Simon Highley
Introduction
Simon Highley is a former police constable with Cheshire Constabulary who was barred from policing in October 2026 after an accelerated misconduct hearing found he had shared sensitive and confidential police information without a policing purpose. Highley resigned from the force before the hearing took place, so the proceedings concluded the case of a man who was no longer a serving officer: Chief Constable Mark Roberts ruled that gross misconduct was proven, that dismissal without notice was the sanction the case warranted had he not already resigned, and that he should be placed on the barred list, preventing his re-entry into the profession. The material at the centre of the case included images and video clips that Highley kept, and in some instances passed on, from his personal mobile phone.
Background Information
The public record on Highley is confined to the misconduct process itself. He served as a constable with Cheshire Constabulary, the force covering Cheshire, and was a serving officer in July 2025, when the conduct at the heart of the case is alleged to have begun. By 1 October 2026, when the force convened an accelerated misconduct hearing at its headquarters at Clemonds Hey in Winsford, he had resigned, and the force’s published notification names him as a former PC. The allegations concerned police-held information kept on, and shared from, his personal mobile phone. The force published Highley’s full name in its outcome notification; the identity of the person with whom he shared information was redacted from publication, and he remains unnamed in both the force’s material and press coverage.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Gross misconduct finding after resignation; barred from policing. An accelerated misconduct hearing on 1 October 2026 found the matters proven; the chief constable ruled dismissal without notice would have applied had he not already resigned, and he was placed on the barred list.
The case rested on two allegations. The first alleged that in July 2025 and on a further unknown date, Highley shared sensitive and confidential police information with an unnamed person — their identity redacted in the published outcome — using his personal and work mobile phone, and that the information was shared without a policing purpose. The second alleged that he had been in possession of, and in some instances shared, sensitive and confidential police information including images and video clips, using his personal mobile phone without a policing purpose. Both allegations breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of orders and instructions, confidentiality and discreditable conduct, contrary to paragraphs 5, 7 and 9 of Schedule 2 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020.
Chief Constable Mark Roberts placed the storage of the material at the centre of the harm. “Information held on police systems is subject to the strict requirements concerning security and confidentiality,” he said. “By storing the information on his personal mobile device, PC Highley removed the information from a secure and controlled environment and created the risk of unauthorised access, disclosure, loss, and misuse.” The onward sharing went beyond the risk itself: “He then went further than creating a risk, sharing sensitive material with [redacted] without any legitimate or policing purpose.”
Roberts framed the conduct as a breach of what the public is owed. “Conduct of this nature undoubtedly damages the relationship between the public and the force,” he said. “Members of the public are entitled to expect that their information will be kept securely. The officer’s conduct was a conscious departure from policies and professional standards.” His conclusion on the finding was categorical: “I find the matter proven as gross misconduct and, given the seriousness of the conduct, dismissal without notice is inevitable.”
Public Reaction and Consequences
The coverage, reported by the Warrington Guardian and carried by Yahoo News, was built around the chief constable’s own characterisation. “I do not think that he did this for any malicious purpose; it falls more into the stupidity category. Clearly, that is disappointing behaviour,” Roberts said, adding: “I very much view this as stupidity and immaturity rather than any nefarious purpose but, equally, we need to keep information secure.” Both reports were published in the days after the hearing and led on the gap between that diagnosis and the career-ending outcome, with headlines describing a Cheshire Police officer dismissed over “stupid and immature” actions. Both also carried the essential procedural fact: Highley had resigned before the hearing took place, and was barred from the profession regardless.
The formal consequences followed from the finding. Had Highley remained a serving officer, the sanction would have been dismissal without notice; because he had already resigned, the outcome was instead his placement on the barred list, the mechanism that operates against former officers. The case was dealt with by an accelerated misconduct hearing held on 1 October 2026, with the decision taken by the chief constable himself.
Current Status
Highley is barred from policing. In his notification of outcome, Roberts recorded that he had “considered the potential outcomes available to me under Regulation 62” and that “dismissal without notice is the most appropriate sanction in this case had Former Police Constable Simon Highley not previously resigned. As a result, Former Police Constable Simon Highley shall be placed on the Barred List, that will prevent his re-entry into the profession.” The decision was published on Cheshire Constabulary’s misconduct outcomes pages for October 2026, with the reasoned outcome attached as a Regulation 63 document. The hearing itself took place on 1 October 2026 at the force headquarters in Winsford, and the outcome was reported by local and national outlets in the days that followed.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The barred-list entry closes the door on any return to policing: the force’s own wording is that the list “will prevent his re-entry into the profession.” Resigning before the hearing meant Highley left the force without a dismissal being formally executed against a serving officer, but the gross misconduct finding was made against him regardless, and the barred-list placement operates independently of his resignation. The case stands as the chief constable assessed it: conduct done without malicious purpose, in his view, but a conscious departure from the standards that keep police information secure — and one that cost a constable his career.