Lincolnshire Police inspector faces 14 allegations of inappropriate physical contact with female colleagues

A Lincolnshire Police inspector faces 14 allegations of inappropriate physical contact with female colleagues and making sexual or personal remarks to both fellow staff and members of the public. Inspector Adam Syred has been accused of engaging in a pattern of behaviour that could significantly undermine public confidence in the police, with these incidents reportedly occurring on multiple occasions since October 2019. On Monday, the officer attended a misconduct hearing at Skegness Police Station, where he faced charges of violating professional behaviour standards.

This hearing is set to continue until Wednesday, after which it will be adjourned until January 3. During the first day of the hearing, Ian Mullarkey, representing Lincolnshire Police, detailed an incident from October 2019.

Skegness Police Station | Photo: James Turner

He stated that during a work night out at the Joseph Morton Wetherspoons in Louth, the officer introduced himself to colleagues as the new inspector for the area. On the same night, it is alleged that he smacked the bottom of a police constable who was also attending.

However, he maintains that he has no recollection of this incident. In her testimony, the police constable involved recounted the event. She stated: “It certainly wasn’t welcome or wanted,” recalling that afterwards, Inspector Syred seemed to be laughing with his wife.

She added: “It shocked me. I don’t know why anybody would think I would welcome that.” The police constable did not formally report the incident when it occurred, but has since expressed regret for not having done so.

Another incident was reported to have occurred around Christmas 2019. Inspector Syred had brought in tubes of sweets for his team and placed them in a large Santa sack after wrapping. When distributing these gifts among the team, he eventually approached the same police constable, who was seated at the time.

It is alleged that he then held the bag at groin level and asked “Would you like a rummage through my sack?” The constable continued: “It annoyed me, I didn’t think it was appropriate.” She insisted that Inspector Syred’s actions were an attempt to elicit a reaction from her, noting that he did not behave similarly with any male staff members present at the time. Although he acknowledged bringing in sweets for the team, Inspector Syred denied that his comment was made in a sexual manner.

A third incident, as recalled by the constable, occurred at a later date in the refreshments room of Louth Police Station. She was on a break when Inspector Syred, whose office was adjacent, entered and allegedly turned on the Channel 4 programme Naked Attraction. She recounted: “He made a comment about how much he liked the programme and wanted to start a conversation about it.”

The constable described another incident during lockdown. She reported that Inspector Syred began demonstrating home exercises for a colleague who was homeschooling his children, while she was present in the breakroom. According to her account, he started performing lunges and squats in her direction, dressed in shorts and running gear.

Inspector Syred, however, does not recall this behaviour. Finally, the constable recalled a time when she briefly fell asleep in the same room. She reportedly awoke to find Inspector Syred telling her that he had taken a photo of her while she was asleep, stating it was “in case he needed it for later.” The officer also denied taking such a photo.

She expressed her unease about the situation, stating: “I wasn’t entirely sure how to interpret it. It made me very uncomfortable knowing that he had a photograph of me that had been taken without my consent.” Steven Reed, representing Inspector Syred, contended that the constable’s perception of the officer had been “coloured” by the incident at the Wetherspoons in Louth.

He also put forward that the individual who smacked her behind might not have been Inspector Syred, noting that she did not directly see who was responsible for the act.

The misconduct hearing is scheduled to continue on Tuesday and Wednesday, before being adjourned until January 3.