A police officer from Bristol has been dismissed from the force and banned from working in policing again, after it emerged he undertook paid roles as a football referee and barman without prior authorisation while suspended or on sick leave. The disciplinary hearing into the actions of PC Louis Cosway underscored the importance of transparency and adherence to police regulations, particularly regarding officers’ employment outside of their core duties.
PC Cosway, then a student with Avon and Somerset Police, faced allegations of “gross misconduct” after an internal investigation revealed he officiated seven football matches for payment and worked 13 shifts at a Newport bar during periods when he was not permitted to engage in additional employment. The misconduct panel, which met at the headquarters of Avon and Somerset Police and Avon Fire and Rescue Service in Portishead, ruled unanimously to dismiss Cosway without notice.
The officer’s initial suspension began in November 2023 due to an unrelated issue. The following month, Cosway submitted a request to take up paid work as a Football Association referee. However, by the time the force refused this application in February 2024, Cosway had already been carrying out refereeing duties for cash-in-hand, despite regulations requiring officers to await formal approval before undertaking outside employment.
After his suspension was lifted in April, Cosway was placed on restricted duties but soon went on long-term sick leave. It was during this period that he undertook shifts as a barman—a job for which he had not even attempted to seek the necessary authorisation from the police. According to evidence presented at the hearing, Cosway knowingly bypassed the application process, suspecting that his request would likely be denied due to potential conflicts of interest.
Representing Avon and Somerset Police, barrister Mark Ley-Morgan provided a detailed explanation to the panel, highlighting the risks associated with police officers taking up work in licensed premises such as bars. He pointed out the inherent conflict between the responsibilities of bar staff, who may not intervene in incidents, and the obligations of police officers, who are expected to act.
Furthermore, Ley-Morgan emphasised how procedural rules within the force are explicit: police officers are not permitted to commence business interests or secondary employment without prior approval, and are required to declare any such ventures immediately. The officer’s decision to work in direct contravention of these mandates was presented as a flagrant breach of trust, potentially compromising public confidence in the police.
Although Cosway admitted to misconduct and apologised, he denied gross misconduct. During the hearing, he gave a private mitigation statement, reportedly indicating his judgement had been compromised by the stress of a previous internal investigation. Panel chairman Craig Holden, in delivering the decision, acknowledged Cosway’s remorse and noted the behaviour was out of character but ultimately held the officer responsible.
Holden summarised that the bar work, undertaken after a previous authorisation request for refereeing had been rejected, amounted to gross misconduct. Meanwhile, participating in football refereeing without permission was also highlighted as a serious finite breach, albeit of a lower degree.
Detective Superintendent Larisa Hunt, head of police standards, commented following the hearing: “PC Cosway carried out paid employment as a referee and a bar worker, without obtaining the necessary permission, as he’s required to do under the Police Regulations 2003. His actions were deliberate and the work he carried out was either undertaken when he was under suspension or when he was on long-term sick leave. This is completely unacceptable behaviour and a clear breach of the standards of professional behaviour for which he’s now been dismissed from his role and barred from policing for life.”
This case illustrates the seriousness with which police forces approach outside employment, not only to maintain discipline but also to protect the integrity of the service and uphold public confidence. Officers are reminded that transparency and honesty remain essential expectations, particularly when balancing their professional responsibilities with any additional or private work commitments.