PC who made false records committed gross misconduct

A former police constable who deliberately recorded false information on police logs would have been sacked had he not resigned, a misconduct panel found.

Liam Yeo, who worked for Thames Valley Police in Didcot, Oxfordshire, before resigning in July 2025, faced an accelerated misconduct hearing following allegations that he had "knowingly made false and misleading entries" regarding the contact of a witness.

The panel heard that Yeo subsequently admitted that information he had recorded was untruthful, which "would have led to miscarriage of justice had it not been highlighted".

Yeo was found to have committed gross misconduct and has been barred from the profession.

The panel heard that Yeo, who joined the force in May 2023 as a student police constable, was allocated an arrest handover in October 2024 for a drink drive prisoner who had been arrested the previous night and was in custody.

Yeo made a "false and misleading" entry within a police system which stated: "XX is unable to provide a statement detailing this as when I have attempted to get this, admittedly late, he has not remembered if they were actively trying to move the vehicle."

The panel heard he made further "false and misleading entries" on a log, one of which said: "Witness Statements – these do not put the suspect actively driving the vehicle."

Another entry said: "Call 1 describes 2 males near to the vehicle trying to move it with the "Driver" being all in black which would match X description – When I have debriefed XX on this he has been unsure of this at the time of my call and was not sure if they were actively trying to drive the vehicle."

The file was handed over to a Justice Gateway Officer, who listened to the 999 tapes and became suspicious of the information Yeo had submitted about the witness being unable to provide a statement.

In April 2025, the officer created a task for Yeo to contact witnesses, including XX.

However, on 1 May 2026 the log was checked and showed an entry that Yeo had spoken to witnesses but with a "negative result which precluded the taking of a statement".

Another officer was tasked with the taking of the statement which provided "key evidence" and "allowed the case to proceed", the panel heard.

On 6 May 2025 a police sergeant called XX and asked him about the police contact, to which XX confirmed he had called 999 at the time of the event and spoke to officers still on scene, but that he had not had any other police contact since then.

Yeo was then challenged on whether he had contacted XX, to which Yeo said that he had spoken to them on the phone and debriefed him, and that XX could not remember the incident.

An audit on a police system was carried out which showed Yeo had amended a record on 6 May 2025 to remove the part that said XX was unable to provide a statement.

When questioned whether Yeo had been truthful regarding the witness contact, he admitted he had not been, the panel heard.

The panel heard that there is "ample evidence" that Yeo's behaviour was "intentional and deliberate" and fell "far below" the standards expected of a member of the police service.

The panel heard that Yeo "deliberately recorded information" which he "knew to be false and misleading" meant he "failed to act with the honesty and integrity expected of a police officer".

The report stated: "By creating false records, misleading colleagues and compromising an active criminal investigation in the manner alleged, your conduct had potential to undermine public trust and confidence in the police service and bring discredit upon Thames Valley Police."