Corrupt traffic cop, Irfan Hussain, issued £30 'fines' to motorists

Irfan Hussain.

Irfan Hussain.

First published in News by

Corrupt traffic cop, Irfan Hussain, has been jailed for imposing on-the-spot speeding fines to motorists so he could keep the cash.

Hussain stopped one driver and "fined" him £30 after realising he had left his wallet at home and had no money for his lunch.

The crooked Hertfordshire Constabulary officer was jailed for a year when he appeared at court to plead guilty to dishing out his own instant fines.

The court heard three motorists each handed over sums of £30 after being told by the officer it was a way they could avoid getting penalty points.

Hussain, 35, a married father of a young daughter, had been a police officer in Hertfordshire for 10 years when he became corrupt last August.

Luton Crown Court was told he had committed the offences after suffering stress from a number of distressing cases that he had been involved in, including the suicide of two young people on a railway line in the county.

But, in jailing the ex-officer, Judge Richard Foster said: "At the heart of policing in this country by consent is public trust."

The judge said the trust was based on the public believing in the integrity of police officers.

He went on: "That has been called into question by your conduct. What you have done is not just let yourself and your family down, but the entire police service."

Irfan was living with his wife and daughter at the time of the offences in Canterbury Way, Stevenage, and his duties regularly found himself as a traffic officer driving his marked police car in south west Hertfordshire.

He "fined" one driver, Daniel Kitchener, in Sandy lane, Bushey, and 40 minutes later another in Stanmore.

He pleaded guilty in court to misconduct, three offences of fraud and three offences of doing an act tending or intended to pervert the court of justice.

The offences represented three separate occasions when he succeeded in getting two motorists and a motorcyclist to hand over £30 on the spot fines and one attempt with another driver.

The offences had occurred during a five day period last August.

Hussain was caught after one of the drivers was suspicious about what had happened and contacted the policeman's bosses at Hatfield Police Station.

The court was told that following his arrest Hussain has been dismissed from the force and he and his family have moved to Larch Close in Teignmouth, Devon.

After the case, Deputy Chief Constable Alison Roome-Gifford said: "Irfan Hussain failed to live up to the high standard of conduct expected of staff who serve with Hertfordshire Constabulary and has now been imprisoned for his disgraceful conduct.

"The public rightly expects police officers to act with integrity at all times and for action to be taken when they do not. This officer betrayed the trust placed in him by the public and his colleagues and is now living with the consequences."

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:52pm Wed 5 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Stress can make people do erm ,interesting things. I dont think fining someone to get cash for lunch as you left your wallet at home is one of them.

Trying to get pity when there is none due only undermines the struggles of people who have genuine problems
Stress can make people do erm ,interesting things. I dont think fining someone to get cash for lunch as you left your wallet at home is one of them. Trying to get pity when there is none due only undermines the struggles of people who have genuine problems garston tony
  • Score: 13

6:33pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Keefer says...

If you commit the crime, you should do the time, so he thoroughly deserves his punishment,

...but for the life of me I can't think why his new address is published in the media. He was "apparently" of good previous character, and as a Policeman is bound to have upset a few unsavoury criminal types in the course of his duty! so why is his address being given to the same who may be seeking retribution?

"The court was told that following his arrest Hussain has been dismissed from the force and he and his family have moved to Larch Close in Teignmouth, Devon"

Is the W.O. leaving itself open to legal action because of its continuing failure to proof-read its news articles before "going to print"?

The mind boggles.
If you commit the crime, you should do the time, so he thoroughly deserves his punishment, ...but for the life of me I can't think why his new address is published in the media. He was "apparently" of good previous character, and as a Policeman is bound to have upset a few unsavoury criminal types in the course of his duty! so why is his address being given to the same who may be seeking retribution? "The court was told that following his arrest Hussain has been dismissed from the force and he and his family have moved to Larch Close in Teignmouth, Devon" Is the W.O. leaving itself open to legal action because of its continuing failure to proof-read its news articles before "going to print"? The mind boggles. Keefer
  • Score: 7

8:05pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Nascot says...

Don't drop the soap!
Don't drop the soap! Nascot
  • Score: 1

10:49am Thu 6 Feb 14

Hairy Hornet says...

Keefer wrote:
If you commit the crime, you should do the time, so he thoroughly deserves his punishment,

...but for the life of me I can't think why his new address is published in the media. He was "apparently" of good previous character, and as a Policeman is bound to have upset a few unsavoury criminal types in the course of his duty! so why is his address being given to the same who may be seeking retribution?

"The court was told that following his arrest Hussain has been dismissed from the force and he and his family have moved to Larch Close in Teignmouth, Devon"

Is the W.O. leaving itself open to legal action because of its continuing failure to proof-read its news articles before "going to print"?

