Two Derbyshire police call handlers have been jailed for accessing and passing confidential information to their criminal boyfriends. Jessica Fitzhugh and Ellie-Mae Doherty, both now 22 but 19 at the time of their offending, accessed personal details about their "undesirable" criminal boyfriends while working for Derbyshire Constabulary.
Fitzhugh, from Belper, admitted unauthorised access to computer material, while Doherty, from Ripley, pleaded guilty to the more serious offence of misconduct in a public office, after feeding her partner some of the information she found.
Sentencing at Leicester Crown Court
Doherty was jailed for 11 months and Fitzhugh for four months after a two-day hearing at Leicester Crown Court, which concluded on Thursday (September 3). Both had been previously told by the judge to expect a jail sentence.
In sentencing, Judge Timothy Spencer KC called them "naïve" 19-year-olds whom he "loosely" described as "girlfriends of two undesirable young men".
He said: "Regrettably and for reasons that now you will find impossible to rationalise, you both flaunted the clear training, the clear direction and the clear guidelines you were given by the Derbyshire police. In your case, Ellie-Mae Doherty, it went further because the information you accessed was clearly passed on in two distinct ways at two distinct times."
Details of the offences
Fitzhugh started working at the force in January 2023, aged 19, as a call handler and then a dispatcher, before referring her friend Doherty for a job, who joined as a call handler in September 2023, the court heard. Both women underwent "intense" vetting and were required to read and sign declarations stating that they had no contacts who were "engaged in criminal activities".
Prosecuting, Helen Rodger said each had a sexual relationship with men involved in crime, and should have known that these were "disclosable associations". The first time Doherty accessed information about an incident and passed it on to Robbie Braddock, with whom she was said to be in a relationship, was in December 2023, roughly two months after she completed her control room training. Doherty shared details about the incident - a fight in which another male had smashed a window, with Braddock.
Ms Rodger said a second incident involving Doherty on March 6 2024 saw her access details about a search warrant being executed and pass them on to the same man as before. Doherty viewed the details of the incident several times before also checking who was in custody at Ripley custody suite. Fitzhugh, who was also said to be in a relationship with a man with a criminal record, looked up incidents in spring 2024, out of what the judge called "idle curiosity".
Court comments and aftermath
The two women, who met while both working at McDonald's before starting with the force, sat apart in the dock and were accompanied in court by their families. Judge Spencer speculated that maybe their "friendship has not survived this case" and said "I have little doubt that it will haunt you for the rest of your days".
He said: "It's impossible to recognise the young women who I read about, with such positive qualities, in the women who committed these offences."
Defending Fitzhugh, Elizabeth Power said that she had a "lack of awareness" about the "severity of the breaches that she made". Lowri Butterworth, for Doherty, told the court that she was "acutely aware" and had been using her time since to "give back" to her community.
Both women were charged in April following an investigation led by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in response to conduct referrals. After the end of the sentencing hearing, Emily Barry, IOPC director of engagement, said the sentences should act as a clear warning that misusing police systems will not be tolerated by forces or the courts.
She said: "Disclosure of police information without a valid reason for doing so, often to those involved in criminality, is the most common form of corruption the IOPC anti-corruption unit deals with. Call handlers are privy to sensitive information and have access to confidential data on police systems. It's incumbent on them not to inappropriately disclose information and to only access material for policing purposes. Both women accepted their actions were inappropriate and a breach of their duties. Now that the court case has concluded, it will be for Derbyshire police to arrange misconduct hearings where they can likely expect to be barred from working in policing again in the future."
