A Kent Police officer who touched a colleague, shared fetish material and made lewd remarks to fellow recruits has avoided the sack.
PC Rafael Edwards, who worked in North Kent, was given a two-year final written warning after a misconduct hearing found he behaved in a sexualised way towards fellow officers during his first months with the force.
PC Rafael Edwards of Kent Police
The same report criticised Kent Police College for failing to properly address inclusion concerns raised by PC Edwards, who was described as an “overtly gay, black officer” who was “evidently very different” to the wider cohort.
The allegations made against PC Edwards included repeatedly touching an officer’s knee while in a police car and asking him whether he was “top or bottom”.
The hearing, held at police headquarters in Maidstone last month, also examined a comment made in a pub toilet which implied PC Edwards had seen another officer’s penis, as well as him sending a link about a urine fetish during a lesson and making crude sexual remarks to colleagues.
An outcome report concluded some of his behaviour was most likely “flirting”, while other remarks took place in a recruit culture where sexualised jokes were “clearly commonplace”.
It also accepted one crude comment, made while PC Edwards was preparing to go out in “drag”, was in keeping with a persona intended to make people “cringe and feel embarrassed” for comic effect.
PC Edwards joined Kent Police on January 17, 2022, and the panel was told inappropriate incidents began just a month later and continued until November 1 that year.
The most serious incident happened that day, when PC Edwards and another officer, named only as PC A, were on duty together in connection with prisoner handling at Medway.
PC A was driving, with PC Edwards in the front passenger seat.
The panel found PC Edwards placed his hand on PC A’s knee three times, leaving it there for several seconds on each occasion.
PC A described the incident as sexual assault during cross-examination.
He told the hearing: “I didn’t want to work with him after he sexually assaulted me, which I think is quite reasonable.”
One incident took place in a police car. Stock image
PC Edwards said he had touched PC A accidentally at first and then demonstrated what he meant by placing a hand on someone’s knee.
But the panel rejected his account and said his “most likely purpose was to flirt with PC A” and “test the waters” to see how he would react.
It did not make a finding of sexual assault, instead concluding his behaviour amounted to misconduct.
Later questions about PC A’s sexuality were “a resumption of this flirting”, the panel said.
Those questions included whether PC A liked his neck or ears being touched, whether he was gay, bisexual or straight, whether he had ever had a boyfriend, and whether he had participated in sexual activity with a man.
He also asked whether PC A preferred “top or bottom”, and the hearing was told PC Edwards said: “We really appreciate a bottom.”
The panel accepted PC Edwards did not intend to make PC A feel uncomfortable.
But it found the unwanted conduct did make him uncomfortable, and said the cumulative effect of PC Edwards’ actions adversely affected him.
PC A later spoke to an unofficial mentor and colleagues, reported the matter and undertook counselling.
Months earlier, during a social evening at the Seven Stars pub in Canterbury in August 2022, PC Edwards made a comment to another officer, PC B, in the toilets.
The panel found he used words to the effect of “not too bad”, implying he had seen PC B’s penis.
PC B was said to have replied: “Come on Rafael, that’s too far.”
The panel said the comment “violated his dignity, was degrading, and had the potential to humiliate him”, and that PC Edwards had acted this way to “shock and embarrass him”.
While PC Edwards’ claim that nothing happened was “unconvincing”, the panel could not find he had actually looked at PC B’s penis.
The disciplinary hearing took place at the Kent Police headquarters off Sutton Road, Maidstone
It was not the first time PC B had been affected by his behaviour.
After printing a document for PC B at Kent Police College, PC Edwards replied “sex” when asked what he was owed for the favour.
The panel said the comment was inappropriate in the context of his wider behaviour, but added it was the type of remark others in his peer group “may well have said themselves” given the culture at the time.
On March 9, 2022, PC Edwards referred to another officer’s sexuality in a classroom after being handed his work to peer mark.
The officer concerned was not offended, but the panel found the comment was inappropriate in a classroom setting.
In April 2022, PC Edwards raised the sexual practice known as “Soupeur” during a lesson on sexual offences and later shared a link about it on Teams.
The practice involves a fetish linked to bread soaked in urine.
The panel found that, although the topic was “distasteful”, it was proper to raise during a discussion about fetishes and sexual offences.
It accepted PC Edwards was giving an example and was not talking about personal experience.
Another allegation concerned a crude comment made at a Premier Inn in Maidstone, where officers were getting ready for a night out.
PC Edwards told a female officer, who was sharing a room with a male colleague she was in a relationship with: “Don’t waste that good d***, I’ll have it if you don’t want it.”
The panel accepted his explanation that the remark was made while he was applying make up and preparing to go out in “drag”.
It found the comment was crude and sexualised, but said it was consistent with the way the group of new recruits commonly communicated with each other.
In assessing PC Edwards, the panel said he was consistent in his evidence, although it came across as “scripted” at times.
It also said he presented as “something of a challenging character at times”.
The wider atmosphere among the recruits became a key issue during the hearing.
The panel found PC Edwards had experienced “an element of isolation and exclusion” during the early stages of his training.
It said fellow recruits appeared to discuss concerns among themselves and with trainers, rather than speaking to him directly.
The panel also said Kent Police College had “insufficiently addressed issues of inclusion” raised by PC Edwards early in his training.
It said “potential unconscious biases” were apparent in the evidence heard by the panel, and that more effort should have been made to understand his perspective.
The report adds: “None of the recruits appeared to have approached the officer himself to gain a better understanding as to how he was feeling in those early stages.”
It noted screenshots of WhatsApp messages sent among the group throughout 2022 showed “the making of sexualised remarks was clearly commonplace”.
However, the panel stressed this did not excuse PC Edwards’ conduct.
The Seven Stars in Canterbury
The report said: “Whilst he may have been operating in a certain culture and environment as the Panel noted when handing down its findings earlier, his actions were his and his alone, and he had a choice as to how he conducted himself.”
The panel concluded PC Edwards breached professional standards relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct.
It said the most significant incidents were the knee touching involving PC A and the deliberate embarrassment of PC B in the pub toilets.
The panel said a written warning would not have been enough, but found a final written warning would uphold public confidence, maintain standards and deter similar conduct.
Detective Chief Superintendent Mat Scott, head of professional standards, said: “An independent panel found that PC Rafael Edwards’ actions amounted to misconduct and imposed a final written warning.
“Kent Police expects all officers and staff to treat colleagues with dignity and respect, and behaviour that falls below those standards will be addressed.
“The force acknowledges the organisational learning identified by the panel and will carefully consider its findings.”