The mind boggles.
Keefer, your mind can stop "boggling". The Wobby is pefectly entitled to publish the address of the defendant including the house number if they wished to.
Unless there is an order, under the Contempt of Court Act, or the defendant is a minor, the defendants address is in the public domain and can be reported. Being a copper makes no difference.
I.M.O the sentence was particularly lenient, I would have thought that the starting point would be 2 years, even taking into consideration he would have lost his job, possibly pension and that the offences were committed over a very short time period.
The comment by the Asst Chief Constable "failed to live up to the high standards of conduct" getting a bit hackneyed now. Sort of writing you would put on an end of year appraisal for poor performance.
[quote][p][bold]Keefer[/bold] wrote: If you commit the crime, you should do the time, so he thoroughly deserves his punishment, ...but for the life of me I can't think why his new address is published in the media. He was "apparently" of good previous character, and as a Policeman is bound to have upset a few unsavoury criminal types in the course of his duty! so why is his address being given to the same who may be seeking retribution? "The court was told that following his arrest Hussain has been dismissed from the force and he and his family have moved to Larch Close in Teignmouth, Devon" Is the W.O. leaving itself open to legal action because of its continuing failure to proof-read its news articles before "going to print"? The mind boggles.[/p][/quote]Keefer, your mind can stop "boggling". The Wobby is pefectly entitled to publish the address of the defendant including the house number if they wished to. Unless there is an order, under the Contempt of Court Act, or the defendant is a minor, the defendants address is in the public domain and can be reported. Being a copper makes no difference. I.M.O the sentence was particularly lenient, I would have thought that the starting point would be 2 years, even taking into consideration he would have lost his job, possibly pension and that the offences were committed over a very short time period. The comment by the Asst Chief Constable "failed to live up to the high standards of conduct" getting a bit hackneyed now. Sort of writing you would put on an end of year appraisal for poor performance. Hairy Hornet
  • Score: 4

12:51pm Thu 6 Feb 14

LSC says...

Interesting that he was dismissed after his arrest, and not after the trial though. What if he had pleaded, and been found, not guilty?
I would have thought suspended on full pay until a court of law decides his guilt would be the way to do things. The police, of all people should know that.
Interesting that he was dismissed after his arrest, and not after the trial though. What if he had pleaded, and been found, not guilty? I would have thought suspended on full pay until a court of law decides his guilt would be the way to do things. The police, of all people should know that. LSC
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Reader (R) says...

LSC wrote:
Interesting that he was dismissed after his arrest, and not after the trial though. What if he had pleaded, and been found, not guilty?
I would have thought suspended on full pay until a court of law decides his guilt would be the way to do things. The police, of all people should know that.
Have you stopped to think that he may have put his hands up to the crime when he faced the disciplinary hearing?

They need not and indeed did not have to wait for any criminal hearing to take place.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: Interesting that he was dismissed after his arrest, and not after the trial though. What if he had pleaded, and been found, not guilty? I would have thought suspended on full pay until a court of law decides his guilt would be the way to do things. The police, of all people should know that.[/p][/quote]Have you stopped to think that he may have put his hands up to the crime when he faced the disciplinary hearing? They need not and indeed did not have to wait for any criminal hearing to take place. Reader (R)
  • Score: 3

12:29pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Oxhey Kev says...

What a Pleb !
What a Pleb ! Oxhey Kev
  • Score: 2

9:42pm Fri 7 Feb 14

gloryhornet4 says...

Oxhey Kev wrote:
What a Pleb !
Don't be so hard on yourself Kev.
[quote][p][bold]Oxhey Kev[/bold] wrote: What a Pleb ![/p][/quote]Don't be so hard on yourself Kev. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 1

9:56pm Fri 7 Feb 14

gloryhornet4 says...

LSC wrote:
Interesting that he was dismissed after his arrest, and not after the trial though. What if he had pleaded, and been found, not guilty?
I would have thought suspended on full pay until a court of law decides his guilt would be the way to do things. The police, of all people should know that.
Under employment law all an employer needs to do is show they have procedures for dealing with misconduct and they follow them when dismissing.

If later it turns out an employee proves they are innocent the dismissal stands, as it is down to honest belief at the time of the disciplinary decision. Viz. procedures followed - decision was with hindsight wrong but not perverse.

An employer does not have to await the outcome of a criminal trial. The leading case stems from an employer sacking 2 people as he did not know which one was stealing. All the employer needed to show was he followed procedure and that he was right to dismiss as he could no longer trust either employee.

Yes, you can be sacked even if you prove you are innocent.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: Interesting that he was dismissed after his arrest, and not after the trial though. What if he had pleaded, and been found, not guilty? I would have thought suspended on full pay until a court of law decides his guilt would be the way to do things. The police, of all people should know that.[/p][/quote]Under employment law all an employer needs to do is show they have procedures for dealing with misconduct and they follow them when dismissing. If later it turns out an employee proves they are innocent the dismissal stands, as it is down to honest belief at the time of the disciplinary decision. Viz. procedures followed - decision was with hindsight wrong but not perverse. An employer does not have to await the outcome of a criminal trial. The leading case stems from an employer sacking 2 people as he did not know which one was stealing. All the employer needed to show was he followed procedure and that he was right to dismiss as he could no longer trust either employee. Yes, you can be sacked even if you prove you are innocent. gloryhornet4
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree