputation of the whole constabulary.

“There is no role for an officer who has breached the standards of honesty and integrity. The appropriate authority doesn’t want this officer in the force. It’s not in the public interest.”

The misconduct hearing at the Avon and Somerset Police HQ in Portishead heard Eckland had been working 80 hours a week investigating a drug conspiracy.

One of the defendants pleaded guilty in January, prompting animosity from his co-defendants, who were also on remand in HMP Bristol.

Eckland said he was concerned for the middle-aged man’s safety.

When he died suddenly on February 26, Eckland urged his police colleagues to ensure a forensic post mortem was carried out to determine the cause of his death. It was ruled to be heart failure.

When Ann Hampshire, a senior lawyer on complex cases for the Crown Prosecution Service, requested someone with the requisite knowledge to give evidence in court that the defendant had died, Eckland said he met her criteria.

He told the misconduct hearing: “I said, surely I can give hearsay evidence as the senior investigating officer. There was no dispute that [the defendant] was dead.

“She 100 per cent, categorically knew I didn’t attend the postmortem. Why would she think a detective sergeant from the regional organised crime unit would go to a postmortem?

“I was offering the potential to take responsibility. Unfortunately, I epicly failed.”

Eckland gave false evidence at Bristol Crown Court

Eckland told the court he had personally attended the post mortem, although he gave the wrong surname for the defendant.

He told the misconduct hearing his evidence was “muddled” but he said did not know he should have clarified his comments because he did not realise exactly what he had said.

He described the courtroom as more intimidating than any he had been in – the public gallery was full of the defendants’ families, he received a death threat from someone drawing their finger over their throat, and he was called a “f***ing c**t”.

Defending, barrister David Sapiecha said Eckland had everything to lose from lying in court, and it would have been “incredibly risky” because people there knew he did not attend the post mortem.

He said: “You can make an error. That’s very different to being dishonest.

“DS Eckland was working 80-plus hours a week on other operations of complexity. He has explained his injuries and the medication he was using.

“He stoically said he was feeling under the weather [on the day of the court case]. He hasn’t reported sick in 25 years.

“He was surprised to be called to give evidence. When he went into the dock he had palpitations. His concentration levels weren’t where they should be.

“He used the wrong name but had been investigating the defendant for some considerable time – he knew his inside leg measurements.

“DS Eckland was entitled to give hearsay evidence. He had even seen passport photos of the defendant, who was in prison.”

Sapiecha added: “This isn’t just a good officer. Over 25 years he has been an exceptional officer, of exceptional character.

“There’s personal mitigation. This officer has a family with two children. They rely on him financially.

“The publication of these proceedings has brought about genuine concern for his welfare with regard to retribution.”

The misconduct panel found Eckland did not intentionally mislead Hampshire, and accepted she had knowledge of the investigation and that he did not attend the post mortem.

They also found Eckland did not take steps to find someone who could provide the requisite information, but that did not amount to misconduct.

However, the panel said he should have verified the hearsay evidence, which he only received “second or third hand”. The failure constituted misconduct.

On the claim he wilfully gave false evidence, panel chair Stephanie Beazley said Eckland could have anticipated that he would have to give evidence in court and what questions he would be asked.

She said: “We don’t accept his words were simply a mistake. He could have answered differently. Instead he stated something incorrect. He made a poor choice in the heat of the moment.

“He knew he uttered words that were not true. We find it’s reasonable for the public to expect that a police officer giving evidence will tell the truth. We find his omission amounted to discreditable conduct.

“DS Eckland did not follow up his court case with any attempt to clarify. The appropriate course of action would have been for him to seek guidance rather than put it out of his mind. DS Eckland failed to do the right thing.

“We find it reasonable for the public to expect that a police officer, having given erroneous evidence to a court, will take steps to rectify the situation, which DS Eckland did not do. This constitutes discreditable conduct.”

Handing down the panel’s decision, Beazley noted Eckland’s commendations, his unblemished career and the fact he had been operating in a stressful environment.

But she said: “It could be said public confidence has already been lost. Any outcome must seek to restore that confidence.

“DS Eckland was dishonest in public and failed to take the appropriate care.

“There’s little that we can envisage that would remediate this. The damage has already been done.

“It is necessary to dismiss Eckland without notice.”

Stephen Sumner is a local democracy reporter for Bristol.