In a case that raises serious questions about accountability within the ranks, Chief Inspector 25144 Lyon of West Midlands Police is set to face a gross misconduct hearing next week over allegations of dishonestly claiming insurance for a wristwatch he had already sold.
The two-day panel, chaired by Chief Constable Craig Guildford at Lloyd House in Birmingham on 16 and 17 October, could lead to dismissal if breaches of honesty, integrity, and discreditable conduct are upheld.
Yet, amid the headlines, one glaring omission stands out: there appears to be no parallel criminal investigation.
Public records and force announcements make no mention of a police investigation or referral to bodies like the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) for criminal scrutiny.
This internal handling as a disciplinary matter alone prompts uncomfortable questions. If a member of the public lodged a similar false claim, would it not trigger a full criminal inquiry under the Fraud Act 2006? And if so, why the apparent lack of a criminal investigation?
Insurance fraud by false representation is a straightforward criminal offence in the UK, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The City of London Police’s Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED), which leads national efforts, routinely investigates such claims from insurers, resulting in arrests, charges, and convictions.
Recent examples include a Hampshire man cautioned for inflating hotel invoices and a gang jailed for £1.2 million in ‘crash for cash’ scams. For civilians, the path is clear: report to Action Fraud, record the crime, and pursue prosecution.
Under the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) for Recorded Crime, effective from April 2023, forces must classify and log fraud allegations promptly.
Fraud Act 2006 offences mandates recording where there is evidence of intent to deceive for gain, as in this wristwatch claim. The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), introduced in 2002 and binding on all forces, reinforces this: crimes must be recorded within 24 hours of a victim’s report if they meet the legal threshold, prioritising victim focus over discretionary dismissal.
These standards exist to ensure consistency and prevent under-recording, a scandal exposed in past HMICFRS inspections. Yet, when the alleged perpetrator wears the uniform, the process seems to stop at misconduct.
The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 allow parallel criminal and disciplinary tracks, but here, only the latter appears to be in play. No crime reference number, no IFED involvement, no CPS consideration. This is not just procedural oversight; it risks eroding public trust in a force already under scrutiny for integrity failings.
Is this two-tier policing in action?
The term, often levelled at crowd control disparities, here points to a subtler divide: elite treatment for those enforcing the law. Reports from the Home Affairs Committee in April 2025 dismissed ‘two-tier’ claims in the 2024 riots as baseless, praising officers’ bravery. But those were public disorders; this is alleged criminality by a senior insider.
Academic studies, like a 2023 Taylor & Francis analysis of UK police fraud, highlight how internal cases often evade full criminalisation, with officers facing only career repercussions. If Lyon is found guilty of gross misconduct, he may lose his job and pension rights, but without a recorded crime, no criminal record follows, protecting him from the lifelong barriers fraud convictions impose on ordinary members of the public.
West Midlands Police must clarify: has a crime been recorded per HOCR and NCRS? If not, why?
Transparency demands an update post-hearing, including any IOPC referral. Until then, this case exemplifies why reform calls grow louder.
Victims of fraud deserve equal justice; so do the standards meant to uphold it. Without accountability across the board, the badge becomes a shield, not a symbol of fairness.
‘Criminal investigation’…you mean, by the same force, who say there was not enough evidence. So, there was no trial, no determination in a court of law. A cop was found ‘not guilty’ by his mates? Oh, ok.
The officer faced a criminal investigation and it was found there was insufficient evidence. The officer was found to have incorrectly submitted the wrong receipt as he owned two identical watches. It was not found that he had made a fraudulent claim.