Ex-Officer Leicestershire Police Officer Barred from Policing Over Phony Medal
A former Leicestershire Police officer, Philip Wandless, has been found guilty of Gross Misconduct at an Accelerated Misconduct Hearing for repeatedly wearing a military medal he was not awarded and was not entitled to. The Chief Constable determined that had the officer still been serving, he would have been dismissed, leading to his placement on the Police Barred List.
The hearing, conducted by Chief Constable David Sandall on October 17, 2025, focused on the conduct of former Police Constable 4014 Philip Wandless, who had resigned from the force.
The core of the allegation was that former PC Wandless, who had previously served in the Army but was not posted to Afghanistan, wore an Operational Service Medal – Afghanistan as part of his dress uniform on various occasions.
Breach of Policy: This action was a direct breach of Leicestershire Police’s Appearance Standards Policy, which mandates that officers may only wear medals authorised by the Sovereign or those they have been legitimately awarded.
Dishonesty and Lack of Integrity: Crucially, the conduct was deemed dishonest as it created the false impression that he had served in Afghanistan, which he knew to be untrue.
Determination of Gross Misconduct
The Chief Constable found the allegations to be proved as Gross Misconduct, citing breaches of three Standards of Professional Behaviour:
Honesty and Integrity
Discreditable Conduct
Orders and Instructions
The gravity of the misconduct was heightened by several factors:
The conduct was repeated and deliberate.
The actions were dishonest and lacked integrity.
The behaviour would undermine public confidence in him as a police officer and the police service as a whole.
The Chief Constable determined that the former officer's culpability was high, and he had caused serious reputational harm to the police. The fact that the behaviour was continued despite knowing it was improper was an aggravating factor.
The Outcome
Given the severity of the dishonesty, the Chief Constable concluded that no other outcome than dismissal would be adequate to maintain public confidence and uphold the high standards expected of officers.
"The public must be able to trust that police officers will always be honest and act with the highest integrity."
As a result of the determination:
The former officer would have been dismissed if he were still serving.
His details will be included within the Police Barred List, effectively preventing future employment in policing.
The former officer has a right to appeal the determination to the Police Appeals Tribunal within 10 working days, though the grounds for appeal are strictly limited.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
🎉 Comments Are Now Live! 🎉
Hello, Oakham and Rutland readers!
We have some exciting news to share with you: you can now comment directly on every single article on Oakham and Rutland News!
We're absolutely thrilled to be giving our amazing communities a real, active voice.
We know many towns often feel forgotten by big-name and regional media, but our mission at Oakham and Rutland News is to put local people back at the very heart of the conversation.
Now, it's easier than ever to tell us what matters most to you in your town or village, share your thoughts on local news, and connect with your neighbours. Leaving a comment is simple—just scroll down to the bottom of any article!
To keep things friendly and ensure real people are talking (not those pesky bots or fake accounts!), we kindly ask that you register with Google first.
Finally, we'll be keeping a close eye on the discussions to make sure they stay respectful and free from any bad language or abuse. This is all part of our commitment to high-quality, original local journalism that everyone can enjoy.
We truly can't wait to hear what you have to say. Your voice matters to us. Let's take Oakham and Rutland News to the next level, together!