A police sergeant who sent junior colleagues on personal errands to fix her iPhone and collect flooring she purchased from Wickes has avoided dismissal.

Detective Sergeant Caroline Brannan was found to have breached Kent Police's standards of professional behaviour, which amounted to gross misconduct, at an online hearing.

Earlier this month a panel heard how the officer, who has served at both Northfleet and Medway stations, tasked junior officers with "improper" personal errands.

On one occasion in February 2018 she instructed DC Max Bresnahan to drive 20 miles to take her mobile to the Apple store in Bromley and to bring it back once repaired.

According to the statement given by the former officer he was told by DS Brannan that she had a job for him and was given the keys to a police vehicle.

He was told that, if quizzed by store staff, he should say he was the officer’s husband.

In her response the officer said that she had no clear recollection of these events and she believed DC Bresnahan either volunteered to take the phone or she had asked him to reasonably as he was making inquiries in the area.

Then on a separate occasion the following year DS Brannan, tasked another officer – PC Patterson – with accompanying her to the Wickes store in Maidstone to collect some flooring she had purchased.

The junior colleague was required to accompany the officer in collecting the order and then drop this off at the officer’s home address, taking him away from his duties for a significant period.

The facts of both incidents were admitted by DS Brannan.

During the misconduct hearing DS Brannan also faced allegations that she had claimed for hours not worked and at an accelerated rate.

Between May 2019 and November 2019 it was claimed the sergeant had made 12 overtime claims that were not legitimate.

This was on the basis that the hours claimed were not or could not have been worked and an overtime rate was falsely claimed.

But in its conclusion the panel decided, on the balance of probabilities, this allegation was not proven.

However, in another serious allegation, the panel heard how on four separate occasions the team supervisor was found to have disclosed confidential and sensitive information to colleagues concerning investigations into serving police officers.

Of these disclosures, the first involved a matter for which DS Brannan was the welfare officer for her colleague who was under investigation.

It was further alleged that the breaches were so serious as to amount to gross misconduct and therefore if proven, justified her dismissal.

As a detective sergeant with over 18 years of policing experience, the officer set a very poor example through her actions which amounted to "gross misconduct", the panel heard.

However, in considering the correct sanction to impose, the panel took into account several factors including the circumstances such information was revealed.

When giving evidence at the hearing, former DC Bresnahan confirmed that the first disclosure was made in response to questions the team had asked about the officer concerned’s welfare.

This was information that the panel was able to take into account in its later assessment of "seriousness".

It also accepted that DS Brannan had been operating under "stressful circumstances" after she joined the rape investigations team in April 2019.

They said she also demonstrated "genuine remorse for what had occurred" and had undergone additional training.

As a result DS Brannan was not dismissed but handed a final written warning, to remain on her file for 18 months..

Such an outcome would reflect "the importance of upholding high standards in policing, deterring misconduct and preserving public confidence in the police service", the panel concluded.

Following the conclusion of the hearing, former DC Bresnahan, who gave evidence to the panel, criticised the sanction imposed.

He believes it was unduly lenient and his former supervisor, who he described as an "imposing character" and a "rotten egg", should have been dismissed.

"I did a 20 page statement which has not been easy to do because I had worked with DS Brannan for such a long period of time," the 35-year-old said.

In that statement he made a series of "bullying" claims and highlighted other elements of his former colleague's conduct he says were not picked up.

And while her conduct was not the sole reason for his departure from the force, he explained how her behaviour towards him and other colleagues contributed to "toxic" working conditions.

The former officer added: "Before I left I applied for a career break because it became a toxic environment.

"I could not carry on installing confidence in other people when this organisation didn't have my back."

Superintendent John Phillips of Kent Police’s professional standards department said: "The vast majority of Kent Police officers and staff hold themselves to the highest standards of professional conduct and serve the force with honesty and integrity at all times.

"We take it very seriously on the rare occasion when someone’s behaviour falls short of what is expected of them, and do not hesitate to take the appropriate disciplinary action."

Read more: All the latest news from Gravesend

Read more: All the latest news from Medway