A POLICE dog handler accused of forming an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable woman and sending her graphic sexual social media messages has been cleared of gross misconduct.

But PC Philip Paul Nicholls, 51, based in South Gloucestershire, changed his plea and admitted misconduct on day two of the Avon & Somerset Police tribunal and was given a final written warning for two years but was allowed to keep his job.

The police misconduct panel believed his version of events over those of the alleged victim, a domestic violence survivor, whose evidence it found to be unreliable and contradictory.

Announcing the decision to find only the allegations PC Nicholls admitted proved and to reject those he denied, the panel’s Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) Nick Hawkins, who is independent of policing said: “Your behaviour was ill-advised and fraught with obvious risks.

“The public are rightly concerned with the appalling behaviour of a minority of male police officers towards females.

“The overwhelming majority of police officers maintain the highest standards of behaviour and you have let them down by letting those standards slip.”

He said the panel had seen only very limited evidence of social media contact between the officer and the woman, Ms B, who cannot be named for legal reasons, because both had deleted all their messages, and that their accounts were contradictory.

Mr Hawkins said: “PC Nicholls is a man of good character. This is particularly relevant to his credibility.”

The LQC said Ms B’s credibility was “seriously damaged” by her failure to explain why she said in her written statement last February that she had not invited the constable to her house but then denied she would have done so when giving evidence in person at the hearing.

He said she also maintained contact with PC Nicholls on X, formerly Twitter, during the time she claimed he was harassing her and had told him to stop messaging, including the fact that she sent him a “Happy 50th birthday” message.

Mr Hawkins said the panel found it “incredible” that she would send a birthday message to someone she did not want contact with.

He said: “Wherever there was a conflict of evidence between PC Nicholls and Ms B, the panel preferred the evidence of PC Nicholls.”

The LQC said the panel did not find that she told him she was vulnerable, as she claimed, or that she told him to stop sending messages.

Mr Hawkins said the constable had “blurred the lines” between his policing duties and his private life and that his breaches of the standards of professional behaviour amounted to misconduct but not gross misconduct as alleged.

He said: “You’ve served for 27 years in two police forces and are very well regarded.”

Mr Hawkins said the panel found that the pair’s social media relationship was reciprocal.

The hearing was told that PC Nicholls visited the woman’s home after being invited there to give advice on how to control her unruly dog, long after they struck up a relationship on social media.

The officer accepted that he sent her a photo of him in uniform with a police dog in a police van.

What was in dispute was whether he knew she was vulnerable and if the messages were part of a two-way communication, with the panel siding with PC Nicholls on both counts.

Despite indicating on day one that the constable would give evidence on Tuesday, October 22, ahead of the decision being announced, he and his barrister Julian King decided not to.

But his side of the story was told in written responses to the allegations and in an interview with the police standards department, in which he admitted sending private sexualised messages to Ms B despite being a married dad.

Mr King said: “This is behaviour that is ill-judged but it’s not a case of deliberate intent to cause harm.”

PC Nicholls initially denied all the allegations before admitting some of them on day two.

Barrister Matt Holdcroft, representing the force, asked the panel to deliver a finding of gross misconduct and give a final written warning of five years.

He said that if an officer took the “unwise step” to engage with somebody they had never met, they should ensure that person was not vulnerable.

Mr Holdcroft said PC Nicholls abused his position for sexual purposes with a vulnerable woman and that it did not matter whether he was aware she was vulnerable.